Pro Abortion group is upset about Doritos Superbowl Ad for humanizing fetuses

[The Diplomat]

From the Vulgate:

Numeri V:XI - XXXI
"Locutusque est Dominus ad Moysen, dicens: Loquere ad filios Israel, et dices ad eos: Vir cujus uxor erraverit, maritumque contemnens dormierit cum altero viro, et hoc maritus deprehendere non quiverit, sed latet adulterium, et testibus argui non potest, quia non est inventa in stupro: si spiritus zelotypiae concitaverit virum contra uxorem suam, quae vel polluta est, vel falsa suspicione appetitur: adducet eam ad sacerdotem, et offeret oblationem pro illa, decimam partem sati farinae hordeaceae: non fundet super eam oleum, nec imponet thus: quia sacrificium zelotypiae est, et oblatio investigans adulterium.

Offeret igitur eam sacerdos, et statuet coram Domino, assumetque aquam sanctam in vase fictili, et pauxillum terrae de pavimento tabernaculi mittet in eam. Cumque steterit mulier in conspectu Domini, discooperiet caput ejus, et ponet super manus illius sacrificium recordationis, et oblationem zelotypiae: ipse autem tenebit aquas amarissimas, in quibus cum execratione maledicta congessit. Adjurabitque eam, et dicet: Si non dormivit vir alienus tecum, et si non polluta es deserto mariti throno, non te nocebunt aquae istae amarissimae, in quas maledicta congessi. Sin autem declinasti a viro tuo, atque polluta es, et concubuisti cum altero viro:

his maledictionibus subjacebis: det te Dominus in maledictionem, exemplumque cunctorum in populo suo: putrescere faciat femur tuum, et tumens uterus tuus disrumpatur. Ingrediantur aquae maledictae in ventrem tuum, et utero tumescente putrescat femur. Et respondebit mulier: Amen, amen. Scribetque sacerdos in libello ista maledicta, et delebit ea aquis amarissimis, in quas maledicta congessit, et dabit ei bibere. Quas cum exhauserit, tollet sacerdos de manu ejus sacrificium zelotypiae, et elevabit illud coram Domino, imponetque illud super altare, ita dumtaxat ut prius:

pugillum sacrificii tollat de eo, quod offertur, et incendat super altare: et sic potum det mulieri aquas amarissimas. Quas cum biberit, si polluta est, et contempto viro adulterii rea, pertransibunt eam aquae maledictionis, et inflato ventre, computrescet femur: eritque mulier in maledictionem, et in exemplum omni populo. Quod si polluta non fuerit, erit innoxia, et faciet liberos. Ista est lex zelotypiae. Si declinaverit mulier a viro suo, et si polluta fuerit, maritusque zelotypiae spiritu concitatus adduxerit eam in conspectu Domini, et fecerit ei sacerdos juxta omnia quae scripta sunt:

maritus absque culpa erit, et illa recipiet iniquitatem suam."

Which reads as

"
[11] And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: [12] Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: The man whose wife shall have gone astray, and contemning her husband, [13] Shall have slept with another man, and her husband cannot discover it, but the adultery is secret, and cannot be proved by witnesses, because she was not found in the adultery: [14] If the spirit of jealousy stir up the husband against his wife, who either is defiled, or is charged with false suspicion, [15] He shall bring her to the priest, and shall offer an oblation for her, the tenth part of a measure of barley meal: he shall not pour oil thereon, nor put frankincense upon it: because it is a sacrifice of jealousy, and an oblation searching out adultery.

[14] The spirit of jealousy: This ordinance was designed to clear the innocent, and to prevent jealous husbands from doing mischief to their wives: as likewise to give all a horror of adultery, by punishing it in so remarkable a manner.

[16] The priest therefore shall offer it, and set it before the Lord. [17] And he shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and he shall cast a little earth of the pavement of the tabernacle into it. [18] And when the woman shall stand before the Lord, he shall uncover her head, and shall, put on her hands the sacrifice of remembrance, and the oblation of jealousy: and he himself shall hold the most bitter waters, whereon he hath heaped curses with execration. [19] And he shall adjure her, and shall say: If another man hath not slept with thee, and if thou be not defiled by forsaking thy husband' s bed, these most bitter waters, on which I have heaped curses, shall not hurt thee. [20] But if thou hast gone aside from thy husband, and art defiled, and hast lain with another man:

[21] These curses shall light upon thee: The Lord make thee a curse, and an example for all among his people: may he make thy thigh to rot, and may thy belly swell and burst asunder. [22] Let the cursed waters enter into thy belly, and may thy womb swell and thy thigh rot. And the woman shall answer, Amen, amen. [23] And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and shall wash them out with the most bitter waters, upon which he hath heaped the curses, [24] And he shall give them her to drink. And when she hath drunk them up, [25] The priest shall take from her hand the sacrifice of jealousy, and shall elevate it before the Lord, and shall put it upon the altar: yet so as first,

[26] To take a handful of the sacrifice of that which is offered, and burn it upon the altar: and so give the most bitter waters to the woman to drink. [27] And when she hath drunk them, if she be defiled, and having despised her husband be guilty of adultery, the malediction shall go through her, and her belly swelling, her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse, and an example to all the people. [28] But if she be not defiled, she shall not be hurt, and shall bear children. [29] This is the law of jealousy. If a woman hath gone aside from her husband, and be defiled, [30] And the husband stirred up by the spirit of jealousy bring her before the Lord, and the priest do to her according to all things that are here written:

[31] The husband shall be blameless, and she shall bear her iniquity."

In the English translation, for which I have used the Douay-Rheims. You can see Challoner's note on verse XIV which I left intact in the quoted text. It doesn't specify that the suspected adulterer is with child, nor does it make any claim that the curses heaped upon the bitter waters are in fact an abortifacient for killing a child produced in said adulterous union.

and may thy belly swell and burst asunder. [22] Let the cursed waters enter into thy belly, and may thy womb swell and thy thigh rot.

That version may not specify with child (although other English translations do) or miscarriage, but it certainly refers to making her unable to carry children. "may thy belly swell and burst asunder", "Let the cursed waters enter into thy belly, and may the womb swell." Why would the womb and belly swell?

 

[These Two Hands]

and may thy belly swell and burst asunder. [22] Let the cursed waters enter into thy belly, and may thy womb swell and thy thigh rot.

That version may not specify with child (although other English translations do) or miscarriage, but it certainly refers to making her unable to carry children. "may thy belly swell and burst asunder", "Let the cursed waters enter into thy belly, and may the womb swell." Why would the womb and belly swell?

Rendering her sterile, unable to bear children. It's a pretty heavy condemnation for a wife, a lot of the penalties and penances described in Numeri are pretty heavy.
See XXVIII "But if she be not defiled, she shall not be hurt, and shall bear children." it has nothing to do with inducing a miscarriage. It is saying that if the woman is truly an adulterer she will reap the aforementioned consequences and if not, she will not.

Which translations specify with child? If you disagree with the English version I have provided, the Latin is right there for you to read - it says the same thing. It would appear that Southoftheandes's accusation that the Church has changed the wording to fit Her policies is in fact better directed at the protestants and their erroneous versions. Ours hasn't changed, and as you can clearly see it does not support the killing of unborn children.

 

[The Diplomat]

Rendering her sterile, unable to bear children. It's a pretty heavy condemnation for a wife, a lot of the penalties and penances described in Numeri are pretty heavy.
See XXVIII "But if she be not defiled, she shall not be hurt, and shall bear children." it has nothing to do with inducing a miscarriage. It is saying that if the woman is truly an adulterer she will reap the aforementioned consequences and if not, she will not.

So miscarriage/abortion = wrong, but rendering a woman sterile = right?

Which translations specify with child? If you disagree with the English version I have provided, the Latin is right there for you to read - it says the same thing. It would appear that Southoftheandes's accusation that the Church has changed the wording to fit Her policies is in fact better directed at the protestants and their erroneous versions. Ours hasn't changed, and as you can clearly see it does not support the killing of unborn children.

The New International version says miscarriage.

Why is it that a man who causes a woman to miscarry is only fined?

 

[These Two Hands]

So miscarriage/abortion = wrong, but rendering a woman sterile = right?

Being that it was a punishment coming directly from God, it is inherently right. It doesn't mean you, or I could do it, for example - any more than we could go around killing all first born Egyptian males.

The New International version says miscarriage.

Lol. That's not worth the zigzag paper it's printed on.

Why is it that a man who causes a woman to miscarry is only fined?

Here's Haydock's commentary on that passage, from 1859 "Ver. 22. But live herself. So Josephus also reads, Antiquities iv. 8. But Philo and the Septuagint have, "of a child unformed;" and ver. 23, "But if the child be formed, (exeikonismenon, animated and organized) he shall give soul for soul;" as if all were referred to the child, which the Vulgate explains of the mother. To destroy the life of either was punished with death. "She who first taught the art of expelling the tender fœtus, deserved to perish by his own malice." (Ovid) (Calmet) --- The precise time when the soul begins to animate the body is so very uncertain, that, after conception, the person who should cause a miscarriage wilfully, would expose himself to incur the guilt of murder. Josephus, contra Ap. ii., shews how the Jews abhorred such wickedness. The Romans punished it with death. (Haydock) --- Homicidii festinatio est prohibere nasci. (Tertullian, apol.) Onkelos says, that "if the mother should not die of the stroke, the offender was to satisfy the husband by paying a fine, to be awarded by the husband, or by the judges: but in case the mother died, he should render life for life:" (Calmet) in which decision he agrees with the Vulgate. (Haydock) --- The Hebrew is ambiguous, "If death ensue not." (Calmet)"

Here's the referred to text from Josephius, for context "The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind; if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean."

And as Tertullian tells us in Chapter XXXVII of A Treatise on the Soul "The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion, inasmuch as there exists already the rudiment of a human being, which has imputed to it even now the condition of life and death, since it is already liable to the issues of both, although, by living still in the mother, it for the most part shares its own state with the mother."

Even the Judaic perspective on this issue regards the unborn child as still being human, traditional Jewish teaching on abortion held that protection for the unborn child - except when the pregnancy "definitely and without question endangered the life of the mother" (Maimonides) - was absolute.
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 57b) calls a baby in its mother's womb "a man in a man". It specifically says that abortion is a capital crime.
The Sanhedrin allowed people to violate the Sabbath for the sake of the foetus, and no pregnant woman could be executed until after she had given birth.

 

[Adamant]

Sure it is. Flipping out over nothing. Manufactured outrage.

Flipping out over nothing: Doritos commercial.

Being upset at the massive double standard that exists in America: Beyunsa's racist SB show.

Not the same.

 

[Ruprecht]

Flipping out over nothing: Doritos commercial.

Being upset at the massive double standard that exists in America: Beyunsa's racist SB show.

Not the same.

Completely the same. Sure, the Doritos ad might have been completely apolitical and Beyonce's show might have made political references to current events and BLM. But that doesn't make it "racist" or anything to flip out about.
Flipping out over nothing. As are you apparently.

 

[Adamant]

Completely the same. Sure, the Doritos ad might have been completely apolitical and Beyonce's show might have made political references to current events and BLM. But that doesn't make it "racist" or anything to flip out about.
Flipping out over nothing. As are you apparently.

It's the double standard. Therefore not the same.

 

[CrazyN8]

Nut jobs get angry over nothing. I bet there not even mad, but their publicist is doing good work.

 

[Ruprecht]

It's the double standard. Therefore not the same.

Double standard?

 

[Adamant]

Double standard?

That's from 1968. Not 2016.

Yes, the double standard in 2016, and for the last several years, is a legit complaint.

 

[Ruprecht]

That's from 1968. Not 2016.

Yes, the double standard in 2016, and for the last several years, is a legit complaint.

It was addressing current issues. Much the same issues actually, and in much the same way.
...and caused much the same backlash from much the same segment of the American population.

Of course the Superbowl is a smaller stage, BLM isn't as big a struggle as the Civil Rights of the 60s and Beyonce's pop music is hardly as big a statement (the lyrics themselves are just crass materialism, the reference mostly just in the costumes and dance).
The parallel still holds.

 

[Adamant]

It was addressing current issues. Much the same issues actually, and in much the same way.
...and caused much the same backlash from much the same segment of the American population.

Not even close to the same thing. In 1968 they were addressing legitimate and bona-fide racism. I know nowadays a certain segment of the population likes to pretend things are worse than ever, which is total nonsense, but the issue with which people take about her performance is the massive double standard that exists and goes along with it.

 

[Ruprecht]

Not even close to the same thing. In 1968 they were addressing legitimate and bona-fide racism. I know nowadays a certain segment of the population likes to pretend things are worse than ever, which is total nonsense, but the issue with which people take about her performance is the massive double standard that exists and goes along with it.

Yeah... conservatives in the '60s thought much the same about the legitimacy of the Civil Rights movement. Some of them still do.
John Carlos himself has made the link.

 

[Adamant]

Yeah... conservatives in the '60s thought much the same about the legitimacy of the Civil Rights movement. Some of them still do.
John Carlos himself has made the link.

Only it was legitimate in 1968 and not at all in 2016. I know liberals and progressives would have you believe America is now more racist than ever, but it's all just complete and utter nonsense. Taking issue with the blatant and obvious double standard that exists today though, is not.

 

[bad seed]

Not even close to the same thing. In 1968 they were addressing legitimate and bona-fide racism. I know nowadays a certain segment of the population likes to pretend things are worse than ever, which is total nonsense, but the issue with which people take about her performance is the massive double standard that exists and goes along with it.

I think its cute how you think you wouldnt be opposed to the civil rights movements if you lived in the 60s. In much the same way, your children will one day look upon horror at the opinions you hold today.

you'd be right there pouring drinks on them and laughing.

 

[Ruprecht]

Only it was legitimate in 1968 and not at all in 2016. I know liberals and progressives would have you believe America is now more racist than ever, but it's all just complete and utter nonsense. Taking issue with the blatant and obvious double standard that exists today though, is not.

I can't say I've seen anyone claiming racism (whether they are talking on an individual or structural level) is worse now than it has been historically.
What double standard? Let me guess, you'll compare two things that are completely different...

 

[dontsnitch]

The Bible teaches that God knew you even before you were in the womb.

Great post. A "Like" wasn't enough.

 

[Adamant]

I think its cute how you think you wouldnt be opposed to the civil rights movements if you lived in the 60s. In much the same way, your children will one day look upon horror at the opinions you hold today.

you'd be right there pouring drinks on them and laughing.

And what opinions do I hold today?

 

[D Train]

The bible is not against abortion. That was a position invented by the church as did they change definitions. Of course I suppose it depends on what 'bible' one adheres to.

Psalm 139

 

[Adamant]

I can't say I've seen anyone claiming racism (whether they are talking on an individual or structural level) is worse now than it has been historically.
What double standard? Let me guess, you'll compare two things that are completely different...

Yet you keep referencing the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and the men at the Olympics, and you compare it with things that are happening today acting like they're the same thing. You've compared two things that are completely different, all while ignoring the double standard and pretending like there isn't one.