The core point was that most of the message and teachings of Jesus were clearly, unambiguously about social justice and charity, and yet modern Christians care way more about Old Testament moral rules than the actual Christian message, what Jesus clearly cared about the most, the last, the meek, the poor.
The modern Christian votes for racist ultra-rich that only profess hate towards everyone that's different from them in order to get abortion and gay marriage banned. That's the worst corruption of the Christian message possible, in my opinion, and makes those people phony believers to my eyes. They use their as an indentitarian way to distinguish them from the others, which is absolutely at odds with the ecumenical message of Jesus Christ.
Care about the young not being able to start families first, about those who are in need and can't make their ends meet, and then take care of the rest.
You could say it is a matter of perspective, as to the Christian, the unborn child is the most last, the most meek, the most poor, and the most helpless compared to any person including the mother, and thus logically requires precedence.
Is the fetus a child or is it not? If it is not, then the mother should take precedence. If it is, in fact, a child, then it must be protected as such.
@timbit42 Not true. https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31863293&goto=threads%...
Exodus 21:22-23 recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in homicides.
Jesus was Jewish and fetuses aren't considered persons under Jewish law.
A counterargument would be that the Jewish law does not address whether they are persons, but rather focuses on the fine being the solution to the matter. The law also only addresses if the incident should occur by accident (the miscarriage being a side effect), whereas deliberately inducing a miscarriage was not included.
EDIT: Adding more information (also due to reply timers):
@DangItBobby The verse in question:
"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life."
A few notes.
1. The law only addresses unintentional injury, and does not address intentional injuries.
2. The law does not specify "injury." It could mean an injury that occurs to the pregnant woman, the unborn child, or both. One way to interpret the passage is that if the woman is caused to have an early delivery, then the penalty is a fine, but any further injury to the child is covered under the lex talionis law of “an eye for an eye.”
3. The law actually calls the fetus a "child," and takes foregranted that the woman "is with child" which pretty clearly shows that the personhood was taken foregranted.
It doesn't say "with child" in the original Hebrew, that's added in your translation.
The way it's translated into English these days directly from the Hebrew is
> If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befell [her], then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befell [her], then shall you give life for life.
And yet... If the woman is harmed, it's treated as if you harmed a human (eye for an eye), but if the fetus is harmed, there's a fine. It's quite clear that the fetus is not anywhere near the same importance in this law, not that this should have anything to do with modern law.
Nope, that's covered. In the verse, accidental damage to the human mother was punishable by death.
Then how do you explain this:
- When the Bible commands abortion: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/02/03/bible-c...
- How to perform an abortion, according to the Bible: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree/2021/11/how-to-perf...
Exodus 21:22-23 - Abortion isn't murder. It's property damage.
Numbers 5:11–31 - The biblical version of the "abortion pill", used to test a wife's fidelity.
In his defense, Jesus came to fulfill the old law and not abolish it, as directly stated by himself. The old law has the 5th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," which in the times of Jesus was unanimously interpreted to cover abortion (Psalm 139 being one reason why) and Jesus, by not speaking against this interpretation (unlike other interpretations), left that view unchanged.