533
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

It makes me wonder, why are the religious obsess with abortion when the US allows divorce, even though the Bible forbids it? Why not campaign on striking down divorce as well?

[-] booly@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 month ago
[-] Facebones@reddthat.com 5 points 1 month ago

They're also fighting or have recently been fighting minimum marriage age laws in like 12 States.

[-] Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I originally read that as "minimum wage laws"and was confused as to why they were fighting to raise wages, then I reread it and realized, "oh, they just want to fuck kids. That tracks."

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

And to make sure their wives can't divorce them for it.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

The Bible is actually pro-choice. Kinda. It only mentions abortion once. That's Numbers 5: 11-31. It tells you how to perform an abortion.

[-] Brutticus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

That is... a stupefying description of what is written. I had to read the torah in primary school. Half a day, every school day, one book per year, (two for Leviticus), in Hebrew. I was confounded. I thought maybe Rabbi had us skip that part.

The part you are referring to is referred to as "Sota" which describes a magical ceremony where in a man would bring his allegedly unfaithful wife before a Beis Din, and she could drink a magic potion, snickeringly referred to as "sota water," to prove her innocence. The logic goes that if the woman was unfaithful, "these afflictive waters shall enter your innards, causing your belly to swell and your thigh to rupture" . This could be taken mean an abortion, but in my grade school class, we were very giggly, because we thought it meant she would explode.

Further, the potion is described being water, dust from the tabernacle floor, and an invocation written down and dissolved in the water (Number 5: 17, and 23), and is explicitly stated it won't hurt an innocent woman. (28). This passage does evoke abortion. But it describes a magical ritual that it claims will only cause abortion in unfaithful women, and the potion provided wont cause anyone to abort (although it is gross). Claiming in instructs an abortion is a massive stretch.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Doesn't that mean that the bible condones abortion in the case of infidelity? In which case, shouldn't Republicans want that to be an exception?

[-] Brutticus@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

It could be interpreted that way... I think? The language it uses refers to seeds.

וְנִזְרֳעָ֥ה זָֽרַע

The situation (infidelity, the graphic imagery of swelling bellies and rupturing thighs) naturally implies abortion, but the 'Nezre'ah Zerah' implies the potion will cause barreness.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Fair enough. Of course, this is also from the same half of the Bible Christians conveniently ignore when they want bacon for breakfast, so I guess it's on the moot side of things.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The Christ never addressed it, so it "should" be included in the stuff that still applies.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes, I boiled it down to bare bones, but if you ask almost any Rabbi if abortion is allowed, they will do their typical Rabbi thing of trying to dance around the answer so you answer your own question, but if you try to pin them down, they will say that it isn't forbidden, but should really only be used if the mother in danger of health complications, like death.

As I understand it, The Talmud or Mishrad goes further into how to prepare butter waters, and there is a root that also goes in there that was well known to facilitate an abortion.

[-] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

it's always about control, forcing women to have kids to carry on religion. once they're an adult, divorce doesn't matter because they don't care, you're an adult. once the baby is born, they couldn't care less. it's also about punishment. a man can't be a whore, but if a woman gets pregnant, especially out of wedlock, she's a whore and deserves it.

edit: these are not my views at all, this is what is forced on women in America through religion and to a large extent, the Republican party. they're treated like burdens and baby makers and deserve pain and suffering like eve did in the book of tall tales.

[-] Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

My brother honestly wants to get rid of divorce so that people will "take the commitment more seriously".

He said this after his fiancee left for another guy. Hilarious at first glance, mortifying when you realize what he actually wanted to happen based on what he said.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

because republican donors saw it as a way to create political division after Roe, so they required the churches they donate to to adopt the catholic theology of fetal personhood. This had the double effect of letting evangelicals feel like the state was oppressing their freshly adopted religious belief and persecuting them.

this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
533 points (98.9% liked)

News

22855 readers
4928 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS