You know, it's not that I don't enjoy all these rhetorical debate devices left over from USENET, but after you've seen them for 30 years, they get a bit stale.

You started out with a preposterous proposition, namely "The Bible Supports Abortion." Had you said rather that "The Bible Doesn't Address Abortion" you could have been correct, in a tangential sort of way, and the article would have been ho-hum. Because it doesn't. You have to consider the implications (which is not a synonym for interpretation) of Je r 1:5 to get there.

But, you decided to go for clickbait, came up with a laughable headline, then fell flat on your face with a contrived spaghetti-like exegesis on Adam and Eve to make the point. Thank God (pun intended) that you weren't a first year theology student handing in a paper. They would have shown you the door.

But, then, yes, my bad. Instead of just saying "Jeremiah 1:5. Full stop." I made the mistake of trying to explain to somebody who doesn't like to be 'splained to as to why her rhetorical backflips kept landing her on her head.

But, in the end, it doesn't matter. It's a big world, and I'm sure there will be a rounding error of people who will somehow buy off on the notion that "The Bible Supports Abortion". It just won't be anyone with any background knowledge and scriptural understanding.

Pax.