David - Bathsheba - Infanticide

Preface:

I have always viewed the Rant Forum as a sort of safe space in which to vent. Meaning that members should be free to spew out the pent up frustrations and rage in a public sort of way.

A rant should not be taken by the reader as a well formulated thesis to be challenged and debated. It's a rant! If people feel obliged to respond, well that's up to them.

If I don't particularly feel like defending my rant then I won't.

------------------------------------------------

So here is the rant:

So Trump decides that he's going maximal ending Roe V Wade as a campaign platform so he sets the subject up for a public dialog. Republican dominated States take it up because follow the leader and all that jazz. And hey! That's why we elected the great paragon of Christian virtues in the first place right?

So the strategy was and is to equate abortion with infanticide, get the image in people's heads : evil monsters want to kill your babies! They're practicing killing their own. If we don't stop them they will not value life and then they'll kill you and your children and then they'll just have to kill each other then nuke the planet or something because they hate life. They're monsters or worse!

Well abortion is not infanticide.

Here is what infanticide looks like:

2 Samuel 12 World English Bible

13David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against Yahweh." Nathan said to David, "Yahweh also has put away your sin. You will not die. 14However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to Yahweh's enemies to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die." 15Nathan departed to his house. Yahweh struck the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and it was very sick. 16David therefore begged God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night on the earth. 17The elders of his house arose, [and stood] beside him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. 18It happened on the seventh day, that the child died. The servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, "Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he didn't listen to our voice. How will he then harm himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?" 19But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; and David said to his servants, "Is the child dead?" They said, "He is dead." 20Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his clothing; and he came into the house of Yahweh, and worshiped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he ate.

21Then his servants said to him, "What is this that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child was dead, you rose up and ate bread." 22He said, "While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows whether Yahweh will not be gracious to me, that the child may live?' 23But now he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."

24David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in to her, and lay with her. She bore a son, and he called his name Solomon. Yahweh loved him; 25and he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he named him Jedidiah, for Yahweh's sake.

This story seems to be a very clear example of infanticide by exposure. Sure some people will jump through hoops trying to claim that it isn't. It's pretty clear though that Nathan the prophet said the child shall surely die. So the sacred illness was upon the child.

What, pray tell, was the "illness"? Were the doctors called to administer medicine? Was the mother called to suckle the child? A wet nurse? Anyone? No! Who would dare to touch or even approach a person doomed by the god?

So the child was left to die with no food or drink.

-----------------------------------------
Now I can claim that I like life just as much as the next person even if I happen to support pro-choice. No one is mandated to believe me. But whatever. Here is a little story:

Back in the old days of the 70s I had a girl friend. She was a Nursing student.

She was scheduled to go on a field trip to a University Hospital as part of her curriculum and she invited me to come along. She didn't tell me what it was for. We had gone to museums and malls and parks and places like that before, so I didn't think of hazards, thought it would be safe.

So we arrive with twenty or so other Nursing students and we all go into a dark basement. The instructor then says: "What we have here is a sort of museum. These are actual specimens of fetuses brought to full term, even though they were definitely not viable at birth. If you start feeling dizzy or faint, I recommend that you sit on the floor and place your head between your knees."

Then she turned the lights on.

I didn't see many of the displays in the fluid filled jars because I was very soon sitting on the floor, leaning against the back wall, with my head between my knees.

It isn't that I was grossed out or nauseous, it was an overwhelming sense of the awesomeness of life, and how little control measly humans have in the matter of pregnancy and all that. The awesomeness was quite more than I was prepared to handle.

Without confirming or denying that my girlfriend and I had been in the habit of engaging in unprotected sex, I did tell her later, out of earshot of any possible witnesses that we weren't going to do that anymore.

She wanted to though, so we went to a Title X funded clinic, got checked for STDs, they were called VDs back then, and she got some pills. Then we waited the appropriate time and bought some wine and had a private party.

Sure some people may say, "What about condoms? Why didn't you use those?"

All I can say is "Some guys may have a fetish for latex, in which case lucky for them! Some guys don't, so yeah, a bit of an anti-aphrodisiac effect, if you know what I mean."

Some time passed and we were married and such, and then my First Wife says "I want children."

Flashback! TDSD (it was called "gross stress reaction" back then). "No. Just no!"

And she says, "I'll take full responsibility. You won't have to do anything like changing diapers. I'll do it all!"

But I say, "That's not the problem. I can probably raise kids just fine. It's the process that freaks me out."

So about 3 years later, we have these two children, not at the same time, spread out like, and I'm drinking rather heavily, and it turns out that I still managed to change diapers and warm bottles and carry tikes on my shoulders and throw them in the air and catch them, the fun kind of stuff.

But the drinking was a problem, so I got a vasectomy, for the children.

The vasectomy is kind of a funny story, but I'm tired of ranting.

What is killing a baby who survived an abortion called?

originally posted by: pthena
What, pray tell, was the "illness"? Were the doctors called to administer medicine? Was the mother called to suckle the child? A wet nurse? Anyone? No! So the child was left to die with no food or drink.

You have no evidence of any kind for that "No!" or for the following sentence. Nor is there any evidence that anyone except David knew what Nathan had told him. As for the "illness", the medicine of the time was probably not up to giving a more specific label; why would a name and a detailed description of symptoms make the story more plausible? Your charge has been manufactured out of nothing.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Was the death of David and Uriah's son, after languishing for 7 days, God's retribution on David, or just a coincidental "sacred illness"?

a reply to: Sookiechacha
According to the story, Nathan gave advance warning that the child would die by God's decision for a given reason ("because...").
I'm not aware, offhand, of any Biblical evidence that Israeiltes ever thought in terms of "This is a sacred illness, we mustn't treat it". The idea has been made up.
"Nobody mentions feeding the baby, therefore it wasn't fed". You may as well argue that David never went to bed in his life, because he did not, like Pepys, leave a diary saying so. This use of negative evidence is very dubious.

a reply to: NthOther

A rhetorical question more suited to someone's thesis.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Your charge has been manufactured out of nothing.

So get a text searchable Bible, do a word search of "first born". Read every verse that comes up.

Was the child the first born of Bathsheba? Probably. Was there a substitutionary sacrifice made? A payment of coin to a priest as redemption?

The life of the first born of a woman if male is forfeit to the god all through the Old Testament.

originally posted by: pthena
Was there a substitutionary sacrifice made? A payment of coin to a priest as redemption?

We don''t know that there wasn't the usual redemption payment, and the absence of a detailed account is hardly sufficient evidence against the possibility. I stand by my previous comment- you are trying to make something out of nothing. "Going through hoops", to borrow your own phrase.

All we know from the story is that David denied food to himself while the child was ill, in the hope that it would persuade God to change his mind (which hardly supports the idea that he was allowing the child to die). Did this theory have its origin when you misread or misremembered that part as denying food to the child?

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Sookiechacha
According to the story, Nathan gave advance warning that the child would die by God's decision for a given reason ("because...").
I'm not aware, offhand, of any Biblical evidence that Israeiltes ever thought in terms of "This is a sacred illness, we mustn't treat it". The idea has been made up.
"Nobody mentions feeding the baby, therefore it wasn't fed". You may as well argue that David never went to bed in his life, because he did not, like Pepys, leave a diary saying so. This use of negative evidence is very dubious.

"The child must die". It was God's will for the child to die, and David was given advanced notice. So, who would go against God, and the King, to nurse and tend to this doomed child, born out of murder and adultery?

David's sin wasn't secret or hidden. Neither was God's swift retribution.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
"The child must die". It was God's will for the child to die, and David was given advanced notice. So, who would go against God, and the King, to nurse and tend to this doomed child, born out of murder and adultery?

David himself tried to fight against that prospect, when he prayed and fasted. And it is likely that nobody else had heard what Nathan said.
As I've already told you, there is no evidence that Israelites ever thought in the fatalistic terms that you're describing. It is pure theory, drawn from imagination.
If you continue repeating the argument you've already used, please take as read the answers I''ve already given..

a reply to: DISRAELI

David himself tried to fight against that prospect, when he prayed and fasted.

Self abasement, self sacrifice and open suffering are not "a fight", they're a type of submission and an attempt at payment through penance. David may have prayed for his son's redemption by placing his physical needs on the alter as a trade, but it was ignored and rejected by God, because he had already made his decision. "The child must die."

It is a difficult concept for an atheist to understand
God the creator and giver of life has the power to take life
Humanity is stealing from Gods creation when we take life

You may not agree, you may think women have a right to decide the life and death of the unborn.
We don’t
It’s just a different opinion, I accept yours as reasonable in your position, disagree but for some reason you deny our opinion?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, this is Uriah's fault?

a reply to: Raggedyman

It’s just a different opinion, I accept yours as reasonable in your position, disagree but for some reason you deny our opinion?

This is what I think: My opinion will not influence laws in my country or yours.

My opinion is that men and boys shouldn't go getting numerous women and girls pregnant if they aren't in a position to raise the children. Old fashioned notions I realize. But that's not going to stop that from happening is it? No. Just my opinion.

Women and young girls should not be required to bring to term the fruit of rape and/or incest nor should they be required to bring to term a heartbreaking child with no chance of survival, like missing lungs, liver, head, nor should they be required to sacrifice their own life to bring a child into the World.

That's about it for me. My opinion. I doubt very seriously that legislators and other authority figures like Presidents will care about my opinion one bit more than any one else's.

This is a rant. For crying out loud.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, this is Uriah's fault?

Yeah, he was a Hittite, and a mighty man to boot.

If you're interested in wild unprovable speculation, 'cus the Bible doesn't say it word for word:

Bathsheba means daughter of the treaty, or binding promise.
In Hittite, that would be Daughter of Ishara, a Hurrian > Hittite goddess.

Back in the old days city states had a habit of using princesses as bargaining chips, or even kind of like hostages to seal treaties among each other.

The Daughter of Ishara, upon reaching majority age would no doubt become a priestess to the goddess Ishara. In the meantime, she was the ward of the mighty Uriah, her guardian. She was a virgin.

By dastardly scheming David figured "Wow a princess. If I could score a princess, then my throne would really be secured." Problem being David was just a common Brigand before taking Jerusalem (founded upon the twin god of evening). So David didn't know the ways and customs of royalty. He believed the cover story about Bathsheba being the wife of Uriah.

So princess. That would explain why Bathsheba's second born became a king, rather than all those older brothers he had.

And if you believe that Solomon was a real guy rather than sacred fiction; that visit by the Queen of Sheba, may have been a visit by Bathsheba's sister checking on how her sister and nephew Solomon were doing.

Royals! Sheesh!

Just all baseless unsubstantiated speculation.

Oh yeah, forgot about how it was Uriah's fault. If Uriah had just gone home to Bathsheba like David suggested instead of hanging out with the soldiers; chances are that he would have just gone back to the siege of that walled town, come back months later and found Bathsheba with a child.

"Oh man! Your parents are going to think I failed to keep you pure! They're going to kill me!"

So Uriah was in a no win situation.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Raggedyman

It’s just a different opinion, I accept yours as reasonable in your position, disagree but for some reason you deny our opinion?

This is what I think: My opinion will not influence laws in my country or yours.

My opinion is that men and boys shouldn't go getting numerous women and girls pregnant if they aren't in a position to raise the children. Old fashioned notions I realize. But that's not going to stop that from happening is it? No. Just my opinion.

Women and young girls should not be required to bring to term the fruit of rape and/or incest nor should they be required to bring to term a heartbreaking child with no chance of survival, like missing lungs, liver, head, nor should they be required to sacrifice their own life to bring a child into the World.

That's about it for me. My opinion. I doubt very seriously that legislators and other authority figures like Presidents will care about my opinion one bit more than any one else's.

This is a rant. For crying out loud.

And I understand that and accept that but some women use abortion as a contraceptive.
I believe that a baby is a human being in or out of a womb, this isn’t a rant, it’s a belief, humans are not cattle and women who go through with abortions become victims

a reply to: Raggedyman

And I understand that and accept that but some women use abortion as a contraceptive.

LOL, yeah right. I could've restated this article as a reply, but Wonkette says it so well.

Let us consider, for a moment, what would actually go into "using abortion as birth control." First, you have your previously mentioned "Eh, screw it, if I get pregnant, I'll just get an abortion" woman. That is one factor. The second factor here is money. Abortions cost, on average, $300-$950 in the first trimester. So what you need in order for this to work is a woman who isn't going to bother with any kind of birth control, and yet, simultaneously, has enough disposable income to spend that kind of money on an abortion. Regularly.

We then have to consider the fact that, like pretty much all medical operations, getting an abortion is not really a very enjoyable experience. That is also a factor in the pathology of our hypothetically very common woman who goes around using abortion as birth control. When was the last time you met a woman who even liked going to the gynecologist for a pap smear?

So now you've got a reasonably well-off woman who feels like it is a better time to get and pay for an abortion than to use a contraceptive of some kind. Let us hypothesize, for a moment, that a reasonable enough number of these women exist. Out of all those who need abortions, who is going to be the most likely to be financially able to cross state lines to get one safely and legally?

www.wonkette.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Raggedyman

And I understand that and accept that but some women use abortion as a contraceptive.

LOL, yeah right. I could've restated this article as a reply, but Wonkette says it so well.

Let us consider, for a moment, what would actually go into "using abortion as birth control." First, you have your previously mentioned "Eh, screw it, if I get pregnant, I'll just get an abortion" woman. That is one factor. The second factor here is money. Abortions cost, on average, $300-$950 in the first trimester. So what you need in order for this to work is a woman who isn't going to bother with any kind of birth control, and yet, simultaneously, has enough disposable income to spend that kind of money on an abortion. Regularly.

We then have to consider the fact that, like pretty much all medical operations, getting an abortion is not really a very enjoyable experience. That is also a factor in the pathology of our hypothetically very common woman who goes around using abortion as birth control. When was the last time you met a woman who even liked going to the gynecologist for a pap smear?

So now you've got a reasonably well-off woman who feels like it is a better time to get and pay for an abortion than to use a contraceptive of some kind. Let us hypothesize, for a moment, that a reasonable enough number of these women exist. Out of all those who need abortions, who is going to be the most likely to be financially able to cross state lines to get one safely and legally?

www.wonkette.com...

My mistake, I didn’t mean in the literal sense, I guess I meant to say it was an option that women use more than once with no regard
No literally as a contraception.
I am suggesting that abortion should be a last resort not A first option

Shouldn’t be surprised that you didn’t get that

a reply to: Raggedyman

No literally as a contraception.
I am suggesting that abortion should be a last resort not A first option

I think Communist China was doing that for some time. Government had a population control program of limiting numbers of offspring. Forced abortion. I'm not sure, maybe I'll fact check later, no birth control pills available because of "the stench of Western medicine", or some such rationale.

People who want Roe V Wade to stay in place in the U.S. are Not advocating for government forced abortion or the removal of access to birth control. If anything, the advocates of overturning Roe V Wade has a pretty big overlap with advocates of eliminating birth control. Two different groups, but many people in both groups.

I'm in favor of patient's rights. People should be allowed to refuse treatment. I took care of a guy as he died of gangrene once. He preferred to die with legs on rather than live without legs. His choice.

ETA: here is some recent China stuff. Forced_abortion#People's_Republic_of_China
That looks like after some laws changed. Have to look farther back.

This is a great rant... chock full of empathy and care for life outside of your own feelings! Even questions are in your rant... nice. Thank you for a well thought out rant!

It seems that I am of the extreme minority to view sexual intercourse as an exchange of life force rather than just a physical act with clear consequences of choice, so I am almost completely weirded out by the concepts of abortion to begin with.

To debate the sides of abortion is a debate that lives in the realms of consequence. Once debates shift to the areas of cause, odds just may show that the predicaments of abortion debate spend more and more energy teaching future generations just how sacred and important the acts of sexual intercourse are.