Some refer to the Sin of Odin as masturbation. (it could apply in this situation)
But, obviously he was using the pull out method of birth control.
9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. 11 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father’s house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house.
Do you think people couldn’t tell women were pregnant before fetal movements? It doesn’t require modern science and technology to detect early pregnancy; most women figure it out after their period stops and morning sickness arrives. Well before quickening starts, there’s usually a noticeable belly. People knew fetuses were in there.
What Onan did wasn’t a sin because of his technique. It was a sin because he was refusing to give his dead brother an heir; which he was supposed to do.
There’s no indication in the passage that coitus interruptus would have been a sin in other circumstances.
And they knew that the act of sex could engender new life. The ancients in biblical times certainly knew what conception was, for all practical purposes.
What’s reasonably new is ultrasound, which shows that the pregnancy takes “form” quite early, and isn’t just “water”. And I do think that’s influenced the abortion debate. But “conception” is only a “natural and sensible starting point” if you don’t have a vested interest in the woman’s body.
If you want to get all scientific, until the embryo develops the “primitive streak” and the cells differentiate, each cell if the blastula can likely develop into a full person. That’s how identical twins are formed:
Unless you think that identical twins are the same person, surely a fertilized egg can’t be “a person”.
The primitive streak develops about 15 days after fertilization, and many ethicists think that it marks the point at which a human embryo should be treated as a creature and not just as human cells.
Masstricht pretty much nailed the discussion with Biblical example after example of how the god of the bible views children as little more than fodder for his violence, including the unborn. I just had to add that David’s punishment for sinning with Bath-Sheba was that his fresh baby would slowly die. It only makes sense. Stupid baby. /sarcasm The god of the bible is a monster. It is played out over and over. The god of the bible places little value on life. There is so much death at his hands.
This dragon who seemingly could have just ripped her open, or eaten both mother and fetus together, was waiting for the live birth to eat the child. Later verses seem to indicate this serpent should have had the ability to do them both in.
Except for being dramatic, and yes this is Revelation which may be considered akin to dream interpretation, but it appears that there may be a reason to wait till the live birth to do in this child.
I’m sure we’d all agree that from the woman’s vantage point, it would add insult to injury to go through the horrible pains of labor, only to watch her freshly born baby devoured by an apocalyptic dragon. I would rather die than watch that scene play out.
What the Bible says about abortion(or almost any other subject) seems to depend on what you want it to say, judging by this thread and so many others like it. “The Bible says A” vs. “The Bible says B”, both quoting numerous verses…and it doesn’t cause either debater to question the Bible because of this.
Is the Dragon’s beef with the women or the child. It is apparent that the dragon is vengeful (as it is willing to go after further offspring), but where does it start?
This thread, and every other thread pertaining to what the Bible says on any political/social quest is my cite. To deny that people of various opinions can (and do) find Bible verses that they claim support them is to deny the existence of this thread you are currently participating in.
Yeah-I can feel the love.
In a thread about people’s differing views on what the Bible says according to the verses that support their differing views, you want to deny what is taking place before your very eyes. Deny away-I’m done pointing out the obvious to you.
I think that what Czarcasm said is so obvious that it doesn’t need support; except perhaps the bit about its not causing anyone to question the Bible itself. Some people don’t come to that conclusion; others do.