417
Frozen embryos are “children,” according to Alabama’s Supreme Court
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
417 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
59366 readers
1260 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It does not say or imply that at all. Maybe in some translations/adaptations/interpretations, but not in most of them, and there is no full consensus.
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[b] 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.”
It doesn't imply that at all? Please feel free to let me know what this passage is really about.
I'm guessing this is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. Which is not a consensus at all.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the Old Testament is written mostly in Hebrew and each passage has had thousands of interpretations and translations over time.
My does not say this at all was too strong in light of the different versions, but you can make the Bible say a lot of things.
Look at other translations, including in languages other than English and you'll see that the "miscarry" is pretty unique to the NIV.
You can check out the Wikipedia article on this passage to get an idea as to how complicated it is.
The punishment section of the Hebrew version suggests many interpretations where words are euphemisms for things related to abortions. Her thigh might refer to her sexual organs, the curse an abortificent, etc. I think those meanings still exist in other translations.
It might, but that's not enough to say the Bible is okay with abortions, and the rest of the texts might contradict that interpretation anyway. The NIV is pretty unique in translating directly into miscarry. If I search for those passages in English right now on search engines, I'm not even guaranteed to end up on that version, it took me a few tries.
It always strikes me as interesting that if the Bible truly was divinely inspired that there really should only be one translation and one interpretation. It should be incredibly clear and concise to everyone.
Even if it was truly was, humans are still faillible:
So even if the original text was given divinely, it would end up being distorted.
This is why I'm not comfortable saying the Bible is okay with abortion. It can be interpreted that way, for sure, but it's not a definite statement.