In the Bible, is there more support for anti-abortion than for slavery ? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









In the Bible, is there more support for anti-abortion than for slavery ?

Debate Information


I say that there is more support for slavery than being anti-abortion in the Bible.

1. There is no mention of abortion in any of the Bible one way or the other.
2. Slavery is discussed many times in the Old Testament and the New. In the old Testament, there are rules on how to treat slaves. In the New Testament, slaves are ordered to obey their masters.
3. In Genesis, chapter one, God  forms a figure from the Earth, but it does not become Adam ("man" in Hebrew) until God "breathes into him the breath of life, and he became man.” Only at birth can a baby be said to breathe for the very first time. This can be understood to mean that life begins at birth.. a doctor might slap a baby so that it can breathe.




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  




    1. There is no mention of abortion in any of the Bible one way or the other.

    Abortion in the Bible 

    Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention.  “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer.  Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give?  Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children.  God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry.  Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

    Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery.  This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

    Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

    Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”.  Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

    2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?


    Courtesy of Evil Bible 

    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  

    " God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry.  Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”? "

    Yep.
    Thanks for destroying my argument !

    I concede.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  

    " Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus. "

    hmm im not sure if I consider murdering a pregnant woman an instance of abortion. Could you try to convince me?

  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    " 2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong? "

    I suspect confirmation bias.



  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    You’re welcome 
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    hmm im not sure if I consider murdering a pregnant woman an instance of abortion. Could you try to convince me?

    If one knows the woman is pregnant and murders her the baby is also doomed what would you prefer to call it ?
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    I suspect confirmation bias.

    Do you indeed , but you clearly stated …. 1. There is no mention of abortion in any of the Bible one way or the other.

    You’re wrong so there you go that’s twice now your arguments failed at the first hurdle 
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @Blastcat

    I suspect confirmation bias.

    Do you indeed , but you clearly stated …. 1. There is no mention of abortion in any of the Bible one way or the other.

    You’re wrong so there you go that’s twice now your arguments failed at the first hurdle 

    I was answering this question:

    " How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong? "
  • slaves are ordered to obey their masters.
    I think you should understand clearly a master of a person is one who oversees the overall well-being of a person and not someone who simply may have paid a debt acquired by a person and now that person is indentured.

    This is a state of the union made by applications of a constitutional right between connections of the term master and people.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  

    " If one knows the woman is pregnant and murders her the baby is also doomed what would you prefer to call it ? "

    Murder.
    Maybe plus abortion.. but murder for sure.
    I think that murder only qualifies for a person.. Personhood begins at birth when it comes to law. When it comes to religion, results may vary.

  • @Dee
    The public places of abortion as a united state is false witness, so the search of Biblical or religious context is found under false witness, are those who give false witness talked about in the bible or religious scriptures?
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    slaves are ordered to obey their masters.
    I think you should understand clearly a master of a person is one who oversees the overall well-being of a person and not someone who simply may have paid a debt acquired by a person and now that person is indentured.

    This is a state of the union made by applications of a constitutional right between connections of the term master and people.

    You seem to think that being a slave owner is an act of kindness and not a total subjugation of another human being for profit or pleasure ( in the case of sexual slavery, for example ). If the slave owner wants to keep having pleasure or work out of the slave, yes, it's in the best interest of the slave owner to take care of the slave.

    But I say that it's just plain wrong to own another human being for any reason. Because of the way you are defending the slave owner, I really have to ask if you do.

    Do you think that's it's right for anyone to own a human being?
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -   edited September 15
    @Blastcat



    ***Murder.
    Maybe plus abortion.. but murder for sure.
    I think that murder only qualifies for a person.. Personhood begins at birth when it comes to law. When it comes to religion, results may vary.***


    You’re a very strange man you post up a debate saying there in no abortion in the Bible then post up one saying there  is and using verses I used to make the case. You cannot even acknowledge this so now your resorting to going through verse by verse offering a defence why’s that ?

    You either agree it’s in the Bible or not I do not care if you say it’s not or it is but at least make your mind up can you do that?


    Regards it being murder , personhood and the law if you’re American it’s baffling that you’re yet another American who is totally oblivious to the law of your own land as you’re wrong on all points 

     38 states in the US also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.

    Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004. Husband Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.

    Blastcat
  • @Dee
    Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?
    Yes, though the termination does not clearly identify an order to stop pregnancy. The pregnancy was terminated does not include the loss of privacy made by saying a person is giving the order to stop pregnancy. Abortion however is also a lie as a natural pregnancy termination is possible while a natural abortion is not abortion is the official order given to stop. 
  • @Blastcat
    But I say that it's just plain wrong to own another human being for any reason. Because of the way you are defending the slave owner, I really have to ask if you do.
    Do you think that's it's right for anyone to own a human being?

    By holding a united state in Consitution ownership does not create a disregard for the treatment of a prisoner of war. There are two states of the slave a prisoner held against their will as the captive, and the slave who volunteers as a form of payment to be in basic principle a property.

    You seem to think that being a slave owner is an act of kindness and not a total subjugation of another human being for profit or pleasure ( in the case of sexual slavery, for example )  Because of the way you are defending the slave owner, 

    Well, according to the basic principle of the grievance the slave owners as you put it was a victim as well as the slave. There are a number of issues of concern. The first and most important is the liberty of the P.O.W. and under guidelines of the United States Consitution, there are grievances that can be raised over the sponsorship of a slave to be established as a citizen. On the other hand, if owning a slave is wrong and a sales agreement was made does that not mean the seller has committed a crime and those who have been taken advantage of by an illegal sale should receive a refund of the cost of the transfer of slave. Provided a slave is still living and not harmed? This is standard in the negotiation of the POW release. By using basic principles it is easy to separate poor and cruel treatment of people from ownership of slaves the principles can be addressed one at a time on different levels and no need to clump the problems together as one crime takes place.

    To be clear slavery without sentencing of punishment was never a crime, the end to private slavery was the legal precedent to claim an end of a crime. As an American, you take for granted that a search for a more perfect union does not still have a constitutional course in human history. Slavery was never ended and was assumed control of in American and all nations by the use of the same method
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @Blastcat

    Wow! You’re something else after I corrected you on your post and American law your best response is “irrelevant” ……it’s not surprising really it demonstrates clearly you don’t like being corrected maybe that’s something you need to work on 

    Could you knock it off with the useless ad hominems?
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    But I say that it's just plain wrong to own another human being for any reason. Because of the way you are defending the slave owner, I really have to ask if you do.
    Do you think that's it's right for anyone to own a human being?

    By holding a united state in Consitution ownership does not create a disregard for the treatment of a prisoner of war. There are two states of the slave a prisoner held against their will as the captive, and the slave who volunteers as a form of payment to be in basic principle a property.
    You imagine that slaves join up freely. The whole idea of slavery is that one is not free. If you have evidence that people lined up back then for the wonderful benefits of being a slave, please present it.

    As it stands, I dismiss your unsupported claim.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  

    Slavery was never ended and was assumed control of in American and all nations by the use of the same method
    Wrong
  • @Blastcat
    Do you think that's it's right for anyone to own a human being?

    The legal burden is that if I instruct a person in the means of the use of lethal force by military command I also have a burden to oversee governing of those I would have instructed. A master is a name given to a person as a substitute for commander. I think you are confused by the abilities of a person to buy a POW and call themselves master, and a person to assume the burdens of master and understand the risk of instruction, teaching others. 
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 16
    John_C_87 said:
    @Blastcat
    Do you think that's it's right for anyone to own a human being?

    The legal burden is that if I instruct a person in the means of the use of lethal force by military command I also have a burden to oversee governing of those I would have instructed. A master is a name given to a person as a substitute for commander. I think you are confused by the abilities of a person to buy a POW and call themselves master, and a person to assume the burdens of master and understand the risk of instruction, teaching others. 

    You didn't say if you think that's it's right for anyone to own a human being? Please answer the question. I hate having to repeat my questions. If you don't answer my question, I will terminate our conversation.
  • Blastcat said:

    Slavery was never ended and was assumed control of in American and all nations by the use of the same method
    Wrong
    The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States,

    America never ended slavery it made an exception. 
    Do you understand a relief of command when you see it?

    Introduction - 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History - Research Guides at Library of Congress (loc.gov)

    Did anyone ever give you in writing a document signed America-ended slavery? So after decades of lies do you see now why the flag of military-friendly fire flew over the South. The atrocities committed do not change the fact the one side of wrong was exploited politically.

  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 16
    John_C_87 said:
    Blastcat said:

    Slavery was never ended and was assumed control of in American and all nations by the use of the same method
    Wrong
    The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States,

    America never ended slavery it made an exception. 
    Do you understand a relief of command when you see it?

    Introduction - 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History - Research Guides at Library of Congress (loc.gov)

    Did anyone ever give you in writing a document signed America-ended slavery? So after decades of lies do you see now why the flag of military-friendly fire flew over the South. The atrocities committed do not change the fact the one side of wrong was exploited politically.

    I told you that I would terminate our debate if you didn't answer my question. If you do want to continue, please answer it.
  • The whole idea of slavery is that one is not free.
    The whole idea of education is that one is not free. "Basic principle for basic principle."

    As it stands, I dismiss your unsupported claim.
    Correction...As it rests, you have dismissed a claim as a grievance.

    You imagine that slaves join up freely.
    Do you know at one time in Asia this issue was such a problem martial arts as a whole had been legislated as illegal? 
    While many slaves throughout history would join the military force who had concerned them to be granted liberty from their dept.
    It kind of sounds as if you don't know that. Don't want to know that.


  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    The whole idea of slavery is that one is not free.
    The whole idea of education is that one is not free. "Basic principle for basic principle."

    As it stands, I dismiss your unsupported claim.
    Correction...As it rests, you have dismissed a claim as a grievance.

    You imagine that slaves join up freely.
    Do you know at one time in Asia this issue was such a problem martial arts as a whole had been legislated as illegal? 
    While many slaves throughout history would join the military force who had concerned them to be granted liberty from their dept.
    It kind of sounds as if you don't know that. Don't want to know that.



    I told you that I would terminate our debate if you didn't answer my question. If you do want to continue, please answer it. I wont tell you again.
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -   edited September 16
    @Blastcat

    Could you knock it off with the useless ad hominems?

    Where have I attacked your character ? I made a statement based on the truth regards American law you thought that “irrelevant “ which I think pretty childish if you feel that’s unfair please explain why ?

    Also on your very first comments to me online you responded to me by acting the smart a-ss by making unfair comments and now you try play the victim , I told you treat me with respect you get it back if you want to play to the gallery by playing the wise guy I will pay you in kind 

    I note you seem to think it’s ok for you to insult others as some sort of “right “ but yet get upset at it seems everyone 
  • @Blastcat
    You didn't say if you think that's it's right for anyone to own a human being? Please answer the question. I hate having to repeat my questions. If you don't answer my question, I will terminate our conversation.

    Don't talk do us all a favor...your not bringing anything to the debate table...like many you complain about imperfect states of the union without basic principles to built better states of a union on. First, can I point out by truth that if I don't answer I make out better as you bring nothing to the debate at this point with the exception of a lie? "America ended slavery." Second, there are a number of conditions to ownership and you make no distinction between ownership and abuse. Yes, I believe it is right to own a human some humans are worthless and their township takes place without argument. This however does not dictate the use of harm to all humans as a united state.

    You do not listen to me as I have been answering all along.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @Blastcat
    You didn't say if you think that's it's right for anyone to own a human being? Please answer the question. I hate having to repeat my questions. If you don't answer my question, I will terminate our conversation.

    Don't talk do us all a favor...your not bringing anything to the debate table...like many you complain about imperfect states of the union without basic principles to built better states of a union on. First, can I point out by truth that if I don't answer I make out better as you bring nothing to the debate at this point with the exception of a lie? "America ended slavery." Second, there are a number of conditions to ownership and you make no distinction between ownership and abuse. Yes, I believe it is right to own a human some humans are worthless and their township takes place without argument. This however does not dictate the use of harm to all humans as a united state.

    You do not listen to me as I have been answering all along.

    Thanks for your answer.
    It was real close.

    Don't talk do us all a favor...your not bringing anything to the debate table...
    I'm ending our debate.
    It's not fun.

  • @Blastcat
    Abortion is in the Bible under "Lie."
    Look up lie in the dictionary that is what pregnancy abortion is. The sad part is abortion does not need to be a lie it is held as a lie. After 48 years it is safe to say it is legal negligence at this piont.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 16

    Could you knock it off with the useless ad hominems?

    Where have I attacked your character ?
    I bothered to quote the insult, but here it is again:

    " Wow! You’re something else after I corrected you on your post and American law your best response is “irrelevant” ……it’s not surprising really it demonstrates clearly you don’t like being corrected maybe that’s something you need to work on "
    In a debate, an attack on one's opponent is called ad hominem argument, and yours is a classic.

    Please refrain from further personal attacks and restrain your comments to the ideas presented. Your ad homs are irrelevant, this conversation is irrelevant. We are not talking about each other's character or behavior, we are trying to have a debate about abortion. Lets try to stick to that.

    The debate has been derailed enough.
    cheers
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @Blastcat
    Abortion is in the Bible under "Lie."
    Look up lie in the dictionary that is what pregnancy abortion is. The sad part is abortion does not need to be a lie it is held as a lie. After 48 years it is safe to say it is legal negligence at this piont.

    FYI, when i say "terminate the debate" I mean "end it".

    I lost interest, John. I don't come here to be insulted.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 16

    I haven’t mentioned your character you on the other hand have engaged in several ad hominiens against me and others , can you desist from this behaviour please ?
    I am not aware that I have attacked your character. I sure try my best not to, but I'm even more sure that I make plenty of mistakes. But talk like this is completely irrelevant to the actual topic. If you have a complaint about one of my comments, please use the "Flag" feature and report the incidents to the moderators.

    This is not the place. I'm sorry that I brought it up in the first place.
    I asked politely for you to stop, and that really looks like a big mistake. Well, I'm not perfect. Again, I apologize to you, to all the members, and to the moderators for making that request in public like that. If, as you say, I engaged in ad hominem arguments, those would also be mistakes. If you want to have my back and notice another mistake like that on my part, you could always contact me in private. I'd really appreciate it. 

    I'm ONLY here to elevate the level of my conversations.

    I wont be talking about this in the debate part of this website any more. If someone uses an ad hom, I'll just use the flag feature and not respond to the comment in any way other than using the Fallacy emoji. Ad hom is a fallacy.

    Cheers.
    Dee
  • It is unclear why anyone would ever be insulted for tell someone else's lie. Unless they personally make the like their own.
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Really , but I did call you on our very first exchange more or less as I asked you why you wanted to act this way , funny also as I greet most new members warmly after a few exchanges and was prepared to do so with you.

    I agree this talk we are now engaged in is irrelevant , I just wish you could have at least acknowledged the point I made regards the law in the US instead of marking it a pretty petty irrelevant 

    I too in future will mark flag any such remarks in future and move on . Ad hom is a fallacy.


  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  

    I just wish you could have at least acknowledged the point I made regards the law in the US instead of marking it a pretty petty irrelevant
    What point was that, Dee?
    Dee
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    I think that murder only qualifies for a person. 

    That point that’s incorrect as I pointed out I don’t get your feigned pretence 
    Blastcat
  • Dee said:
    @Blastcat

    I think that murder only qualifies for a person. 

    That point that’s incorrect as I pointed out I don’t get your feigned pretence 
    "I think that murder only qualifies for a person"

    The problem was created by thinking past basic principles as there has never been any doubt as to a women's pregnancy producing a goat, turtle, or frog. Female-specific amputation is a legislative common defense to the general welfare. " I know that an order to murder only qualifies for a person." I also know that the court of law for the past 48 years in America has set legal precedent on orders that authorize lethal force. When described to them with only one exception to the fact. This raises obvious concern and suspicion as Female-specific amputation gives no such order to possibly the same basic principle of lethal force.

    I am hurt that you believe that in preserving American United State Consitution a writer should not be financially compensated for the findings of basic principles.


    Blastcat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch