State Senator Proposes Mandatory Vasectomies for Nebraskans

[Wildswanderer]

Why did you skip the first four verses? The man's wife supposedly cheated on him, she had sex with another is his belief, even though there were no witnesses. Try to think real hard, how does he know? This is not a test that one enters into lightly. The man would need evidence that proves to him that his wife cheated on him. And though you do not understand the euphemisms it is verse 21 where it says that she will miscarry if she is pregnant. You should use a more modern interpretation. You clearly cannot understand the King James version. It is far too poetic for some to understand.

Obviously she was suspected of having sex with someone but the whole point is that it's only suspected.
The reason you get both translations is because it's a hard passage to understand and translate. There's more than one possible meaning.

“May the people know that the LORD’s curse is upon you when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel and your abdomen to swell. Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and cause your abdomen to swell and your womb to shrivel.” And the woman will be required to say, “Yes, let it be so.” (NLT)

(Let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) “the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen, Amen.” (ESV)

The vast majority of English translations seem to speak of the woman undergoing some sort of disfigurement if she were guilty.

The differences between the two versions that say miscarriage and the others highlight one of the trickiest and riskiest aspects of translation work...l how should a phrase be translated if it is believed to be an idiom?

At any rate,neither option supports the claim that the Bible does not place special value on a baby in the womb.

If the miscarriage view is accurate, then the priest needed only to see whether the woman miscarried. If she did not miscarry, the husband could be confident that his wife had been faithful to their marriage and that the unborn child was his. In both perspectives, if the woman were innocent, she would be able to have children after this ordeal. But if she were guilty, these verses imply that she could no longer have children.

If the disfigurement view is accurate, then there is really no connection whatsoever to the modern debate over the sanctity of unborn babies because the passage would not even be about a pregnant woman

In the miscarriage view of Numbers 5 the woman was possiblity pregnant through an adulterous relationship, a sin that normally carried the death penalty (Leviticus 20:10). But because no witnesses came forward, the woman was given an opportunity to clear her name and ease her husband’s suspicions by swearing before him, a priest, and God that she was innocent of adultery. If she lied in this situation, the miscarriage is clearly a result of her blatant rebellion of swearing falsely before the Lord in addition to her adultery, knowing the consequences. So the responsibility for the child’s death rested squarely on the mother for her sins, as well as the adulterous father of the child. The priest did not surgically abort the woman’s child. Instead, in a case where witnesses could not be found to determine guilt or innocence, God revealed the woman’s guilt by causing her to miscarry and preventing her from ever conceiving again.
The priest did not perform an abortion here. The persons responsible for the loss of the unborn child would be the child’s lying mother and the man engaged in an adulterous affair with her. Rather than supporting abortion, this passage shows us that God under the law treated the unborn child the same as those who have already been born. That is, in certain situations, a child died because of his or her parents’ grave sin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously she was suspected of having sex with someone but the whole point is that it's only suspected.
The reason you get both translations is because it's a hard passage to understand and translate. There's more than one possible meaning.

“May the people know that the LORD’s curse is upon you when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel and your abdomen to swell. Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and cause your abdomen to swell and your womb to shrivel.” And the woman will be required to say, “Yes, let it be so.” (NLT)

(Let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) “the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen, Amen.” (ESV)

The vast majority of English translations seem to speak of the woman undergoing some sort of disfigurement if she were guilty.

The differences between the two versions that say miscarriage and the others highlight one of the trickiest and riskiest aspects of translation work...l how should a phrase be translated if it is believed to be an idiom?

At any rate,neither option supports the claim that the Bible does not place special value on a baby in the womb.

If the miscarriage view is accurate, then the priest needed only to see whether the woman miscarried. If she did not miscarry, the husband could be confident that his wife had been faithful to their marriage and that the unborn child was his. In both perspectives, if the woman were innocent, she would be able to have children after this ordeal. But if she were guilty, these verses imply that she could no longer have children.

If the disfigurement view is accurate, then there is really no connection whatsoever to the modern debate over the sanctity of unborn babies because the passage would not even be about a pregnant woman

In the miscarriage view of Numbers 5 the woman was possiblity pregnant through an adulterous relationship, a sin that normally carried the death penalty (Leviticus 20:10). But because no witnesses came forward, the woman was given an opportunity to clear her name and ease her husband’s suspicions by swearing before him, a priest, and God that she was innocent of adultery. If she lied in this situation, the miscarriage is clearly a result of her blatant rebellion of swearing falsely before the Lord in addition to her adultery, knowing the consequences. So the responsibility for the child’s death rested squarely on the mother for her sins, as well as the adulterous father of the child. The priest did not surgically abort the woman’s child. Instead, in a case where witnesses could not be found to determine guilt or innocence, God revealed the woman’s guilt by causing her to miscarry and preventing her from ever conceiving again.
The priest did not perform an abortion here. The persons responsible for the loss of the unborn child would be the child’s lying mother and the man engaged in an adulterous affair with her. Rather than supporting abortion, this passage shows us that God under the law treated the unborn child the same as those who have already been born. That is, in certain situations, a child died because of his or her parents’ grave sin.

To interpret idioms one looks to see how they are used elsewhere in the Bible. The "thigh" tends to refer to the gonads. That can be seen in several verses. One also looks to see what makes logical sense. If woman cheated the problem does not lie in the "thigh"

And since you once again refuse to properly answer a reasonable question I will tell you how a man can know that his wife cheated on him even if no one saw. If his wife suddenly became pregnant when he did not have sex with here would prove to the husband that she cheated. In those days men that were tending the sheep could be gone from home for quite some time. It is very possible for a husband to realize that something funny happened.

Also in those days, and this may came as a shock to you, there were no home pregnancy tests. His wife could have merely gained some weight when he was gone. One always hears stories of people mistaking overweight women as being pregnant. The same probably happened in those days. The verse clearly refers to a temple performed chemical abortion. Societies have discovered chemical abortions again and again, though older ones were much more dangerous and much less reliable than modern ones. It was a trial for a woman to undergo one of those.

Have you found a 1960's era Bible yet? If you did you would have found that my claim of Exodus 21 22 being changed is correct.

 

[Truth in love]

Life in this context meaning what exactly?

Human and living.

 

[SomeRandom]

Human and living.

Well, how is a blastocyst living exactly?

I suppose bacteria is living in the sense that they’re organisms. So I can agree that on a basic biological level that’s living.

That was never something that dictates my views on being pro choice though.
Like I said, I don’t consider a blastocyst the same way I do a viable fetus.

I have never once denied that a pregnant woman is carrying like a bear or whatever.
It’s just that I don’t consider a fetus before viability to have endowed legal human rights yet.
I’m not saying I like that abortion happens, but when it is made illegal, it ironically causes even more people to die. Back alley abortions and coat hangers were actual known things.

In all honesty, my views on abortion really boils down to a “lesser of two evils” kind of deal.

 

[Truth in love]

Well, how is a blastocyst living exactly?

I suppose bacteria is living in the sense that they’re organisms. So I can agree that on a basic biological level that’s living.

That was never something that dictates my views on being pro choice though.
Like I said, I don’t consider a blastocyst the same way I do a viable fetus.

I have never once denied that a pregnant woman is carrying like a bear or whatever.
It’s just that I don’t consider a fetus before viability to have endowed legal human rights yet.
I’m not saying I like that abortion happens, but when it is made illegal, it ironically causes even more people to die. Back alley abortions and coat hangers were actual known things.

In all honesty, my views on abortion really boils down to a “lesser of two evils” kind of deal.

When we start making lines of who gets to live and who is human enough it goes to a dark and evil place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When we start making lines of who gets to live and who is human enough it goes to a dark and evil place.

When we start to tell people what they can do with their bodies we are already there.

 

[SomeRandom]

When we start making lines of who gets to live and who is human enough it goes to a dark and evil place.

A blastocyst is a clump of cells that may or may not develop into a fetus.
That is reality, that is a cold hard scientific fact.
So I’m sorry but you’ve failed to provide me with any reasonable logical argument as to why I should treat it the same exact way I would a viable fetus. That it may or may not develop into one is just not good enough for me. I’ve already freely acknowledged that it’s human (potential) and that it’s living in the sense that it’s a basic organism.

But I’m sorry, if it is utilising the womb for its own sustenance, then the person who owns the womb must give explicit permission. That’s literally the basis for all medicine to ever exist! A person cannot be forced to donate even a drop of blood to save another person. Even if that decision not to leads to the person dying.
Permission is necessary to protect human rights. A fetus does not get to overrule those human rights. They like every other person, need permission from the host if they are to use the host’s body. And that’s literally what pregnancy is. So…

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Wildswanderer , Amazon delayed my mouse another day. But I dug out my tablet to link the source that shows how interpretations of Exodus 21 22 have changed:

"NASB 1995
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

NASB 1977
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide."

Those are two different versions of the NASB. THE 1977 translation is the same as the Bibles in my house. The 1995 version is what most US Bibles have today.

Exodus 21:22 If men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband demands and as the court allows.

 

[Truth in love]

A blastocyst is a clump of cells that may or may not develop into a fetus.
That is reality, that is a cold hard scientific fact.
So I’m sorry but you’ve failed to provide me with any reasonable logical argument as to why I should treat it the same exact way I would a viable fetus. That it may or may not develop into one is just not good enough for me. I’ve already freely acknowledged that it’s human (potential) and that it’s living in the sense that it’s a basic organism.

But I’m sorry, if it is utilising the womb for its own sustenance, then the person who owns the womb must give explicit permission. That’s literally the basis for all medicine to ever exist! A person cannot be forced to donate even a drop of blood to save another person. Even if that decision not to leads to the person dying.
Permission is necessary to protect human rights. A fetus does not get to overrule those human rights. They like every other person, need permission from the host if they are to use the host’s body. And that’s literally what pregnancy is. So…

okay I hope you don’t take this further to the genocide of the elderly, disabled and all the other fun targets of being less than human.

 

[Subduction Zone]

okay I hope you don’t take this further to the genocide of the elderly, disabled and all the other fun targets of being less than human.

If you are truly antiabortion you should be supporting concepts that work. Not ones that cause injustice and death. The health programs that the Republicans have been supporting in the last twenty years or more all raise the abortion rates. The ones that the Democrats have been supporting lower the abortion rates. I know that it may seem odd but if one is truly antiabortion one should vote Democratic.

For example Planned Parenthood in neighborhoods has been shown to lower abortion rates. Abortion is only a rather small percentage of their services. They also offer low or no cost birth control and education in family planning. Their mission is to make it so that abortions are almost unnecessary. The Republicans have supported foolish sex education classes where kids are not taught how not to get pregnant. Guess what happens in states with poor sex ed classes? More teens get pregnant. And then as a result more teens get abortions. They will get them legal or not. Why not avoid the problem by teaching them properly in the first place? Also poorer people have limited entertainment budgets. Guess what is free and rather easy? But for them birth control can be expensive . Expensive birth control also makes for more unwanted pregnancies and the need for more abortions. You cannot claim to be antiabortion if you do not support free and easily accessible birth control.

 

[SomeRandom]

okay I hope you don’t take this further to the genocide of the elderly, disabled and all the other fun targets of being less than human.

Why would I?
I don’t consider a fetus or blastocyst less than human.
Just don’t put a blastocyst on the same level of a viable fetus

Nice usage of the slippery slope fallacy though.

 

[Truth in love]

Why would I?
I don’t consider a fetus or blastocyst less than human.
Just don’t put a blastocyst on the same level of a viable fetus

Nice usage of the slippery slope fallacy though.

Thanks I find it helpful to refer to historical reality every now and then regardless of dismissive labeling.

 

[SomeRandom]

Thanks I find it helpful to refer to historical reality every now and then regardless of dismissive labeling.

Slippery slope fallacy is not useful in debate.
It’s called a logical fallacy for a reason.
But okay

Are you able to give me a logical, rational and reasonable argument or not?
It’s okay if you can’t, I’m just wondering.

 

[Truth in love]

Slippery slope fallacy is not useful in debate.
It’s called a logical fallacy for a reason.
But okay

Are you able to give me a logical, rational and reasonable argument or not?
It’s okay if you can’t, I’m just wondering.

I given you the argument. You clearly reject it and wish to dismiss the reality that allowing for less than humans sets us on a dark path. The problem here is not with me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I given you the argument. You clearly reject it and wish to dismiss the reality that allowing for less than humans sets us on a dark path. The problem here is not with me.

It is odd that you cannot see that you are willing to put us in a dark place already. Haven't you learned anything from the ten year old rape victim in Ohio? Have you not learned anything from the woman that would be forced to give birth to a baby that would quickly die a horrible death in Louisiana? Those are just some of the more dramatic wrongs that have occurred already due to abortion law changes.

 

[We Never Know]

I given you the argument. You clearly reject it and wish to dismiss the reality that allowing for less than humans sets us on a dark path. The problem here is not with me.

I just have one question...
Do you think a child that was raped and became pregnant by unwanted force, not choice, something that will haunt her for the rest of here life, should be again forced to birth that child?

 

[SomeRandom]

I given you the argument. You clearly reject it and wish to dismiss the reality that allowing for less than humans sets us on a dark path. The problem here is not with me.

You appealed to emotion, applied a slippery slope fallacy, both of which are known to be logical fallacies.
Not very logical or rational.
I have ample evidence of the abhorrent consequences of making abortion illegal.
Women routinely died throughout history because of that illegality. All over the world, in fact.
Once countries seemingly reached their threshold of allowing girls and women to literally die due to inability to access safe abortion services, (including very catholic countries even, like Ireland for example) they legalised it. And when that happened, those deaths actually decreased.
So I would argue that making abortion illegal is the dark timeline. History has proven that to be the case in pretty much every country on earth

 

[Truth in love]

I just have one question...
Do you think a child that was raped and became pregnant by unwanted force, not choice, something that will haunt her for the rest of here life, should be again forced to birth that child?

Good question.

My first thought on this is the age of the child and health risks to mom. (Also "dad" should be doing 20+ years hard time).

The issue around rape and incest is one that honestly I'm not too worried about. I'm well aware of the legal arguments both directions and respect both arguments.

 

[Truth in love]

You appealed to emotion, applied a slippery slope fallacy, both of which are known to be logical fallacies.
Not very logical or rational.
I have ample evidence of the abhorrent consequences of making abortion illegal.
Women routinely died throughout history because of that illegality. All over the world, in fact.
Once countries seemingly reached their threshold of allowing girls and women to literally die due to inability to access safe abortion services, (including very catholic countries even, like Ireland for example) they legalised it. And when that happened, those deaths actually decreased.
So I would argue that making abortion illegal is the dark timeline. History has proven that to be the case in pretty much every country on earth

I see so we need to make the wholesale mass murder of the unborn safe for those doing the killing.

Sorry I don't think we have more to discuss on this issue. I'm from a culture that frowns on genocidal agendas .

 

[metis]

I am pro-life, but I do live in a country that is not a theocracy but is a constitutional democracy.

So many lament governmental overreach, and yet what could be more of that when a state or the national government demands what a woman must do if she's pregnant? What is next, telling her when she has to have an operation for a heart condition or that she'll be arrested and tried in a court of law?

And what right do I have to tell her what she must do? I can make a recommendation if asked, but I simply cannot take it a step further.