NationStates Jolt Archive

Prior to the 40's and 50's, first term abortions were looked down upon, but not prosecuted at all.

Obviously, since first term abortions are not illegal in common law.

When I was refering to Roe v Wade being a break with tradition, I meant in particular their ruling that a fetus is not a person while it is in the womb, regardless of age. That is a truly objectionable decision, and it would be damn hard (read impossible) to find a precedent for it.

I cited one (good) translation from Hebrew and another from Greek. The Greek is obviously a more recent base text (which is nonetheless canonical for Eastern Orthodox Christians), and it reads very differently. I'm not sure what your point is?

Any OT text translated from Greek has been though *at least* two translations, and is thus statistically more faulty than another version.

You cite the New Revised Standard Version as "so that there is a miscarriage". Sorry, but that is just a bad translation, the Revised Standard sucks and the New RS is only a little better.

The NRSV, especially the Oxford version, is generally accepted among theological scholars because it is one of the few translations directly from the most ancient texts into English.

The KJV says "so that her fruit depart from her".
The American Standard says "so that her fruit depart".

(a) The KJV is by far the worst translation available.
(b) This, especially at early time points, would clearly mean a miscarriage. You don't really think that many premies survived back then, do you?

Young's Literal says "and her children have come out" which is an accurate rendition of the Hebrew text "yalad yatsaw". It is not miscarriage. End of story, case closed.

In other words "I don't want to believe it, so it isn't so." Sorry, I'm going to go with theological scholars on this one.

When I was refering to Roe v Wade being a break with tradition, I meant in particular their ruling that a fetus is not a person while it is in the womb, regardless of age. That is a truly objectionable decision, and it would be damn hard (read impossible) to find a precedent for it.

Roe v. Wade recognized the fact that designating personhood status upon a fetus gets the law into all sorts of sticky situations. If we delineate it as such, for instance, a woman could be prosecuted for a miscarriage.

as for the cases where the fetus is potentially viable, in America those procedures can't be performed unless the fetus is going to die anyway ...

That is just an amazing lie.

Here is one doctor that kills about 600 potentially viable babies every year:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/GeorgeTiller.htm

Not one of these is necessary to save the life of the mother. Most of those babies would live if they were delivered at the age at which they were killed.

In the US there are over 16,000 abortions of potentially viable fetuses every year (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib14.html). Statistics on why each was performed is essentially non-existent. By what little information is available, essentially *none* are necessary to save the life of the mother, and only 5-25% are due to abnormalities (not life-threatening) of the baby.

That is just an amazing lie.

Here is one doctor that kills about 600 potentially viable babies every year:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/GeorgeTiller.htm

Not one of these is necessary to save the life of the mother. Most of those babies would live if they were delivered at the age at which they were killed.

In the US there are over 16,000 abortions of potentially viable fetuses every year (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib14.html). Statistics on why each was performed is essentially non-existent. By what little information is available, essentially *none* are necessary to save the life of the mother, and only 5-25% are due to abnormalities (not life-threatening) of the baby.

Note that the law requires a serious health risk to the mother and/or the fetus for a late-term abortion to be carried out. If you would like to argue as to what should be considered a serious health risk, you may, but don't continue to try and argue that the law does not state such.

Any OT text translated from Greek has been though *at least* two translations, and is thus statistically more faulty than another version.

Obviously. My point was that the changes which were made specifically reflected Hebrew legal practices.

The NRSV, especially the Oxford version, is generally accepted among theological scholars because it is one of the few translations directly from the most ancient texts into English.

They can't even translate the commandments correctly in RSV. That's not a good sign.

The NASB versus NRSV fight is not new...

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html

As its name implies, the New American Standard Bible is a revision of the American Standard Version (1901). It was produced by a company of conservative scholars who wished to provide a literal and conservative revision of the ASV, as an alternative to the Revised Standard Version (1952), which had proven to be unacceptable to conservative churches. Although the NASB revisers were influenced by the RSV's interpretation in many places,1 overall the NASB is a good deal more literal than the RSV, and thus it preserves the highly literal character that had made the American Standard Version so useful as a translation for close study.


(b) This, especially at early time points, would clearly mean a miscarriage. You don't really think that many premies survived back then, do you?

The wording means premature birth or miscarriage, making no distinction between the two. If it looked clear that the baby would have survived had it not been delivered prematurely, that would have been treated as murder in Hebrew law. Practically, it applied to late-term babies, and the Greek text incorporates that.

In other words "I don't want to believe it, so it isn't so." Sorry, I'm going to go with theological scholars on this one.

Yeah, whatever. NASB, NIV and Young's (all done by scholars and highly respected btw), plus NLT, English Standard, Darby and Webster *all* agree on one thing, NRSV says something else entirely, now which one do you believe? Hmm...

Note that the law requires a serious health risk to the mother and/or the fetus for a late-term abortion to be carried out. If you would like to argue as to what should be considered a serious health risk, you may, but don't continue to try and argue that the law does not state such.

I said that none of these abortions were required to *save the life of the mother*. I never said that the law doesn't require a "serious health risk" which is a completely different thing. OK - I will argue as to what should be considered a serious risk - I think that the law is interpreted extremely loosely, using the "mental health" loophole in the vast majority of cases. Essentially "serious health risk" becomes equivalent to "she might be upset", and that makes the law meaningless.

In any case, Bottle claimed that "in America those procedures can't be performed unless the fetus is going to die anyway" and that is simply not true, health risk or no.

It means premature birth or miscarriage, making no distinction between the two.

If you admit this, then my point still stands. Miscarriage means death of the embryo/fetus, as would premature birth (as a general rule) without technology they just didn't have.

Yeah, whatever. NASB, NIV and Young's (all done by scholars and highly respected btw), plus NLT, English Standard, Darby and Webster *all* agree on one thing, NRSV says something else entirely, now which one do you believe? Hmm...

I'm going to go with the one translated directly, rather than through 2 to 3 languages.

I said that none of these abortions were required to *save the life of the mother*.

There is a *very* thin line between "serious health risk" and "endangering the life of the mother."

I never said that the law doesn't require a "serious health risk" which is a completely different thing. OK - I will argue as to what should be considered a serious risk - I think that the law is interpreted extremely loosely, using the "mental health" loophole in the vast majority of cases. Essentially "serious health risk" becomes equivalent to "she might be upset", and that makes the law meaningless.

While I agree that some may interpret the law a bit loosely, I doubt very seriously that "she might be upset" has been used as a valid reason.

If you admit this, then my point still stands. Miscarriage means death of the embryo/fetus, as would premature birth (as a general rule) without technology they just didn't have.

If it looked clear that the baby would have survived had it not been delivered prematurely (i.e. it was fully developed and had no defects), that would have been treated as murder in Hebrew law.

I'm going to go with the one translated directly, rather than through 2 to 3 languages.

Right, that would be the NASB ;)
http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbcmp.php

Right, that would be the NASB ;)
http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbcmp.php

We can battle with links all we want:

http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutnrs.html

Nearly the exact same language (other than the "endorsed by many churches part) about the NRSV. Of course, your link never said that it was translated directly from such texts, only that it used them.

Meanwhile, the version I have provides footnotes for words with other accepted meanings. I'll check later to see if there are any such footnotes here.

...your sensible, moderate stance seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I personally go for the 'abortion in the first trimester only' thing because during that stage, a foetus is mostly an embryo, a bundle of cells. Also, I'm not a biologist so I don't know the exact timings, but there is an embryonic stage where the embryo is virtually identical to the embryos of, say, a chicken or a pig. I may be biased here as a vegetarian but it seems mildly hypocritical to happily kill a chicken which is more aware than an embryo and yet object to destroying a cell growth which quite possibly would have gotten detached from the uterus wall anyway. There's a lot of pregnancies that happen while a mother is trying to concieve that happen that way and the mother won't even know.

The problem with the 'it's a bundle of cells' approach is that you're destroying a life 'in potentia'. I remember reading an interview with a class of severely physically and mentally handicapped adults, all of whom had had their parents told that it would be considered reasonable to abort the child if they want to. They had all had a lot of suffering and had led what most people would not consider fulfilling lives but when asked if they were glad they were alive, they all answered 'yes'. On the other hand, if abortion is wrong because it destoys potential, everyone should become fruitarian and guys should never masturbate.:) Oh, and women should be pregnant from the moment they are able to concieve. The point is, that destroys a different sort of potential, which is a happy, successful, enjoyable life. Which is why I'm glad the pill means I can live a life of achievement instead of being a baby-making machine.

Meanwhile, the version I have provides footnotes for words with other accepted meanings. I'll check later to see if there are any such footnotes here.

This is the best resource for comparing versions for serious Bible nerds ;)

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ex+21:22&sr=1&t=nas

Just change to whichever translation version in the pulldown at the top and hit Search. Yes, the NASB has footnotes, in this case: "F429 Or an untimely birth occurs; lit her children come out"

Hey Bottle, you have anything to say in your defense? You claimed that "as for the cases where the fetus is potentially viable, in America those procedures can't be performed unless the fetus is going to die anyway". That just ain't true. As I replied (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8082002&postcount=504), not only are abortions of viable, healthy fetuses done, there are over 16000 of them every year.

35 pages? O_O On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...

Hey Bottle, you have anything to say in your defense? You claimed that "as for the cases where the fetus is potentially viable, in America those procedures can't be performed unless the fetus is going to die anyway". That just ain't true. As I replied (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8082002&postcount=504), not only are abortions of viable, healthy fetuses done, there are over 16000 of them every year.
of course, there are cases when the fetus could survive while simply killing the female, though they are quite rare...i grant you that, i should have been more careful in my wording. i simply assumed that nobody would honestly advocate allowing women to die in childbirth in order to produce a living baby. abortive procedures in the third trimester are done in cases where the mother's life is in danger, when the fetus is dead or dying, or when delivery will kill either or both mother and child. point being, it is not legal to have an elective third-trimester abortion in this country, and virtually all "late-term" abortions occur in situations where the fetus is simply not going to survive.

35 pages? O_O On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...
yeah, and i think i am just about spent. this debate has gotten repetative and boring, sorry folks, so i think i'll be done for the time being. i may resurface on abortion threads sometime in the future, but right now i don't particularly want to keep re-hashing the same points over and over. if this leaves anybody hanging, or if you really want me to respond to something in particular, you can telegram me or start a fresh thread.

35 pages? O_O On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...

Hmm, maybe I should do a best-of. I think that a number of issues were hashed out pretty well, and while I don't think too many people changed their minds, at least there is a certain middle ground that is visible from where everyone is standing. I've always thought that there is a lot more moderates than extremists on this issue, but the moderates are a lot quieter. A few did make a one-post appearance though ;)