#Heforshe campaign

[HannahT]

There were fewer women murdering their babies in the womb when there were legal consequences and the health risks were higher.

Actually, because it was illegal? We really don't know what the numbers were. All we can is take a shot in the dark.

I personally don't like abortions, but I'm not going to judge people because I don't know all their personal circumstances. People whom are desperate will bypass the health risks, and that is part of the reason they legalized it.

There are no good answers here, and we can't stop people from fooling around. We never have been able too. We have never been able to stop them from lying and stealing either. I wouldn't want anyone to have one, but I would still wish to have the option of a safe one compared to none at all. You wouldn't, and that is where we differ.

In Numbers 5, they had married women who were suspected of fooling around drinking 'bitter water' thinking if it was the husband's child it wouldn't abort - or the curse wouldn't come. If it wasn't his? She would have a live birth. So, its been around since at least biblical times.

 

[LinkH]

I wouldn't want anyone to have one, but I would still wish to have the option of a safe one compared to none at all. You wouldn't, and that is where we differ.

Abortion is not safe for the baby being killed.

It's also unsafe for serial killers. Just think of all the risks. The victims could fight back and scratch their eyes out. People passing by could get wind of the attack and injure or kill the serial killer. Should we provide serial killers with nice safe rooms and some nice murder equipment where they can do their thing without the risk of injury?

My point is, you seem to be jumping right over the moral issue of killing the baby as if it were not an issue at all. Why should it be safe to murder someone? It should be dangerous and illegal.

In Numbers 5, they had married women who were suspected of fooling around drinking 'bitter water' thinking if it was the husband's child it wouldn't abort - or the curse wouldn't come. If it wasn't his? She would have a live birth. So, its been around since at least biblical times.

That's a really skewed way of reading the passage. The passage says nothing about her being pregnant. If she's unfaithful, then her belly swells up. It doesn't shrink and go away.

The translators of the Septuigint understood another passage to require life for life if a man injured a pregnant woman and she had a miscarriage.

 

[LinkH]

That's not what you meant to post......is it?

I accidentally left out the word not. I thought I corrected it and left a comment in the edit section, but maybe it didn't go through.

 

[HannahT]

Abortion is not safe for the baby being killed.

It's also unsafe for serial killers. Just think of all the risks. The victims could fight back and scratch their eyes out. People passing by could get wind of the attack and injure or kill the serial killer. Should we provide serial killers with nice safe rooms and some nice murder equipment where they can do their thing without the risk of injury?

My point is, you seem to be jumping right over the moral issue of killing the baby as if it were not an issue at all. Why should it be safe to murder someone? It should be dangerous and illegal.

Your point lost on me with your serial killer deal. If you felt I was saying abortion isn't any issue at all? You don't seem to be reading what I said.

That's a really skewed way of reading the passage. The passage says nothing about her being pregnant. If she's unfaithful, then her belly swells up. It doesn't shrink and go away.

The translators of the Septuigint understood another passage to require life for life if a man injured a pregnant woman and she had a miscarriage.

Numbers 5:20 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[d] 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.”

 

[LinkH]

Your point lost on me with your serial killer deal. If you felt I was saying abortion isn't any issue at all? You don't seem to be reading what I said.

So what if you objected to half of the population seriously wanting safe rooms for serial killers to kill their victims without themselves being harmed, and you spoke up against it. Someone says to you, "I don't understand what you are saying. Are you trying to say that I don't think serial killers isn't an issue at all? But if they are going to do it anyway, we should provide them with a clean safe place to kill their victims so the serial killers are not harmed."

Postulate that killing a baby in the womb is murder for moment. If you want women who kill their babies to have a clean safe place to do it, my response makes a lot of sense from that perspective.

Numbers 5:20 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[d] 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.”

Translators sometimes translate their biases into the text. The KJV and NKJV say 'thigh rot' where your translation says womb miscarry. The NLTV says 'leg to waste away.'

What translation are you using?

God put people to death in the Bible. He had a prophet tell David that his baby (already born) from his affair with Bathsheba would die. That doesn't mean it would not be murder for a human being to kill a baby like that. There are prophecies about Israelites eating their own young for disobedience to the covenant. That doesn't mean killing your children and eating them is ethical. Curses for disobedience to the covenant are one thing, human behavior is another. God creates life and He is the One Who has the right to take it away. We don't have the same rights.

But my guess is your translation is biased.

 

[HannahT]

So what if you objected to half of the population seriously wanting safe rooms for serial killers to kill their victims without themselves being harmed, and you spoke up against it. Someone says to you, "I don't understand what you are saying. Are you trying to say that I don't think serial killers isn't an issue at all? But if they are going to do it anyway, we should provide them with a clean safe place to kill their victims so the serial killers are not harmed."

Postulate that killing a baby in the womb is murder for moment. If you want women who kill their babies to have a clean safe place to do it, my response makes a lot of sense from that perspective.

We aren't talking about serial killers, and so your comments make no sense.

If you want people to understand where you are coming from you need to figure out a better way of explaining your position.

Since the two aren't even comparable by any stretch of the imagination? It doesn't work.

 

[mkgal1]

Could we possibly move away from the topic of abortion and back onto this part of what EW said?:

Watson argued men were also suffering as a result of inequality, enduring mental illness but feeling unable to ask for help for fear of appearing “less macho”.

“Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive,” she said. “Both men and women should feel free to be strong.

“If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are—we can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom.”

I heard a former NFL player on the radio today (Vance Johnson). He was found guilty of domestic violence years ago, and forced into a treatment program. He described that his first meeting was not what he expected (he thought it'd be him with a psychologist--someone he imagined would have more hangups than he did), but instead it was Vance and other men that also were guilty of domestic violence. They were put in a room and instructed to talk about other feelings they experience besides anger. When done......Vance wondered why it took a "guilty" charge for this to happen. The guys all got something positive out of the meeting (and the meetings to come). But.....w/o being forced into doing that---he said it'd never happen.

Why can't that change? Do church leaders not realize that promoting the idea that "men aren't emotional" (and thus making it socially unacceptable for men to express anything besides anger) is causing them to only be part of who they really are?

 

[mkgal1]

Translators sometimes translate their biases into the text. The KJV and NKJV say 'thigh rot' where your translation says womb miscarry. The NLTV says 'leg to waste away.'

What translation are you using?

God put people to death in the Bible. He had a prophet tell David that his baby (already born) from his affair with Bathsheba would die. That doesn't mean it would not be murder for a human being to kill a baby like that. There are prophecies about Israelites eating their own young for disobedience to the covenant. That doesn't mean killing your children and eating them is ethical. Curses for disobedience to the covenant are one thing, human behavior is another. God creates life and He is the One Who has the right to take it away. We don't have the same rights.

But my guess is your translation is biased.

King James and New King James are not excluded from that claim. Perhaps "your" translation is biased.

 

[clivwill]

I dont beleive in the oppression of any female. That would not be righteous would it? But let the truth be told that women cannot and will never be equal to men. It doesn't matter how many campaine or how many activist are formed. It was made that way in the beginning and so shall it be in the end. Women are leaders, but men were born to lead. Women are earners, but men were born to work. The more we as humans try to change the balance of life the more chaotic things become.

 

[Ascendo]

I dont beleive in the oppression of any female. That would not be righteous would it? But let the truth be told that women cannot and will never be equal to men. It doesn't matter how many campaine or how many activist are formed. It was made that way in the beginning and so shall it be in the end. Women are leaders, but men were born to lead. Women are earners, but men were born to work. The more we as humans try to change the balance of life the more chaotic things become.

lolwut?

 

[mkgal1]

I dont beleive in the oppression of any female. That would not be righteous would it? But let the truth be told that women cannot and will never be equal to men. It doesn't matter how many campaine or how many activist are formed. It was made that way in the beginning and so shall it be in the end. Women are leaders, but men were born to lead. Women are earners, but men were born to work. The more we as humans try to change the balance of life the more chaotic things become.

You're right.....oppression is *not* righteous.

That's a description of a fallen world (broken....sinful world). It's my opinion that as Christians we can at least be within God's will in our personal relationships (IOW.....a husband and wife may "walk in the light" and live out God's genuine love in their marriage). Not only *can* they......I believe we are called to do just that (and not just in marriage).

 

[LinkH]

Since the two aren't even comparable by any stretch of the imagination? It doesn't work.

It makes perfect sense. Abortion is murdering babies. Serial killers usually murder adults. You think murdering babies should be done in a healthy manner for those involved other than the baby being murdered. I compared that to giving a serial killer a nice place to kill people so he doesn't face any health risks.

It's a very tight analogy.

 

[LinkH]

King James and New King James are not excluded from that claim. Perhaps "your" translation is biased.

Apparently, the KJV and NKJV follow a rather literal interpretation, so I'd say that's less biased. I did a bit of reading. Jewish sources took the passage to refer literally to the belly and the thigh, in the Mishnah and other Jewish writings. It is fairly recent commentaries that suggested the abortion interpretation. This is based on a Wikipedia article (yeah I know, some people don't like Wikipedia, but it is more 'peer reviewed' than a lot of other sites. This article was well documented.) The article didn't show any ancient sources for the abortion interpretation, and it seems to be a bit speculative at least. I haven't looked up the words in any Hebrew dictionaries yet.

 

[Hetta]

Discussing abortion will get this thread closed.

 

[Hetta]

If I make a deal with you to clean out my gutters and we agree to a certain price, it is fair if I pay you that price.

Next year, if I make a deal with someone else to clean out my gutters, Tiny Tim's dad, and feel sorry for him and pay him $20 more than I paid you, that's between me and him. Why should the government persecute me for giving Bob Crochet a better deal?

I don't care how much your labor is worth to you. If you think it's worth more than I'm willing to pay, I can look for someone else to clean my gutters and you can find someone willing to pay your price. If there are laws on this stuff, I'll abide by it. But I don't think it's a good way to run a society to micromanage how much you can pay different people. If hiring women is a better deal, businesses are going to hire women. If they are better value for money, market forces will drive their wages up. We don't need the government to regulate things like this that economic forces will naturally regulate. It puts onerous restrictions on business owners.

I'm not so concerned about norms 2000 years ago except as they illuminate understanding of the Bible, or for their entertainment or cultural value. I do take God's commands very seriously, and the writings of the apostles His Son sent to teach the nations.

This assumes that women aren't proficient at their jobs and a business would only pay them more because they feel sorry for them, which is both insulting and ridiculous.

 

[LinkH]

This assumes that women aren't proficient at their jobs and a business would only pay them more because they feel sorry for them, which is both insulting and ridiculous.

I don't see how your conclusion is related to anything I stated in my post.

In my example, the person doing the hiring pays above market to a man who has a handicapped son. I argued that we should let the market dictate differences between male and female wages.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Could we possibly move away from the topic of abortion and back onto this part of what EW said?:



I heard a former NFL player on the radio today (Vance Johnson). He was found guilty of domestic violence years ago, and forced into a treatment program. He described that his first meeting was not what he expected (he thought it'd be him with a psychologist--someone he imagined would have more hangups than he did), but instead it was Vance and other men that also were guilty of domestic violence. They were put in a room and instructed to talk about other feelings they experience besides anger. When done......Vance wondered why it took a "guilty" charge for this to happen. The guys all got something positive out of the meeting (and the meetings to come). But.....w/o being forced into doing that---he said it'd never happen.

Why can't that change? Do church leaders not realize that promoting the idea that "men aren't emotional" (and thus making it socially unacceptable for men to express anything besides anger) is causing them to only be part of who they really are?

So much we can do by such a simple act. Talking openly about our feelings.

lolwut?

I second that.