Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Pro-life yams
James Hitchcock and the editors of Touchstone have published this editorial condemning believers who abandoned the abortion issue in the recent presidential election.
If 2008 is remembered as the year of the “bailout,” when the federal government spent billions to rescue the nation’s financial system, it should also be recalled for another kind of bailout—Christians with impeccably pro-life records who suddenly abandoned what they declared to be a sinking ship.
Abortion seemed to be one of the few issues on which Senator Barack Obama had an unambiguous and unchangeable position during the campaign, as he promised that “the first thing I’d do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” something that would nullify all existing laws restricting abortion.
Hitchcock goes on to make his case and proffer examples of Christians who’ve essentially forgotten about the unborn. Now, the abortion issue is a big one, possibly the most implicative, historical issue of this and recent generations – although it could be a long, long time before history recognizes that. But at the risk of drawing the ire of a thousand readers here, I might suggest that the issue is not as simple as A) voting for the pro-life candidate or B) voting for the pro-choice candidate. I’m not saying that we ignore a historic, foundational issue like the protection of the unborn – I’m just saying that Christians hurt their own cause by appearing to champion a single issue without consideration for other issues that are important, pressing, momentous, and so on. We have given the impression, at times, that we would support a candidate with the intellect of a yam, as long as he was pro-life. When yams aren’t always what the country needs.
back to top145 Comments to “Pro-life yams”
This article doesn’t make any sense, most voters voted for pro-abortion ‘yams’ in Obama and McCain, and ignored all-round sensible candidates who were also pro-life such as Alan Keyes and Ron Paul.
Report comment to moderator
An insightful set of observations.
Yet if you read some posters in this blog, abortion is the only issue. The economy and national security for example seem to take a rear seat to abortion, even if the anti-abortion candidate is indeed a yam.
Report comment to moderator
CJ – 1
Aren’t you aware that McCain IS pro-life?
Report comment to moderator
Here’s my stand on the issue, which many other Christians have come to as well. I will never vote for someone who is pro-abortion, no matter what. That person is disqualified from my list, morally disqualified. The pro-life candidate will not automatically win my vote, but the pro-abortion won’t earn it no matter what he does–he lost it at the start.
At least two of my siblings voted for Alan Keyes in this election (maybe writing him in, I’m not sure), and I toyed with going third party, and would have if McCain had chosen a weaker running mate.
Report comment to moderator
Harrison
YOU WRITE: “I’m just saying that Christians hurt their own cause by appearing to champion a single issue without consideration for other issues that are important, pressing, momentous, and so on. We have given the impression, at times, that we would support a candidate with the intellect of a yam, as long as he was pro-life. When yams aren’t always what the country needs.”
There is no “yam” to it Harrison – If slaughter of unborn babies is on the list of ANY politican I’m skipping them – What other “consideration” would you give? – OR, what would you tell the LORD someday when searching for an excuse as “consideration” for choosing someone with the morals of a selfish immoral human being?
Who’s the “YAM” Harrison? – are you referring to McCain, is that who you want to zero in on?
Report comment to moderator
The intrinsic value of human life as created in the image of God is NOT a single-issue. It is a FOUNDATIONAL issue. There is a huge difference. If a candidate gets the issue of life wrong, nothing else really matters because his/her foundation is undermined from the start. Maybe that makes me a yam too. If it does, that’s OK–in the immortal words of Popeye, “I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam.”
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Jim – 6
Can you hear us applauding? I just read your post, and then my husband read it – OUTSTANDING – your words hit the mark Pastor Jim,
Report comment to moderator
Yam VS pro abortion is a false dichotomy from the outset. I reject the premise on its face. It is an imagnined dillema.
If I lived 150 years ago I would be an abolishionist. The Dred Scott decision declared that blacks were less than human so inhuman treatment was permissible by law. Roe V Wade is the Dred Scott decision of this era and as long as it is enshrined in law I will do whatever I can to restore inalianable rights to the unborn. That means that I give money to groups that are working for legislative change, I put a bumper sticker on my car, I protest when the opportunity arises, I volunteer my time at my local Pregnancy Resource Center and I vote for politicians who are working to re-establish the rights of the unborn.
There are other important issues but as long as death to the unborn is enshrined in law there is no other moral issue that surpasses it in urgency. That doesn’t mean nothing else is considered in a candidate, but it surely means that if I have a choice between someone who is working to overturn Roe V Wade and someone who is trying to protect it, the obedient Christian has one choice.
Prov 24:12-13
“Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die.
Don’t try to avoid responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it. For God knows all hearts, and he sees you. He keeps watch over your soul, and he knows you knew! And he will judge all people according to what they have done.”
God spells it out VERY CLEARLY. We will be held accountable for saving life, not for our stand on economic policy, national health care, national security or any of the myriad concerns vying for Christians attention.
Report comment to moderator
Because of all the years I have spent researching this issue and working for pregnancy counseling centers, actually talking with women who choose to abort, I have tried to be rational and sympathetic. But when I got inside the voting booth and actually tried to be a spoiler in the Democratic primary (I’m a registered Independent and in California we can vote in either party’s primary), all I saw were people who supported abortion, supported abortion, supported abortion. Proudly.
My vote was unknown to anyone but God. But God saw how I voted. I couldn’t do it. I left president blank.
I’m sorry, but I can’t turn my back on my convictions nor my life. Let those who chose to put the most pro-abortion candidate ever into the White House deal with their God. I’m just glad it won’t be me.
Report comment to moderator
When you’re standing for what’s right, there is nothing you can do to impress the enemies of life with your erudition, sophistication, nuance, swingin’ cosmopolitanism, whatever. If they see you as a loser, it’s because they want to cast you in that way, the better to dismiss your argument and quiet their doubts. But departing from your conscience now and then is no way to earn their respect.
Do the mockers say it makes us inert, stupid, and subhuman to faithfully uphold first principles year after year on behalf of the weakest and most vulnerable, in witness to the sanctity of life? So be it. Their approval or disapproval is immaterial. The only word that matters is “well done” from the lips of the Master.
We will eventually prevail. Our children’s children will recoil in horror at the slaughter of the innocents and wonder why we didn’t do more to stop it.
Which prolife candidate are we describing as a “yam,” by the way.
Report comment to moderator
I make the following points.
1. James Hitchcock is a Roman Catholic. His views regarding fetal life derive from Roman Catholic theology and not from Scripture. Catholic theology also commands that capital punishment is a sin.
2. Protestants have historically rejected this aspect of Catholic theology because it stands on shaky Biblical footing. Thus, Protestants churches have historically refused to classify abortion as murder.
3. As Protestants, we recognize that the Church’s authority comes from Scripture, and not from popes. Because Scripture provides no sound basis for condemning abortion as murder, faithful Protestants recognize that no church has authority to bind the conscience of those who do not believe that abortion is murder.
4. Caught up in the bloodlust of the “Culture Wars,” many Protestants have sought to bind other Christians’ conscience on the question of whether abortion is murder. In so doing, they have cut themselves off from 450 years of Protestant ethics and ecclesiology, and have abandoned the principle that Scripture alone guides the church in making conscience-binding proclamations.
5. This does not imply that abortion is not a serious social policy issue. Abortion often implicates a host of other conduct which Scripture does clearly condemn.
6. It is always wrong to put Scripture into the service of any social program. It was wrong for the so-called liberals in the 1920s and 1930s to draft Scripture into the service of the Social Gospel. It is wrong today for so-called conservatives to draft Scripture into the service of the Culture War.
7. Culture Warriors have often sought to reshape Scripture and the Gospel to fit their social and political agendas. They have often sought to make their social/political gospel a test of orthodoxy in many Protestant communions. For example, a Southern Baptist minister in North Carolina excommunicated members of his church who voted for John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election.
8. I do not begrudge some fellow Protestants their belief that abortion is murder. Although I believe that this view represents theological error on their part, it is not such a serious error as to warrant excommunication. I ask that they extend the same filial charity to their fellow believers who stand on principle by refusing to condemn as murder that which Scripture refuses to condemn as murder.
9. Hitchcock’s screed makes perfect sense when one considers that he is a Roman Catholic. In fact, if he is genuine in his Catholic beliefs, his conduct is entirely warranted. Of course, Hitchcock’s screed reminds me of why I am happy to be a Presbyterian!
Report comment to moderator
HSK,
it would seem that pretty much all the posts save Evan’s post 11 would seem to prove your apparent point in starting this discussion.
Report comment to moderator
10. Aborted fetuses are not innocent. To the extent that the fetus represents a human life in God’s eyes, the fetus is of the seed of Adam. Accordingly, the fetus would stand under God’s just condemnation, and could be redeemed only by the free grace of Christ. Innocence is not an option (unless you’re a Pelagian).
Report comment to moderator
I think respecting life is a foundational principle–and the starting point for how you respect life in all its different ages from conception. I actually am attracted to the Catholic ideas of a seamless attitude toward life issues–which means we don’t favor the death penalty and we work for social justice.
I don’t like how the pro-life voters have been used by the Republican party for most of my adult life, which is why I am no longer a Republican. I am sympathetic to the argument that politics is a game of small wins and many compromises. I’m not convinced that a Christian would make the best president–I’d just like someone who respected my beliefs as well as he listened to his lobbyists.
What has happened in the US the last couple elections is people of conviction have had to choose between the lesser of two evils. I have voted against candidates the last three elections, not voted for someone whom I wholeheartedly supported. I’m not sure how to change that course of affairs–I’m not a political animal.
But I have read history a long time and know from the book of Isaiah that God uses governments–even secular governments–to accomplish his purposes. My role as a Christian now, is to pray that God will be glorified even if I did not vote for the president-elect.
And the good news is, God will be glorified. It just remains to be seen how.
Report comment to moderator
Evan,
You certainly play with words, but you have made no sense – Did you read the Scripture that P Pat gave in post #8? If not, I will post it for you now.
It would be only appropriate to read Proverbs 6, as you posted:
“10. Aborted fetuses are not innocent.” Obviously the Word of GOD has something to say about “innocent blood” which you have missed, most likely due to lack of Bible study.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 15,
interesting Bible quotes, but it would seem that you have neither:
1) refuted evan’s original points
2) nor provided evidence that abortion is biblicallyu a sin
I sense that you appear to be missing at least one logical step of which perhaps one is the one evan alluded to: by what argument is the fetus innocent?
And the impact of original sin here?
Report comment to moderator
michelle post 14,
but what makes conception itself significant?
Report comment to moderator
Who are you saying has the intellect of a yam, Harrison? McCain? Bush?
Frankly, I’d rather have the intelligence of a vegetable than the haughtiness and pride of a pseudo-intellectual blogger who looks down on faithful Christians.
Are you guys here on a mission to alienate your readers? Are you on a mission to copy the mainline denominations by watering down historic doctrine because of ephemeral political issues?
Are you seriously saying that appearances are more important than substance? Right, we sure wouldn’t want people to think we actually care about the mechanized killing of unborn people as a fundamental issue. How absolutely gauche that would be. We might lose our dignified reputation as reasonable, sophisticated, scholarly Christians who only believe the Bible in the privacy of our own homes.
Evan, your post is one long spuriously sophistical justification for abortion, and I don’t buy any of your “highly nuanced” points. How, exactly, does Roman Catholic theology determine the pro-life position? What documentation can you supply that proves “Protestant churches have historically refused to classify abortion as murder”? Scripture does indeed say, “Thou shalt not kill.” What exactly is abortion but the killing of a live organism? Your fourth point is a dubious and rests on the false claims of your previous points. With your 5th point (”It is wrong today for so-called conservatives to draft Scripture into the service of the Culture War”), are you saying that our religious beliefs–but not those of liberals (including Obama, I think) who believe homosexual marriage should be allowed based on the Sermon on the Mount–should have no impact on our public speech or action? We should keep our beliefs to ourselves, as if that’s possible? Your point is doubly fallacious–first, because you talk as if life can be split into these completely separate spheres, as we have a social life and a religious life and never the twain shall meet–and second because you assume that abortion is primarily a political rather than a moral issue. As for your 7th point, good for them. Good for those Christians who actually take their beliefs seriously. It seems such are becoming a minority today. Re: #8, God says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Abortion was condemned in the Didache (late 1st/early 2nd century). There’s no excuse for a Christian to condone abortion. An individual’s acceptance of abortion indicates that he has some serious spiritual issues that need to be exposed and dealt with. Your 9th point is just opinionated tripe. It’s so-called Protestants like you (and many who write for this blog) who are teaching the rest of us to appreciate more and more the unashamed and uncompromising witness of Roman Catholics to the fundamental sins of our culture of death. They stand firm while evangelicals slip farther and farther into the stupefying ether of the emergent “church” model. As for your 10th point, we understand innocence to mean the kind that would preclude the taking of life. The Bible says, as you seem to be aware of in your 1st point, that capital punishment is appropriate when the object of it has been shown to be guilty of evildoing. Humans are conceived in sin, but we do not kill everyone simply because of that. Unborn babies developing in the safety of their mothers’ wombs have committed no crime worthy of receiving this sentence meted out to them at the rate of 1.3 million per year.
And you know it. I wonder, Evan, if you’ve taken part in abortions in the past? Has your girlfriend or wife ever had an abortion to which you consented?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, I should have said, “What exactly is abortion but the killing of a live human being?”
Report comment to moderator
Evan,
On what biblical basis is abortion not murder? The burden of proof is actually on you, sir, since clearly God created life in the womb. Must Scripture explicitly say that killing a ten-month-old infant is murder, or can we make exception for infants also? Does Scripture specifically say it’s murder to kill an old person who can no longer work? Does it specifically say that we can’t kill handicapped people? Since we know that the fetus is human, and God says we are not to murder those made in the image of God (and specifically that we do not kill the “innocent,” which means that even God sees relative innocence in some people), the burden of proof is on you to show why this particular killing of innocent human life is not murder.
I wish you had specified which Presbyterian denomination you belong to, because it’s garbage like this that caused the PCA to withdraw from the PC(USA), and which makes people like me specifically tell those who inquire after my denomination, “I’m Presybeterian–PCA, the conservative branch, not the liberal ones that you hear about.”
Report comment to moderator
Good for Touchstone, by the way. If I get the opportunity, I’ll recommend that people subscribe to that rather than any of its competitors.
Report comment to moderator
And Harrison, I heard an excellent rebuttal recently of the argument that “other issues are just as important as abortion.” None of the other issues that people list as “just as important” are included in the Ten Commandments. This one is. This one is basic.
Yes, the poor (for example) are important–but nowhere does God give care of the poor into the hands of the state. He does give the state the right to punish murderers. Thus, a politician who would not only not condemn murderers, but support them, is in the wrong field–he is not morally qualified for the job he is seeking, and even apart from morality, he doesn’t understand the role he is seeking.
Report comment to moderator
Harrison’s post needs some names and more details. As others have asked, who is/are the yam/s? Which solidly pro-life politician is only a pro-life politician and nothing else? Who’s the yam who only campaigns based on his pro-life stance without bothering to articulate anything else?
Pro-lifers are justified in expressing their view that life is the most important socio-political issue (and something has to top the list, doesn’t it?), but they hold and voice opinions about many other issues as well, Musing’s irrelevancies in this thread notwithstanding. This, too, is where Harrison needs to supply some detail. How has he determined that vocal pro-lifers are only pro-lifers who view everything else as irrelevant? I bet a good percentage of them can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
David L post 19,
possibly the killing of cells which may possibly be human at a latter time?
What permeates much of the anti-abortion rhetoric is the failure to:
1) clearly define humanness in a form which is truly operational
2) understand that the typpical argument that a fertilized egg is human since it has the potential to become a fully developed human does not in and of itself differentiate a feretilized egg from a skin cell
And this intellecutal incompleteness of the argument means that, as evan notes, traditional religions may not consider abortion as murder AND the argument is failing in the U.S. political market of ideas.
When combined with HSK’s comments about yams, which is observed in the actual discussions and is being reproduced in this discussion as well, it is no wonder that abortion is failing in the political marketplace (c.f failure of a number of anti-aboriton efforts in the 2008 elections).
In short the eclipse of the social conservative candidates in the 2008 election threatens to potentially make social conservatvism and the anti-abortion effort a highly regionalized effort in terms of majority support in this country.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D post 22,
but what specfiic Biblical verse explicitly says that abortion is murder?
When asked this question the usual response is a set of Bible verses whcih some interpret as arguing aborttion is murder, but which do not in fact clearly and simply demonstrate this point.
By contrast Exodus 21:22 [NIV}:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.
where the footnote “Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage ” clarifies the word as meaning miscarriage, would seem to refute a Biblical model that the fetus is of the same level of humaness as a person who has been born.
In short, I suggest that your apparent argument that Biblically abortion is considered murder is an interpretation and one which is arguably not as well established as your post would seem to imply.
Report comment to moderator
It is an interesting observation that the 2008 election suggests that social conservatvies are modestly successful with an anti-homosexual message but not successful with an anti-abortion message.
Based on many of these comments, it would seem that given the importance of abortion (and the lack of comments on homosexuality) that the social conservative agenda is indeed in a state of severe disarray.
Report comment to moderator
A look at the Strong’s concordance discussion of Exodus 21:22:
Exodus 21:22 concordance
would seem to make it clear here that the issues under discussion by the verse is the loss of the fetus and that such a loss is not considered direct mischief to the woman nor is such a loss considered the same as murder.
Report comment to moderator
From the OP : I might suggest that the issue is not as simple as A) voting for the pro-life candidate or B) voting for the pro-choice candidate.
You’re absolutely right. In the recent election, it was much more complicated, A) Holding your nose and voting for the pro-life candidate or B) Sticking your head up your behind and voting for the pro-choice candidate or C) Rolling your eyes, sighing heavily, and voting some third party.
I’m not saying that we ignore a historic, foundational issue like the protection of the unborn – I’m just saying that Christians hurt their own cause by appearing to champion a single issue without consideration for other issues that are important, pressing, momentous, and so on.
Do pro-aborts worry about “hurting their cause” by their single-mindedness? Are they concerned that their rhetoric might be a little strident when they screech about abortion restrictions killing innocent women?
Abortion and most other issues travel together. I’d be interested to know of a candidate who was “pro-choice” on abortion but agreed with a Biblical position on, oh, property rights, forced redistribution of wealth, marriage, or parental rights. [I'll admit that McCain is weak on some of those, but that's why few Christians voted for him in the primaries.] Sure, there are issues other than abortion. They’re called “secondary issues,” and a candidate’s abortion position is a pretty good predictor of his positions on them.
Now, as to the “pro-life yam,” I’d say Gary Bauer fits the description, but he isn’t getting anywhere.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN (13): 10. Aborted fetuses are not innocent. To the extent that the fetus represents a human life in God’s eyes, the fetus is of the seed of Adam. Accordingly, the fetus would stand under God’s just condemnation …
Frank: You are equivocating on the meaning of the word “innocent.”
There is a vital difference between the unborn not being “innocent” in God’s eyes (because he is a child of Adam) and his not being “innocent” in the eyes of the civil magistrate.
The unborn certainly bears the taint of Original Sin, and thus stands under the judgment of God and the curse of eternal death (apart from a work of saving grace being done in his life).
But the unborn has obviously not committed any crime, let alone one which could be adjudicated by a civil magistrate to be worthy of the death penalty.
No man is “innocent” in God’s eyes. But that is not what is meant when we say abortion results in the “death of the innocent” — and you know it.
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
Re: Exodus 21:22 the Hebrew is “fruit” and is most commonly used to designate baby. Nowhere else to my knowledge is it used to mean fetus, making that meaning unlikely here. It is merely special pleading. The NIV, as is true of most modern translations, is based on more discovered documentation, earlier texts, and supporting extra biblical texts that provide important cultural and linguistic cues. It is the stronger one.
Your misguided and persistent attempt to liken embryos to skin cell clusters is willful biological ignorance. Time to stop musing and start thinking. Fertilization creates a new biological entity that shares and blends the DNA of both parents. Skin cell, while human, contain no outside DNA. It is not genetically distinct from the person. That is why it can be used forensically to determine suspects’ involvement in crimes.
Biology proves that from fertilization on we are dealing with an entity that is living, human, and genetically distinct from the mother. “Person” is a legal definition. Human being is first biological, then moral. From fertilization on we have an individual human. Metaphysical judgments about “consciousness, viability, or “humanness in a form which is truly operational” are the secularist version of “ensoulment” that are too subjective to offer moral clarity.
All humans are guilty before God unless declared righteous by Him through trusting in Christ. Most humans and all unborn ones are innocent before our law. Scripture and ordinary human language often employ the word innocent without consideration of precise theological formulations. It is sophistry to raise the point in this discussion.
The right to life is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, whose broad themes are implemented in the Constitution. It is the Constitution’s political implementation of the Declaration that creates a dependence that Judge Bork argued justified Brown v. The Topeka Board of Education and Lincoln used to justify refusing to accept the Secession of the Confederate States.
As a citizen of this country who appreciates its tradition and ideals, I would find it extremely difficult to support a candidate who was so fundamentally wrong. I’m not sure who these “yams” are that I stand accused of blindly backing. No one candidate in any party perfectly incarnates all I would be looking for, and if one did, I would be very suspicious of him or her and myself.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle (9): I think in California independents can receive primary ballots for parties other than Republican?
After having an open primary system for a while, my memory is that a court challenge resulted in letting the parties decide if their ballots could be ‘open’ to independents; Democrats said yes, Republicans said no — so I believe independents can cast a vote in the Democratic race, but not vote for any of the Republicans.
If independents could vote on any of the primary ballots, I’d be tempted to go back to being an independent. But since I most often vote for the republican candidates, I like being able to have a voice in that party’s primary selections.
Report comment to moderator
#18
Wow! Excellent! Thank you for posting.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, there are some excellent comments on here by a number of pro-life people. Good job and thank you. (I’m simply too tired to make my own arguments right now, and I appreciate that I don’t have to do so, because they’ve been made already and so well.)
Report comment to moderator
I will never vote for someone who is pro-abortion, no matter what.
Doesn’t this depend on what the meaning of “pro-abortion” is? For example, would you vote for a president who refused to invade The Netherlands in order to stop abortion there? Or, a president who refused to send the Union Army into Vermont to stop abortion there?
In law, if not in language and logic, there’s a difference between “pro-” and “not anti-”. The question is, what degree of anti-abortion-icity do you require?
And just exactly what kind of a criminal regime would you enforce?
Report comment to moderator
Touchstone: . . . this “solution” is also based on the assumption that poverty is the motive for abortions, whereas in fact abortion is the sacred cause of the upper middle class.
According to the CDC, “The abortion ratio for black women (472 per 1,000 live births) was 2.9 times the ratio for white women (161 per 1,000) . . .” in 2004. The abortion rate was also about 3 times higher for black women. This CDC report doesn’t provide data correlating abortion with socioeconomic status, but the high incidence of abortion in a lower group, particularly one for whom female employment is sometimes critical, suggests that poverty and the desire to avoid poverty motivate abortion.
In three or four years, we’ll have data about the frequency of abortion in the 2008/9 recession.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm
Report comment to moderator
Touchstone: . . . the long-discredited claim that the Catholic Church has not always condemned abortion . . .
Some of the Church Fathers, for example, Augustine, thought the moral status of the fetus was ambiguous or unknowable.
Report comment to moderator
Musing–
I’m not as clever as you are nor am I a debator, so I can’t speak except out of my own research or experience. It seems to me life has to start somewhere and in the beginning, conception, makes the most sense.
About that blob of tissue–I don’t think I’ve talked with anyone, including teenagers, in probably 15 years who has tried that argument. Most of the unhappily pregnant women I speak with know very well they are terminating a life; many don’t really believe in abortion, but are looking for the loophole for themselves.
One girl actually told me, “I don’t think you should be able to have six or seven abortions. But I think you should be allowed one or two because everyone makes a mistake.”
I was gentle with her because she was young; but her reasoning was selfish–like that of most, but not all, women I speak with.
Ask yourself this question–as my parents did: to which of your relatives do you want to sign over your health care power of attorney? The one who is ardently pro-abortion, or the one who is pro-life?
My parents didn’t think twice–it went to me, “because we know you’ll do the right thing.”
That’s why it’s important politicians at least respect a pro-life position–because that’s who I’m more likely to trust with the bigger issues. Jesus reminded us, “he who is faithful in a little is also faithful in much.” The politicians I’m more likely to trust is the one who isn’t encouraging me to kill myself, or my children.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING (24): … 1) clearly define humanness in a form which is truly operational
FRANK: The Scriptures teach that the unborn is the very handiwork of God Almighty:
Psalm 139:
13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
They also teach that the unborn is a person who is both knowable … and knowing:
Jeremiah 1:
5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Luke 1:
39 Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah,
40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth.
41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
As a person, the unborn bears the very image of God, and thus is worthy of all the protections against unjust violence that God’s Law accords all persons:
Genesis 9:
6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God he made man.
MUSING (24): … 2) understand that the typpical argument that a fertilized egg is human since it has the potential to become a fully developed human does not in and of itself differentiate a feretilized egg from a skin cell
FRANK: Others have already adequately dealt with your false analogy. Suffice to say that a fertilized egg and a skin cell are fundamentally differentiated in that the latter will not develop into a human being.
Ever.
Report comment to moderator
Ken post 30,
so are you reje3cting both the NIV version and the concordance argument that this verse refers to miscarriage?
If so, on what do you base your argument?
Your comment regarding blending of cells of both parents would then arguably reject any clone as an indepndent entity. Dolly demonstrates the failure of this argument. Further, you are left with the interpretation of identical twins. In short, this argument literally does not hold up under scrutiny and efforts to reject out of hand the skin cell argument without providing a clear definition of humaness is to effectviely pretend that the challenge does not exist. At root the issue is humaness and the unique DNA argument is insufficient as the identical twin example trivially shows.
You are correct: ““Person” is a legal definition. ” and this is defined by the Born Alive protection act as occurring at birth. I believe that this combined with the supreme court argument on viability and the classic arguments that one person can not be compelled to undergo physiological challenge for the sake of another all binrg the argument of rights of the fetus into strong legal dispute. When combined with the Biblcal example, I believe it is fair to say that, wiothout providing significant additional data to the discussion, the case is closed and closed against the argued rights of the fetus.
In short it is worth noting that besides the unique DNA argument, which fails the twin test, you have provided no no information to the discussion, you have not explicitly refuted any of my points, and yet peculiarly you appear to suggest that your opinion on this issue should out wiegh the evidence available.
I suggest that this is truly weak argumentation indeed.
Report comment to moderator
Fanbk in Spokane post 38,
excellnet Bible quotes, but which of them expliucitly states that abortion is murder?
By contrast Exodus 21:22 explicitly states that ending the life of a fetus is not murder.
I suggest you will need to research the Biblical examples more thoroughly than this to prove your point.
Report comment to moderator
I suggest that problem here is that given an explicit Biblical verse discussing the status of the fetus and indiciating that tkilling the fetus is not murder and that to disprove this example one needs to pursue one of the following options:
1) show that this verse is incorrectly translated and interpreted
- tough since the meaning here appears to be clear
2) provide clear scriptural evidence that this passage was specifically refuted
- I am unaware of any such material
3) provide a preponderance of explicit countering material to offset the explicit example
- this is the approach usually used BUT none of the produced material so far explicitly discusses abortion or the rights of the fetus
Fank in Spokane has provided no such evidence and neither have previous posters on this topic. Until a realisitic refutation of the Exodus reference is made I suggest that:
1) arguing scripturally that abortion is murder is at best weakly and indirectly supported and is reather a personal opinion
2) it is inappropriate therefore to claim unconditionally that support for abortion as un-Biblical. Indeed the majority of protestant denominations do not appear to consider it un-Biblical and Evan has provided a clear and coherent detailed discussion on this point
In the interim, then I siggest the best one can claim is it is their opinion that Biblically abortion is murder AND as such the all too often flinging of the word murder around in this discussion is not supported and does nto help push the discussion forward.
Report comment to moderator
CONTENTED-JOY (!): This article doesn’t make any sense, most voters voted for pro-abortion ‘yams’ in Obama and McCain …
VICTORIA (3): Aren’t you aware that McCain IS pro-life?
FRANK: Victoria, do you consider a man to be “pro-life” when he supports the right to an abortion in the cases of rape and incest?
Report comment to moderator
Michelle post 37,
now your comment here:
“It seems to me life has to start somewhere and in the beginning, conception, makes the most sense.”
seems to me to be an honest statement. However, the key words you use are “It seems to me”. And of course I can then respond that it seems to me …
I believe we can all agree that a viable baby born alive should be considered human (in fact this is now written into Federal Law).
I don’t believe any mourn the loss of a skin cell.
Conception is inadequate as a dividing line since, as Peter Leavitt pointed out, embryos can occur by processes other than conception.
So I make the observation that we have two end points, a skin cell and a viable baby and in between we literally have no objective criteria for making a decisiuon. Indeed at some level establishing the line is arbitrary.
Which is why I find the supreme court calling upon fetal viability and the inherent inability of the law to compel a person to undergo physiological harm for the good of another as a reasonable interim model. Which of course is an inherent ratification of the validity of the Roe v Wade decission.
I suggest that when we develop effective means for bringing embryos to term without a human uterus, we will yet again face a philoisophical challenge: will this mean every cell must then needs be protected as a potential human? This result seems absurd, and when we come to facing this question directly the implausibility of the every embryo must be protected argument will be finally shown for the false question which it truly is: we have never nor will we ever be in a positioon to allow every potential embryo to develop to birth (multiple levels of issue here, so if you find this interesting, I suggest it will be a long discussion).
Report comment to moderator
Michelle post 37,
no I suggest that a blastocyst is in fact a “blob” of cells. Indeed this is why I foucs much of my thoughts to this early stage of development: befoire any true differentiation has occurred.
And this blob of cells is indeed indistigusihable from a set of stem cells which are beginning to divide: again there is an important construct in this statement.
And we provide no legal protections for unimplanted embryos other than property just as we provide no legal protection for dividing stem cells.
Now it is a fair question to argue that perhaps differentiation is a useful demarcation here. But of course this is arbitrary demarcation itself.
In short, until the social conservatives clearly address head on the definition of humaness and demonstrate that this definition is operationally useful for these questions, I suggest that they are merely expressing their personal opinions, but that there is in fact no moral foundation to their arguments.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle at #37,
I know this is an emotional issue, but blatant exaggeration doesn’t help anybody’s cause. I’ve never met a single abortion-rights supporter who encouraged others to “kill themselves or their children.” Many (if not most) abortion-rights supporters in the U.S. think abortion is a terrible thing.
You may still think they’re promoting murder, but misrepresenting them as abortion enthusiasts won’t help you make your point. Yes, there are probably extremists who “encourage” people to have abortions, but they don’t represent mainstream abortion-rights supporters.
Saying that someone “doesn’t believe in” abortion is similarly slippery. Abortion is a fact—it’s been around almost as long as humans have been recording history. That in itself doesn’t make it right, of course, but using the language of belief (as if supporting legalized abortion were a kind of religion) is an underhanded way to go about slandering your opponents.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING (40): excellnet Bible quotes, but which of them expliucitly states that abortion is murder?
FRANK: Some things in Scripture are not said in an explicit manner, but rather are deduced by valid and compelling reason (or what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls “good and necessary consequence”). I realize such an explanation is not satisfying to one such as yourself who either doesn’t believe that God exists, or that He hasn’t revealed Himself (His character and will) to mankind. But here goes:
Christians believe the self-validating testimony of Scripture, including:
1) That it is the very Word of God;
2) That it teaches mankind all things necessary to faith (belief) and life (deeds); and
3) That because of the first two points, we are obligated to know and study Scripture, for our obedience and God’s glory.
So, no. There is no verse saying “Thou shalt not kill that which grows within the womb, for to do so is murder.” But there is ample testimony in Scripture that the child within the womb is still a child — one’s offspring, made in God’s image, and thus worthy of the protections of life that the law accords all people.
MUSING (40): By contrast Exodus 21:22 explicitly states that ending the life of a fetus is not murder.
FRANK: It says nothing of the sort — whether explicitly or implicitly.
First, here is the pertinent passage:
First, note the circumstance leading to the injury: Men fighting each other. Their violence is not directed against the pregnant mother, but against each other. The pregnant mother is a bystander to their fighting.
Second, note that two possible outcomes are described: The child is delivered prematurely, and either 1) “no harm follows,” or 2) “harm follows.” (Note well that the language doesn’t say whether the harm is to the mother or to the unborn child.)
And third, note that when harm does follow, the punishment is to fit the offense: life for life, eye for eye, etc.
So on the one hand, the reason this passage doesn’t equate the death of the unborn with murder is because the passage isn’t describing murder (the intentional killing of the innocent) but something more akin to “criminal negligence.”
Nevertheless, from the “life for life, eye for eye” punishment required, it can still be argued that the value of the life, limb and faculties of unborn is equal to the life, limb and faculties of the assailants.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle post 37,
this comment:
“The one who is ardently pro-abortion, or the one who is pro-life?”
would seem to be beside the point. We have on all sides agreed that post birth humanness is attrbitued to the entity. You would appear top be confounding abortion with euthanaisa.
Unbless you can develop a much more clearly defined line of connection than you have (and such a line of reasoning I suggest will have to face head on the definition of humanness) this is not a logical statement but arguably an emotionally inflamatory statement which in no way furthers the discussion.
Hit the definition of humannes head on, show that is is valid for all conditions and then perhaps we can have a valid and reasoned discussion.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING (43): … we have two end points, a skin cell and a viable baby …
FRANK: What is the basis for your continued referral in this thread to “skin cells”?
Do you honestly think there is no distinction between a skin cell and a fertilized human egg?
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane post 46,
you statement:
“Some things in Scripture are not said in an explicit manner,”
is valid, Hwever, then please don’t pretend that these non-explicit statements from the Bible refute a clear and explicit statemenmt from the Bible.
I have provided three possible approaches to attacking this interpretation of Exodus 21:22. You appear to have chosen none of them.
Report comment to moderator
Frankin spokane post 46,
of course when you give the following argument:
“22 If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, ”
which is inconsistent with the translation provicded by the NIV and I suggest the Strong’s concordance.
On what basis do you assert that your translation is most correct?
If you can not refute the NIV translation and the Strong’s concordance material, then I suggest we are at best in a draw and my interpretation is supportable.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane post 46,
now your statemwent:
“First, note the circumstance leading to the injury: Men fighting each other. Their violence is not directed against the pregnant mother, but against each other. The pregnant mother is a bystander to their fighting”
is true BUT since this is the only explicit statement reagarding the rights of the fetus then I suggest that this is the most german material we have.
All of your material is by your own admission inferential.
Report comment to moderator
Frank at #46,
Jewish tradition has always interpreted Exodus 21:22 as referring to miscarriage, not premature delivery. The two would have been essentially equivalent in biblical times, anyway.
You can translate the passage to get the “premature” reading if you wish, but you should acknowledge that in so doing you’re breaking with the historical reading.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane post 46,
I suggest your comment:
“Second, note that two possible outcomes are described: The child is delivered prematurely, and either 1) “no harm follows,” or 2) “harm follows”
is inconsistent with my understanding of the NIV material and the Strong’s concordance.
To pursue this line of reasoning further, I suggest you need to now go back to the original Hebrew, which is why I introduced Strong’s concordance for support. And if you attenpt to go here, I of course ask you what is the original Hebrew?
Until then my interpretation is as valid as yours and we are at a standoff.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in spokane post 46,
and as you note:
“Nevertheless, from the “life for life, eye for eye” punishment required, it can still be argued that the value of the life, limb and faculties of unborn is equal to the life, limb and faculties of the assailants. ”
and since these are specfiically addressed as part of this material in verses 23 etc. I suggest that this clearly demarcates the death of the fetus form that of harm to humans.
Report comment to moderator
Quite simply the scriptural argument in its simple form is a dead end and results in at best a draw allowing either side on the abortion issue to maintain its position, which indeed mirrors the actuality of the theological discussion, as evan notes in his post.
I suggest then that an alternate model of argumentation must be developed. My belief is that the most viable approach is in developing a clear and general model of humanness. That the anti-abortion forces appear so reluctant to pursue this path I suggest demonstrates their own understanding of the fragility of their arguments.
Report comment to moderator
Perce post 52,
thank you for your clarification here.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t followed the thread; I often read the posting and respond directly to that, which is the case on this one.
But here’s my 2 cents: if a candidate can’t get it right that killing babies is morally wrong, then I can’t vote for him. His/her moral compass is broken, and I don’t care what his other views are.
And I’m not living with my head in the sand either. I have small children that I want to raise in a Christian home, and I believe that Christians in America have the most to lose (homeschooling, the right to bear arms, the right to worship Jesus, etc.) I get it. But I still can’t bless anyone who believes that killing babies is OK.
In that light, I had to stand by and watch millions of easily duped, un-thinking fools put a charlatan in the Oval Office a few weeks ago. Where can I take my wife and kids and run from that?
Report comment to moderator
Dav post 57,
the vatican?
Report comment to moderator
Dav post 57,
more seriously:
1) no one is making you stop home schooling
- you will have to meet governmental or college standards for this schooling to be externally recognized
2) no one is taking away your right ot bear arms
- in fact this has recently been strnegthened not weakened
3) you still have the full right to worship whomever you choose
- you can n ot have introduce this worship into the governmental arena
In short, you are for the issues you raised, effectviely no worse off than you were before Nov. 4.
After this Nov. 4, however, conservative Christians are no longer in a position to use their minority coalition presence to maneuver to introduce their religious perspectvies into society and government as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
Err on the side of grace and you can safely assume the pregnant soon-to-be mama dog has little doggies in her. The pregnant woman has a little person in her. And a person’s a person no matter how small, sayeth Horton the Elephant.
Report comment to moderator
Forgive me, I guess I was too subtle. I was talking about a seamless pro-life approach to these issues.
It’s the culture of death I’m objecting to–the idea that the best solution to a problem (be it an unwanted pregnancy, or disagreeable ailing elderly relative, or even a handicapped person) is to kill him or her. When a politician–any politician–tells me the best way to solve a difficulty is to terminate the life of a person, my shackles go up and I don’t trust him or her. Because who can know for sure how long you and I will be meaningful participants in society? Especially one as materialist and production-focused as ours?
Yes, abortion has been going on for a long time. Marvin Olasky’s book, Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America, details some staggering numbers from the late 19th century. I see my job as a Christian to offer a helping hand to women in a crisis pregnancy. And I’m to help without judgment.
I’m sorry if I offended you, Perce; I actually try not to be offensive because I agree with you that most abortion-supporters in our country are not blood thirsty. But I think a lot of them are blinded–often willfully–to the slippery slope of their arguments.
I’ve heard a lot of ugly,in-your-face, things in the last 30 years. I’d rather err on the side of life than death.
Report comment to moderator
Musing post #59: interesting comment at the end there. However, having once been a radical liberal waaaay back in the day, I know that just wanting to be left alone (now as a conservative Christian) won’t cut it anymore. The radical left has an agenda, and it’s pushing it forward. Part of that agenda is to eliminate the overtly Christian cultural aspects of American society.
If you are convinced that the conservative Christian right has lost its ability to introduce their perspectives into gov’t, then at least have the courage to admit that now the radical left has that much more power to do the very same thing.
We don’t live in a vacuum. Either one side or the other gets to rule, and for now it looks like the radical left is in the driver’s seat. Me and my ilk have every reason to believe that our rights are about to be attacked.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle post 61,
you were not being to subtle. I suggest you were over generralizing. Conflating euthanasia with abortion conflates two issues which you have not logically linked together and which I suggest do not necessarily link together.
Again I challenge you to define humannes. That you have not done se I suggest demonstrates that you realize that you are unable to do so in a coherent and general manner. And in failing to do so, you ensure that your abortion position is your opinion, but a weakly supported opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Dav post 62,
actually I have suggested previously and suggest yet again: Obama is far less libveral than his supporters suppose. I have been saying this at least since the conventions.
As such, I suggest that a far liberal agenda is constrained perhaps just as much as a far right agenda.
I will say, however, that the liberal agenda does not portend to insert religion into politics. The conservative Christian agenda would appear to explicitly propose to do so (can we have one more discussion of the ten commandments and its impact on government
).
I suggest your statement here:
“Either one side or the other gets to rule,”
suffers the classic excluded middle problem: perhaps it is now the turn of the center to rule?
Report comment to moderator
Musing & Perce,
I’m trying to understand what you are saying here, so indulge me:
Are you saying that the word “miscarriage” implies that the unborn is somehow less than human, while “gives birth prematurely” somehow favors the idea that the unborn is fully human?
Report comment to moderator
Frankin spokane post 65,
the argument is that Exodus 21:22 does not indicate that a miscarriage is of the same form of harm as say injuring a human after birth.
This has traditionally been understood to mean that abortion is not considered murder and may under some conditons be reasonable supportabler.
And there are no Biblical materials to unequivocally refute this interpretation.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING (54): … this clearly demarcates the death of the fetus form that of harm to humans.
FRANK: But the fetus is human. He is objectively and demonstrably homo sapiens.
Your argument isn’t that he’s not human, but rather that he’s not not a person, thus not deserving of legal protections against unjust violence.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose I should not be surprised by the thin-skinned reactions by pro-life zealots.
No, David, I have never taken part in any abortion, and have not even known anyone who has. Nice try with the ad hominem attack, though.
What is my concern, you ask? I fear that many pro-lifers have become more interested in fighting the Culture War than in proclaiming the free grace of Christ. For example, I have said nothing above that contradicts anything in the Westminster Confessions and Catechisms, and yet at least two PCA posters have questioned my faith. On what basis? Because I do not share in their pro-life populism? This is sound proof that many (even in the PCA) have confused the Culture War with the Gospel.
Our Southern Presbyterian forbears staunchly defended the Reformed doctrine of the “spirituality of the church.” And yet Cheryl D and others believe that they now possess a wisdom that Hodge, Thornwell, Palmer, and Dabney lacked? I doubt it!
I have no problem with the pro-life movement as a secular movement. I simply refuse to acknowledge that it is a Christian movement. Scripture allows for one Christian movement: the Church of Jesus Christ, which builds his kingdom by proclaiming the gospel and dispensing the sacraments. To the extent that the pro-life movement passes itself off as a type of church and causes dissension within Christ’s bride, it is an offense to Christ.
Scripture tells us that our primary enemies are sin and death, not secularists. God continually chastised Judah for fearing the Assyrians and the Babylonians more than they feared Him. By the same token, Culture Warriors appear to fear secularists more than they fear God.
Some above have suggested that I am a liberal. I prefer to call myself an Old School Southern Presbyterian churchman. I tend to view y’all as the liberals.
Report comment to moderator
Frank In Spokane,
now lets be careful here.
I am agreeing that you may perhaps be able to interpret scripture to assert that abortion is murder.
It is however, your own interpretation.
It is also possible to interpret the Bible to not prohibit abortion.
And again this is an interpretation.
And either can be derived from even an inerrant interpretatioon of the Bible (isn’t inerrancy wonderful!
).
And of course as such, neither side can insist on Biblical support for their position as being clear and unequivocal.
Which of course suggest the argument will need to be debated on other grounds than the Bible.
And hence my insistence on alternative argumentative forms including a clear definition of what is meant by humanness.
What is interesting is the paucity of aerguments wihc appear to be raise by the anti-abortion forces.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Serious Bible scholarship rarely relies on translations that result in dynamic equivalence, such as the NIV.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron post 70,
which is of course why I introduced Strong’s concordance.
A key concept of Biblical inerrancy as given in the Chicago Statement is that the true meaning is maintained despite the translations. If so then NIV is a valid source of information and when backed by Strong’s concordance I suggest becomes a very solid argument indeed.
If we do ot insist on Biblical inerrancy, then NIV is one of a number of translations useful to understand the meaning and again when supported by Strong’s concordance would seem to be a solid Biblical position.
If one is to attack a specific translation, then I suyggest it opens the venue to attack all translations. Shall we go down this path? It becomes fascinating indeed.
If you choose not to go down this path then you are tacitly admitting that the NIV version is a plausible trnaslation.
Your call, which approach do you want to take?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron post 70,
and are you suggesting that the traditional Jewish interpretation of this passage from the Hebrew does not consider this to refer to miscarriage?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron post 70,
and if you find the NIV to be problematic are you going to argue that it doesn’t treat Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 to 8:11 with more rigor than say the King James version?
One can complain about any translation and some of the most amusing Christian food fights are between people arguing over versions of the Bible.
However, if you are going to challenge a specfic translation of a specific passage, then lets look at the passage with a degree of academic rigor rather than just rejecting a given version a priori.
Report comment to moderator
Frank at #65,
The argument is that unborn embryos are not considered persons under Mosaic law. That’s not to say that they aren’t valued. Here’s a short description of attitudes toward abortion in Judaism:
Abortion, Judaism, and the Jews
The author strongly opposes legalized abortion on demand, but he acknowledges that Mosaic law does not accord embryos full rights as persons:
“Judaism does not assign the same status to the unborn child as to life after birth. Thus abortion is always permissible, indeed mandatory, when the mother’s life is threatened.”
This is all just to say that evangelical Christians who find an absolute prohibition of abortion in the Bible are engaging in ahistorical interpretation, to say the least.
Report comment to moderator
evan post 68,
very nicely written.
I admire your scholarship and thoughtfulness.
Report comment to moderator
Perce post 74,
my hat is off to you for the quality of your scholarship here.
Report comment to moderator
I think you made a good point, Evan, about not making pro-life opinions into an idol. It’s also important to look past the behavior and the opinions to see the person–who is usually hurting, often on both sides of the issue.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Musing.
I should note that I’m not arguing that Christians should necessarily stop trying to fight legalized abortion through political or cultural means. I think that for many (not all) evangelical and Catholic Christians, opposition to abortion is part of a coherent and reasonable worldview.
My beef is with bad reading. Too often evangelicals try to bully dissenters by pretending that their interpretation of scripture is the only way it has ever or could ever be read.
Report comment to moderator
Miochelle post 77,
on this I believe we can both agree on.
Report comment to moderator
Perce post 78,
I believe you and I are at this point coming from the same place: if one opposes abortion it is probably not useful to make a synthetic Biblical argument against it.
My personal opinion is that we need to look very hard at what we mean by human and consider the implications not just in abortion but in questions in general.
I find the DNA as human argument less than compelling: skin cells have our complete DNA and can be converted into an embryo today.
I find the human restricted to a subclass of living homo sapiens as equally bereft of logic (and hence the euthanasia as a direct follow on to abortion support nonsensical).
We need to do some deep thinking here and I suggest the discussions on neanderthals in a different thread are also germane. In fact since we share a great deal of our DNA with all living things, it opens the more general question of how we should relate to life in general.
I am fascinated that those who apparently argue that they are very concerned about humans do not seem to be concerned enough to try to understand what is meant by human.
Report comment to moderator
An article based on the Hebrew words of Exodus 21:22:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700
A paper arguing from scientific facts that life undeniably begins at conception:
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:white-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113
Report comment to moderator
Evan at 68,
“This is sound proof that many (even in the PCA) have confused the Culture War with the Gospel.” Well, no, I believe you’re in error here. First, this isn’t the Gospel (nobody said it was), it’s the Law; but Presbyterians don’t believe the Law is now irrelevant just because it’s Law and not Gospel. In no way is abortion secular “culture war” rather than a religious issue.
“I have no problem with the pro-life movement as a secular movement. I simply refuse to acknowledge that it is a Christian movement. Scripture allows for one Christian movement: the Church of Jesus Christ, which builds his kingdom by proclaiming the gospel and dispensing the sacraments. To the extent that the pro-life movement passes itself off as a type of church and causes dissension within Christ’s bride, it is an offense to Christ.”
I’ve never heard of anybody within pro-life organizations refer to their organizations as a church; clearly it’s parachurch. But they are doing something the bride of Christ ought to be doing–protecting and caring for widows and orphans. Is it an “offense to Christ” to feed the poor or offer housing to people? Was it an offense to Christ to protect Jews during the Holocaust or to work to get slavery outlawed? How is it “secular” to support one of the Ten Commandments? Causing dissension within the Church? If you mean there’s disagreement within the Church because some of you don’t agree with the pro-life side, that’s simply not reason to stop speaking out against murder; it means the “dissenters” need to repent.
I’m sure others can (and probably will) answer you better, but I can’t let this pass.
In short, I’d have to say your posts here show that you haven’t been very well taught either theologically or medically. Please do some research on these subjects.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – 82
Very well stated!
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I notice you didn’t actually refute my point that scholarship isn’t done with the NIV. I also am less concerned (read: not at all) with the traditional Jewish position, since I’m not Jewish, I’m Christian. Jesus often had problems with the “traditional Jewish interpretation” of things, you know.
I can’t tell you the last time I cracked open a KJV, so I can’t discuss the rigor you question above.
Would you be willing to conduct a serious discussion with someone who wanted to use a paraphrase?
Report comment to moderator
Davide L post 81,
quite clearly a fertilized egg is alive. So is a skin cell.
It is humanness which is of issue.
I am happy to agree that the interpretation of the wording of Exodus 21:22 is a subject of discussion and continues so to this day. The traditional Jewish understanding is clear, but I am happy to accept that others disagree.
The effect however if we insist on the disagreement is to remove the Biblical argument from the duscussion. And of course if you reenter it, I will begin the discussion of Exodus 21:22 from the beginning again.
Now shall we discuss humnanness and what this means?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron post 84,
I believe my point was that scholarship should be done with multiple sources. I suggested that a priori rejecting the NIV was inappropriate (which would I suggest be a refutation of your point), and provided some examples where it appeared to be suiperior to other Biblical versions often used in discussions.
And I note that you have not engaged in a detailed discussion of the meaning of the words in Exodus 21:22.
Report comment to moderator
David L. at #81,
The article you cite essentially proves my point about evangelical use of scripture.
The traditional reading of Exodus 21:22 was more or less completely uncontroversial until evangelicals decided that they opposed abortion (which wasn’t so long ago—the Southern Baptist Convention supported abortion rights as recently as the 1970’s), at which point they broke open their Hebrew dictionaries and decided that thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition had been reading Exodus 21:22 incorrectly.
Yes, you can do fancy stuff with a bit of clever exegesis. No, that doesn’t mean that your historically anomalous reading has God’s exclusive stamp of approval.
Report comment to moderator
Concerning the translation of Exodus 21:22:
The verb used here (yatsa) is a rather common verb that simply means “to go out” or “to come out” and normally refers to a literal, physical moving from one location to another. Figuratively, it can refer to release from bondage (but can still be translated “go out”, as in verses 2-5 of the same chapter of Exodus). The noun (yeled) is a broad term meaning “child” and can refer to newborns, toddlers, teenagers, and young men.
A literal rendering of the beginning of the verse (personal translation from the Hebrew) would be: “And if men fight and they hit a pregnant woman and her children [the Hebrew is plural here] come out of her but there is no injury …” There is no word for “miscarriage” used here.
According to Keil and Delitzsch – “If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him …. A fine is imposed, because even if no injury had been done to the woman and the fruit of her womb, such a blow might have endangered life.” They also note, “… [yeled] only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being….”
John Jefferson Davis writes: “Some have argued for a more permissive view of abortion on the basis of Exodus 21:22-25. According to one interpretation of this passage, the text states that if a man causes a pregnant woman to have a miscarriage, but no further harm comes to the woman, then capital punishment is not required for the loss of the life of the unborn child, no matter how advanced the pregnancy. According to this interpretation, Old Testament law does not consider the unborn child a soul or human life, thus implying a clear distinction between the value of the life of the unborn child and that of the mother. The linguistic evidence of the text itself does not support the “miscarriage” translation, however. The verb yatza when used alone, as it is here, refers to a live birth, not a miscarriage (Gen. 25:25, 26; 38:28-30; Jeremiah 1:5; 20:18). Yatza is used of a stillbirth only when it is accompanied by some form of muth, “to die,” as in Numbers 12:12 and Job 3:11. The term used in Exodus 21:22, yeled, means “child,” including the newborn child, whereas for “embryo” or “unformed fetus” there is the word golem, which is not used in the text. There is a specific Hebrew word for “miscarriage,” shakol (Exod. 23:26; Hos. 9:14), and this word is not used in Exodus 21:22-25. Consequently, the better translation of the passage takes it to refer to a premature live birth, not a miscarriage. The text actually treats the life of the mother and that of the unborn child as equally valuable … .”
Report comment to moderator
Cameron at #84,
Jews wrote the Old Testament. Also, Jews wrote the New Testament.
That doesn’t mean that you have to agree with Jewish interpretations of the Torah, of course, but it does mean that when the discussion comes down to what specific words in Exodus meant in their historical context, you don’t have the upper hand.
Report comment to moderator
Some of the Early Church Fathers and writings against abortion:
“You shall not abort a child or commit infanticide.” – The Didache (early 2nd century)
“You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not murder a child by abortion.” – The Epistle of Barnabas (early 2nd century)
“For us we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter when you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one: you have the fruit already in the seed.” – Tertullian
“They [John and Jesus] were both alive while still in the womb. Elizabeth rejoiced as the infant leaped in her womb; Mary glorifies the Lord because Christ within inspired her. Each mother recognizes her child and is known by her child who is alive, being not merely souls but also spirits.” – Tertullian
“She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus has to pay the penalty of murder.” – Basil the Great
“Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? … Why then do you abuse the gift of God and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the place of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?” – John Chrysostom
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #90,
Great. Nobody’s arguing that there’s not a well-defined Christian tradition of opposition to abortion.
That tradition simply doesn’t have any claim to a more literal or historically accurate reading of the Bible.
In fact, the most informed interpretations of the Old Testament (which is where most of the supposed anti-abortion prooftexts come from, anyway) seem to support the view that embryos aren’t persons, but do have some value and merit some protections.
Report comment to moderator
The traditional reading of Exodus 21:22 was more or less completely uncontroversial until evangelicals decided that they opposed abortion…
That doesn’t seem to be quite true, unless you mean that the tradition interpretations correspond to the so-called modern evangelical interpretations. I quoted Keil and Delitzch above, who were 19th century German commentators and while conservative, were certainly not “evangelical.” Also, there is this from John Calvin, in his commentary on the Pentateuch:
“This passage, at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have not been a capital crime to put an end to the fetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother is already a human being, and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am left to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the fetus as well as to the mother. … Wherefore this … is the meaning of the law, that it would be a crime punishable with death, not only when the mother died from the effects of the abortion, but also if the infant should be killed; whether it should die from the would abortively, or soon after its birth.”
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D (82):
Your reference to my lack of medical education belies your own theological misunderstanding. The issue is whether the Church has authority to bind the conscience of the believer on an question on which Scripture is silent or ambiguous. That is the only question I have raised, and one need no medical training to answer it.
It is fair to say that the Scripture is ambiguous on the question of whether abortion is murder. Even if one accepts JJ Davis’s exposition of Exodus 21.22 (quoted by TJ (88)), the passage does not imply that full spiritual personhood starts at conception. Rather, Davis’s argument only requires that there is a point prior to birth where the fetus would possess full spiritual personhood. Moreover, we should bear in mind that Davis is writing the above-quoted piece in an academic book; he nowhere suggests that the Church should bind the consciences of believers based on his conclusions.
Cheryl, the notion of the Spirituality of the Church is absolutely central to Presbyterian, particularly Southern Presbyterian, identity. I don’t know how you could be part of a PCA church and not be steeped in that doctrine. You seem to have no sense of your denomination’s history and of the theologians who shaped its identity.
The Spirituality of the Church is the Reformed doctrine that is akin to Lutheranism’s “Two Kingdoms” theology. Under this doctrine, the Church has authority to bind the conscience of the believer only on issues on which Scripture’s commands are abundantly clear. Thus, while many Southern Presbyterians privately believed that Southern slavery was wrong, the Church itself refused to condemn slaveowners, believing that Scripture did not speak to the issue with sufficient clarity. Charles Hodge, though a supporter of the Union’s cause, defended the Southern Presbyterian church’s refusal to condemn slaveowners.
It is for this same reason that every Reformed, Baptist, and Lutheran confession and catechism is silent on the issue of whether full spiritual life starts at conception. The Reformers were certainly aware of this issue, as the Catholic church taught that full human life did start at conception. Thus, in every last Protestant confession and catechism, this Catholic notion was discarded. It was discarded for good reason: Scripture did not speak to the issue with sufficient clarity to include it as an article of faith.
That being said, abortion rarely occurs in a vacuum. In most instances, the circumstances surrounding abortion involve other sins against which Scripture does speak clearly. Moreover, Scripture never clearly says that abortion is not murder. Thus, the Church likewise has no authority to ease the conscience of one who would seek an abortion.
Our Presbyterian forbears gave their lives to have a true Presbyterian church where the Church would seek to bind the conscience of others only when Scripture speaks with clarity. I understand that pro-life proponents often feel strongly about their beliefs. But if they are looking for a church that would bind others’ consciences on these matters, then Rome beckons.
In fact, an RCIA instructor once told me that about 3/4 of all evangelical converts in his parish are ardent pro-life activists who were disappointed with Protestantism’s inability to provide a robust theological response to abortion.
Also, regarding parachurch groups, Scripture permits no such category. There is the church and there is non-church. Pro-life advocacy groups are non-church in the same manner as the volunteer group that maintains the local wildlife refuge. Your desire to cloak these groups with the title “parachurch” suggests that you believe them to have some spiritual significance. Scripture and Presbyterian history do not support you on that.
Report comment to moderator
Who wrote the Old Testament? – such a statement – the Word of God was inspired by the LORD – HE alone gave the inspired Word to be written.
As far as the New Testament is concerned, Luke was a gentile – Those who have studied Scriptures know this.
Report comment to moderator
Perce and Musing,
See my husband’s posts. Musing, I never agreed to debate you on the meaning of the verses from Exodus. I never even mentioned them; I simply questioned your choice of texts from which to base your argument. I defer to TJ, who has studied the texts in the original.
Report comment to moderator
Even if one accepts JJ Davis’s exposition of Exodus 21.22 (quoted by TJ (88)), the passage does not imply that full spiritual personhood starts at conception. Rather, Davis’s argument only requires that there is a point prior to birth where the fetus would possess full spiritual personhood. Moreover, we should bear in mind that Davis is writing the above-quoted piece in an academic book; he nowhere suggests that the Church should bind the consciences of believers based on his conclusions.
Actually, Davis says this at the end of his chapter on abortion: “The biblical ethic upholds the dignity and worth of every human being, regardless of the state of development or physical dependency, from the moment of conception until natural death. … The Christian community should endorse such a position both in personal practice and in public policy, and back it up with tangible spiritual, emotional, and financial help for women who are facing difficult pregnancies.”
Report comment to moderator
Piper’s treatment of the Exodus verses, including various translations:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5552sq
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Let me explain something. Sometimes reasonable people will disagree with you. They’ll compose their ideas into sentences, and sometimes they’ll even put those sentences together to form arguments.
When this happens to you, righteous indignation, uppercase letters, and boldface type may not be the most effective way to respond.
Believe it or not, millions of people throughout history have read the Bible and interpreted it differently from you. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re right and you’re wrong. It does mean, however, that you can’t just scream “But this is what God says!” and expect that to convince people that your interpretation is better than theirs.
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
Thanks for clarifying. I supposed that a Baptist, like Davis, would believe in the Spirituality of the Church. Apparently he has abandoned that position. But even if one accepts his translation of Exodus 21.22, the passage does not militate that full human life exists from conception. It should also be noted that Davis is not a Biblical scholar, and his interpretation is not without controversy. Most evangelical OT folks agree that the passage refers to fetuses that are near to the point of birth. Thus, the passage has little relevance to early-term abortion.
Victoria: Let me guess. You probably liked Sarah Palin.
Report comment to moderator
Pierce – 100
Just to save time, your explanation has nothing to do with my previous response, nor does it make sense in your mistake over Luke being a gentile, as you wrote:
“Jews wrote the New Testament.” in post 89 –
Pierce, your comments are confused only by your misunderstanding of Scripture. Our GOD is not a GOD of confusion, which many liberals, and those who confuse sin with righteousness would like to project.
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:33
Report comment to moderator
And on the pedophilia point, Vicky, the Bible forbids all forms of rape, i.e., nonconsensual sexual contact. In fact, Scripture probably even condemns most forms of sexual contact outside of the marriage covenant.
I agree that the Bible does not specifically say that a 6-year-old is incapable of consenting to marriage or sexual acts. Nevertheless, we can fairly infer that, as our common experience tells us that 6-year-olds lack the developmental capacity to consent.
Thus, in some instances, our human experience can fill in the gaps in Scripture’s ethical teaching. Regarding the abortion question, no one has a human experience of whether God deems fetuses as having full spiritual life. No amount of human experience will make us wiser on that question.
Report comment to moderator
Evan – 101
I won’t guess – what I will state is you can’t stay on TOPIC, and answer sensible questions!
You can’t give an answer to post 98, so instead you revert to a High School ‘flip answer’ rather than search your soul for an answer based on Scripture.
_______Here is post #98 once again lets see if you can answer it_______
Report comment to moderator
Evan
With that statement, then one could ONLY come to the conclusion that GOD condemns all forms of murder to children, no matter what their age.
Interesting —— and an unborn babe has no ability to consent to their own murder by their own mother – they “lack the developmental capacity to consent” to slaughter by an abortionist –
The Bible tells us that murder is sinful – GOD knows that we are able to understand killing any child is a sin, it’s not righteous nor is it Biblical. It takes NO wisdom to understand the slaughter and killing of a live unborn baby is murder. There are NO GAPS, but selfish sinful man, who cannot come to grips with sin, but lowers himself to demand the killing of their own child, – and that little one so much smaller, unable to run away or beg for life – oh how smug the man or woman is to determine that such a small bundle be thrown in the trash bin, and then have the audacity to say it’s not in the Word of God, that abortion is not a sin.
Report comment to moderator
Evan – 103
My name is Victoria, I would appreciate your remembering that in the future. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Evan,
The church has the authority to bind the conscience on murder, yes. I don’t think there’s any legitimate medical or theological question that abortion is murder.
I tend to agree with you on parachurch ministries, that the work they do should be done more directly by the church, but that wasn’t the point of what I was saying. The question was whether pro-life organizations consider themselves churches; they do not. Should the church do what pro-life organizations do (binding the conscience and all)? Absolutely.
I believe Scripture is far clearer that all forms of murder are wrong than that all forms of slavery are wrong. Abortion is a greater issue of this generation than of previous ones (in some senses) and definitely we are more aware of the full humanity of the embryo and fetus. I think church councils today might be less ambiguous, but obviously they are not the ultimate binding forces anyway–Scripture is. And Scripture leaves no doubt that God knits together life in the womb and that destroying human life is destroying the image of God, and is worthy of death.
If you don’t see these basic points, I don’t see much more that can be said. This is simply not an ambiguous issue.
Report comment to moderator
I think I yam
So proud I yam
A great religious man
Report comment to moderator
If I yam a yam, so be it. I’ve been called worse.
‘Tis a flesh wound. I’ve had worse!
Poor yams like me just don’t understand these things, I guess. See, us yams aren’t evolved enough to see those invisible lines between “person” and “foetus” that all you überyams* are so good at discerning. I yam afraid us yams are just stuck giving the fetal yams the same rights as the yam lambs you call “children”. Better safe than sorry!
But one day, you überyams won’t have to deal with us anymore. You can just unyam the bits of yamlishness in the Constitution and send us away to our own little yam camps were we can be regrown as peas who can split** our lives into little yamless bits so modern science doesn’t interfere with our votes and cause that nasty, starchy screed that us yams have a tendency to give off.
But since most of you are smarter than us yams, I won’t be offended if you ignore this yamlicious post.
–The Yam Man
*”über” as in “above”, so I yam of course referring to those above us simple yams.
**Get it? peas… split… split peas! Oh, I yam so funny. But I guess überyams have socially evolved beyond puns.
Report comment to moderator
I yam thinking about changing my username to yam since it describes me so much better than the current nerdiness that is my current name. How would I go about this? HSK? Lynn? Anyone?
(Although maybe it wouldn’t be fair, since I yam sure I’d just copy-cat llama all the time like I yam doing in my last post.)
Report comment to moderator
@ Evan #103,
Thus, in some instances, our human experience can fill in the gaps in Scripture’s ethical teaching. Regarding the abortion question, no one has a human experience of whether God deems fetuses as having full spiritual life. No amount of human experience will make us wiser on that question.
I yam sorry for the quadruple post. I hope you’ll still be able to tolerate my yamish intellect one more time. :/
Evan I know this is kind of a yamly question, but if no amount of human experience will make us wiser regarding the abortion question, then shouldn’t we play it safe and say “no abortions”, just in case?
I mean, even yams know better than to tear down a building when we don’t know for sure if there are people inside!
Report comment to moderator
I see that the detailed discussion of Exodus 21:22 has taken off. In the process, I suggest, however, that we are now looking at pine needles instead of forests.
The question on the table was justification for limiting abortion. There are typically two arguments raised by anti-abortion forces as I have observed them:
1) a Biblical justification
2) a call on humanness
I believe that while we can argue Exodus 21:22 long and hard neither side can prevail simply due to the use of Hebrew in this passage and the ambiguity of the translations. We can say that traditionally this verse was understood to refer to miscarriage but as noted, just because there is a traditional understanding of e verse does not mean that understanding is right. It also does not mean it is wrong. On the Biblical issue I suggest the balance of the evidence is at best a draw for the anti-abortion forces and none of their scholarship has been sufficient to clearly displace the original understanding of this verse.
Which leaves the humanness argument as often used in analogies to the genocide. However, the anti-abortion forces continue to refuse, apparently quite adamantly, to define humanness. And without a clear definition of humanness which is uhown to be operationally useful in understanding the limits to abortion, the argument is quite simply without foundation.
I suggest that defining humanness is hard, and as I review the material the supreme court also apparently concluded this was hard. Which is why, rather than decide the issue on humanness, they instead appear to have considered this a case of conflicting rights. I suggest it is a sound principle of law that one can in general not compell one individual to accept medical risk for the benefit of another. This is not absolute: the government can enforce vacinations but can not force you to donate a kidney for example.
Based on a balancing of rights argument, if the fetus is not independently viable it would appear to have been argued that it has no claim on the mother. If the fetus is independently viable, then it appears that the argument was that the fetus had a right to attempt to express this independent viability.
I suggest for the anti-abortion argument to be logically rather than emotionally based, the anti-abortion forces need to actually address two issues:
1) what is humanness and how is this definition clearly operationally useful in this case
2) cxlearly demonstrate why the woman’s rights during a period when the fetus is not independently viable should be negated
And as we have see at least in this discussion, the anti-abortion forces seem neither interested nor able to address these issues.
Which is why I suggest anti-abortion efforts seem to be on the decline on all fronts.
Unless and until the anti-abortion forces can provide a clear and unambiguous justification for their position which is logically sound and rigorously derived, it is unclear to me how, or more importnatly why, they believe they will prevail.
In the interim, the 2008 election and the situation accross the country suggests a movement in basic decline.
And I suggest the reason for the decline is simply identified: how can one argue that a blog of 8 cells from a fertilized egg, from a cloned embryo using a skin cell, a group of stem cellls, and a general clumping of eight sub-dividing cells are different. The argument as posed so far would appear to defy even simple commnon sense must less rigorous logical justification.
Report comment to moderator
We’ve had a pro-lifer in office for eight years; a pro-lifer that I’m sure all you pro-lifers voted for. He started a phony war where thousands have died. Soon we’ll have a pro-choicer in office. Maybe he’ll be able to bring an end to this seemingly-endless war and save thousands of lives in the process.
Yes, life is sacred. Yes, the protecting of innocent lives is of great importance to God. But what about justice and equality for all people? What about a long-overdue victory and blessing for the African American people whom God loves dearly? Are these things not also important to God? Maybe, just maybe, God decided that it was time for MLK’s dream to be realized, and maybe this could only happen through a pro-choice liberal Democrat, because the pro-life GOP is just a bunch of old white guys. And maybe God’s got the abortion thing under control, even though some seem to think that, by having a pro-choice president, this country’s now doomed. Maybe, ultimately, God put President-elect Obama in office, helping to balance things out after the pendulum of our democracy had swung so dangerously to the far-right, and now it’s our job as Christians to accept this, and to pray for our new president, that he may see clearly the issues that are important to God, such as the sanctity of human life, as well as equality for all of God’s children, be they black or white.
Sorry, a bunch of stream-of-consciousness babble, I know. I’m sure I’m missing the point. But hey, I got to fling my uneducated thoughts and opinions into cyberspace, and gosh darnit, I feel better for it !
Report comment to moderator
Err on the side of grace with a presumption of viable human life. And be prepared to help as either an individual or a society with the challenge of single mommyhood. Or do whatever you can to facilitate an adoption.
What state out in the USA has the most onerous cumbersome adoption regs? I bet it probably has stiff regs on abortion as well
Report comment to moderator
Written by HARRISON SCOTT KEY
“We have given the impression, at times, that we would support a candidate with the intellect of a yam, as long as he was pro-life.”
While I agree with you, I would put up John Kerry as a yam. He is on the other side of the aisle but still has done nothing in the Senate and he keeps on getting elected.
Dear yams, please forgive our comparisons of politicians to you. You are good and sweet and well loved.
Report comment to moderator
TJ, Thanks for clarifying. I supposed that a Baptist, like Davis, would believe in the Spirituality of the Church. Apparently he has abandoned that position. But even if one accepts his translation of Exodus 21.22, the passage does not militate that full human life exists from conception. It should also be noted that Davis is not a Biblical scholar, and his interpretation is not without controversy.
Evan, I think you have Davis confused with someone else. He is not a Baptist (rather an ordained Presbyterian minister) and he is a scholar (Ph.D. from Duke and a professor of systematic theology and ethics at Gordon-Conwell Seminary in MA).
Report comment to moderator
I see that the detailed discussion of Exodus 21:22 has taken off. In the process, I suggest, however, that we are now looking at pine needles instead of forests.
You’re the one who requested such an exploration from me (and maybe others) when I didn’t even mention it!
This is not absolute: the government can enforce vacinations (sic) but can not force you to donate a kidney for example.
In an ideal government, certainly. China, however, forces abortions on women.
Report comment to moderator
Musing and Perce,
Any comments on Piper’s treatment of the verses?
Report comment to moderator
#112: I must say that I’m a little miffed here, Musing. First of all, Perce simply linked an article in # 74. You praise him (twice!) for his thoughtfulness and scholarship. I spend well over an hour, translating Exodus 21:22 from the Hebrew and transcribing commentary on the verse (both modern and more traditional), and nary a word about my post. And judging by the comments on # 112, you have decided to sidestep the issue of the verse, a rabbit trail that you yourself introduced, I believe, in post # 25.
My beef is with the misappropriation of the verse from Exodus. I believe I have clearly shown the following:
1) A miscarriage (popularly defined) is not in view, since the original Hebrew (not a translation) does not support such an interpretation.
2) Abortion (strictly considered) is not in view, since this involves unintentional injury/death in a particular circumstance.
3) There is nothing in the passage which devalues the life of the unborn child (who is actually called a child, strictly speaking).
4) This is not a new interpretation, as evidenced by the references to Calvin and Keil and Delitzsch I posted.
5) Christians have been historically opposed to the practice to the practice of abortion. Precisely what role Exodus 21:22 plays in this fact, I do not know, but then again I was not the one who introduced the verse.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, here is a link to Davis’ faculty page at GCTS, which I neglected to post above: http://www.gcts.edu/faculty/davis.php
Here is a chapter from an online book by Davis which discusses the biblical texts life and personhood issues and how they should inform a Christian ethic with regard to abortion:
http://ccel.us/AbortionandtheXian.Chap4.html
Report comment to moderator
Good work, TJ.
Report comment to moderator
TJ, I very much appreciated your answering the false arguments. Frankly, I’ve been amazed at some of the rhetoric on this site. I had no clue there were people who even pretended to take the Bible seriously and thought abortion was acceptable; I thought the only pro-choicers among so-called Christians were from “churches” that never opened the Bible but simply gave a short, stimulating talk about the environment or world peace.
Report comment to moderator
David and Cheryl, thank both of you for your kindness. If nothing else, this discussion has prompted Cameron and me to investigate becoming involved in a ministry here in Louisville (basically a home for unwed mothers that helps the young ladies care for the children and also provides the opportunity for the children to be adopted if the need should arise).
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #119,
I’ll make one last comment: nobody is saying that Exodus 21:22 supports legalized abortion. We are simply arguing that it was one of the foundational texts for the belief in traditional Judaism that embryos are not persons. Alternative translations (even as far back as Calvin) must account for the fact that the passage was interpreted differently by Jewish scholars (deeply trained in the original language and culture) for thousands of years.
Cheryl at #122,
Yes, of course there are people who take the Bible seriously and come to the conclusion that it does not unequivocally condemn abortion. Mightn’t it worry you that you’ve been living in such an isolated cocoon of scriptural interpretation?
We fully support your right to oppose legalized abortion, but as Even says, there’s a problem if you try to “bind the consciences” of other believers by conjuring up an absolute biblical prohibition.
Report comment to moderator
TJ #88
Thanks, your post was very informative. I had read the same thing about abortion and the amputation of a healthy limb. Do you think that the distinction you indicated between fully formed (yatza) and embryonic (golem) is significant? I have read that more rights are generally given to the more fully formed life (the mother) than partially formed. This wouldn’t necessarily apply to the deliberative nature of abortion on demand, but it might mitigate the charges of murder at least somewhat for very early trimester abortions in some circumstances. What do you think?
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
You asked what the difference is between skin cells and an embryonic ‘blob’—both are human. An embryo needs the same basic necessities that all human beings need to develop: appropriate sustenance, appropriate shelter, and time. If you give an embryo age appropriate sustenance, shelter and time, you’ll have a fully formed human being; a citizen, a future voter endowed with the legal rights we all enjoy. You can give sustenance, shelter and time to a skin cell for as long as it can live and it will never be a human being.
A woman who gets pregnant knows what she’s carrying; if she doesn’t, she’s grossly undereducated or extremely young and needs to be lovingly taught. We really shouldn’t teach people that it’s okay to arbitrarily deny the basic necessities of life to anyone—even if that one is inside you and not visible to others for nine months.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry. Any “Christian” who feels that abortion is acceptable based on the Bible has only a few options to explain his/her beliefs: 1) Can’t read, 2) Ignores a good portion of the Bible, 3) is very spiritually young and immature, or 4) does not have the Holy Spirit in him or her.
That’s the bottom line.
Report comment to moderator
DJ, I would prefer to do a bit more investigation on golem before commenting. I do think it is important in the sense that Exodus 21:22 literally says “and her children come out [or go forth]“, that must factor into the interpretation. The unborn/soon-to-be-born is referenced as a “child” (not a golem), and the devaluing as such is an inappropriate appropriation of the verse. According the Piper article referenced by Cameron, the verse is misused by certain pro-abortion groups (contra post 124) to indirectly justify the practice of abortion, which is my real beef.
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
You did a fantastic job. In fact, I have thought that I should copy off your arguments to use in other places and times. The scholarship is fantastic.
Just don’t expect to sway the Musings and the Perces and the Evans of the world. They really aren’t interested in FACTS, but rather in whatever will allow them to continue to hold on to their sin.
Musing in particular will argue with someone who says the sky is blue (e.g. “Are you sure? I suggest that the sky only appears blue at certain times of the day and at certain seasons. And, it certainly doesn’t appear blue at night or when it is raining. And, what is your definition of blue anyway?”)
The facts are plain. I greatly appreciate your research.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, TRS. It might be beneficial to those interested to note that the article referenced # 74, applauded for its “scholarship” and “thoughtfulness,” is actually a link to an article from National Review. While that fact alone says nothing about the accuracy of the material in the article, I don’t believe that even NR would consider itself to be a scholarly journal. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Report comment to moderator
I never referred to the National Review article as a scholarly source. I linked to it because it was written by a self-professed pro-life religious Jew who finds no ambiguity in the Torah’s position on the non-personhood of the embryo.
It also provides what I consider a concise and accurate summary of the scholarly history of the issue (although it is clearly biased toward the pro-life position). I threw it out as a starting point; I certainly wasn’t appealing to the authority of NR.
Report comment to moderator
Perce,
Musing considered your 74 to be quality scholarship at 76, which is what TJ is referencing at 130.
Report comment to moderator
Perce, Cameron is correct. I wasn’t commenting on you, but on Musing’s praise. It was not my intention to discredit you in any way.
Report comment to moderator
TJ
I read the articles posted on #74 and #97. I try to find out something about the source and cross check it before I give too much credibility. A couple of weeks ago I Googled ‘Judaism and abortion’ to try to get at the real meaning of Ex. 21:22 with very mixed results. I’ve always thought that passage referred to miscarriage, so my objection to abortion has not been founded on a biblical view that it is necessarily murder. But it did seem that the more viable the child, the closer to actual murder.
It would be good to know how that Exodus passage was practiced when written. Did they actually execute a man for the demise of an unformed baby (golem) or just for the fully formed? I wonder if the word ‘yatza’ was used for very practical reasons: most miscarriages happen in the first trimester. A fully formed fetus would stand a much greater chance of survival naturally, so its death could be more fully attributed to the injury received from the two men fighting.
So many questions, so little time. But I do think there is room for sincere people with biblically formed consciences to disagree.
Report comment to moderator
“Some of the Church Fathers, for example, Augustine, thought the moral status of the fetus was ambiguous or unknowable”
Not surprising, since the science of embryology was then at best embryonic. However they still condemned abortion unequivocally.
“so are you reje3cting both the NIV version and the concordance argument that this verse refers to miscarriage?”
The NIV refers to giving birth, not miscarrying. What are you smoking?
If so, on what do you base your argument?
“By contrast Exodus 21:22 explicitly states that ending the life of a fetus is not murder.”
Something that is explicit reqiuires that it be clear. The pro-abort argument that cites this verse hides behind ambiguity and mistranslations. See:
http://www.errantskeptics.org/Exodus2122.htm
“skin cells have our complete DNA and can be converted into an embryo today.”
No, they can become pluripotent non-embryonic stem cells.
“Your comment regarding blending of cells of both parents would then arguably reject any clone as an indepndent entity. Dolly demonstrates the failure of this argument. Further, you are left with the interpretation of identical twins. In short, this argument literally does not hold up under scrutiny and efforts to reject out of hand the skin cell argument without providing a clear definition of humaness is to effectviely pretend that the challenge does not exist. At root the issue is humaness and the unique DNA argument is insufficient as the identical twin example trivially shows.”
What I said, and you ignore or perhaps misunderstand, is that all of the above, save your skin cells example, are genetically distinct from the mother. Unless you are arguing that identical twins or Dolly are not distinct individuals with separate existences, your counterargument miss the mark widely.
The issue of humanness is simple. The defintion is biological and genetically demonstrable. I think you have “human” confused with independent. Otherwise your feeble arguments are utterly incomprehensible. Nevertheless, the issue of what, or who, is a gennetically independent human being is obvious to anyone who isn’t striving to obfuscate the issue to provide cover for the indefensible.
Report comment to moderator
But I do think there is room for sincere people with biblically formed consciences to disagree.
*****I can only think of a few instances: I can see people disagreeing about early (very early) abortions, where the baby isn’t really a baby yet. But, once we reach the 8th, or especially the 12th, week, I can no longer “agree to disagree.” At that point, a person who approves of abortion is the same as someone who approves of murder, IMO. I will not be able to blithely go about my business and just agree that their opinion is different than mine.
As the technology gets better and better, I think the excuses get harder and harder.
My MIL for instance, still thinks that a baby isn’t a baby until you feel “life” in the 5th month. When she was a young adult, they couldn’t even tell for sure that you were pregnant until you started feeling the movements.
So, I understand her point of view, but I think she’s dead wrong. I’ve seen my children at much, much younger stages using an ultrasound. They were trying to suck their thumbs. They were kicking, moving, drawing back from pressure on my abdomen, and so on.
Try telling me that isn’t a baby. That just goes against facts, reality, common sense…you name it.
As for babies before the 8th week (i.e. heart and circulatory system start to work) or before the 12th week (i.e. fully formed human, just very miniature), I believe that they are still persons and deserve personhood status. But, I can grudgingly accept that someone else might feel differently…barely.
Report comment to moderator
And, what I can’t understand are all the people (Musing is one), who will emphasize the “blastocyst” and yet completely ignore the vast number of abortions that happen well into the second and third trimesters. Worse, they won’t even condemn partial birth abortion.
It’s as if they can only think of the baby as a grouping of cells, which it is for only a very short period of time. And yet, most of their arguments only ethically apply to that short period of time (if then).
Why can we not all condemn partial birth abortion? The medical community has repeatedly stated that there has NEVER been a case where a partial birth abortion was needed to save the life of the mother. It just isn’t a necessary procedure. But, we can’t even get you people to agree to stop something so obviously barbaric and heinous.
What about the 3rd trimester, where many “premies” actually are viable?
What about the 2nd trimester, where they look, act, and feel like miniature babies?
Could we start SOMEWHERE?
Heck, your “messiah” Obama won’t even give medical care to BORN children if they were aborted.
I’ll argue “personhood” with you forever up to the 8th or 12th week (although I strongly believe in the personhood of the child once conceived), but I don’t understand why you stand on the blastocyst and completely ignore the BABIES that are routinely killed and discarded.
Your position might hold more weight if you were actually working…heavens, even COMMENTING, in favor of stopping abortions at any point along the continuum.
Instead, we get arguments formulated for “cells” and silence on partial birth abortion.
Report comment to moderator
“Actually, Davis says this at the end of his chapter on abortion: “The biblical ethic upholds the dignity and worth of every human being, regardless of the state of development or physical dependency, from the moment of conception until natural death. … The Christian community should endorse such a position both in personal practice and in public policy, and back it up with tangible spiritual, emotional, and financial help for women who are facing difficult pregnancies.””
TJ,
I appreciate what you mention here in comment 96. Its something that no one else has mentioned really. TRS dips into that as well.
To further that point.
Musing, it seems from reading his posts, that he is asking for explicit Scripture reference and or a clear definition of humanness.
How does not knowing those answers excuse our ignorance and ALLOW abortion? There is no rational conclusion for that. Is it better to ere on the side of life when we are in ignorance or to ere on the side of death?
If your asking for explicit then the arguement needs to go both ways. Where is the explicit Scripture that allows for abortion? Further, I’m not aware of any that would even imply it.
Do we need a clear line of humanness between a skin cell and a fertilized egg? Or is it clearly scientific enough to say that at some point say conception we know a life is growing and will grow into a full size human being provided nothing interrupts its grown natural or unnatural?
Considering abortion is a direct act by another human to cause harm/death to a growing fetus, it should be easy to come to terms here. If it were dead and not growing already (miscarriage), we would have no need to abort. If it would remain a skin cell there would be no need, but a fertilized egg in a womb grows.
But the princple of abortion assumes that a living growing fetus is contained within a womb and must be terminated, leaves the lines very clear. Humanness as you put it is not needed to be “clearly” defined for us to prevent death by our hands, nor do we need it explicitly stated by religion that preserving the life of humans is common sense.
Abortion is not justified under ignorance. Nor will it be excusable.
Report comment to moderator
To whoever said that Christian denominations have historically not been against abortion: Could you please provide documentation? From everything I have always heard, all Christian denominations opposed abortion at least until this past century. In fact, all major Christian denominations forbid birth control until about 1930! So documentation for this idea that Protestant denominations have historically not opposed abortion is strongly needed.
As for Scriptural reasons why abortion is wrong: I think all the ones people have already quoted, especially the one about “you knew me before I was born” (paraphrase), are pretty clear.
But there’s also the simple biological facts: sperm and egg join, become various “blobs of cells” – but very quickly, you have an embryo. Once there’s an embryo, there is a fetus, once there is a fetus, there will be a baby as soon as that fetus is born – because babies are being born earlier and earlier and surviving. If there is any chance that a baby can be born and survive, there is absolutely no reason AT ALL to abort him or her except the mother’s selfishness. Abortions before the baby looks to be anything besides a blob of tissue is slightly more debatable, but not much.
Every single person posting here was once a fetus, and before than an embryo, and before that a blob of tissue. If you had been aborted you would not exist now. You may say you wouldn’t care about it because you wouldn’t realize (never mind that unborn babies either can feel pain or may be able to feel pain and we don’t quite know, meaning that the fetus is in pain when it is killed). The point remains, however, that, especially once the embryo is a fetus..there’s no excuse.
Report comment to moderator
KEN: . . . they still condemned abortion unequivocally.
The church fathers, including Augustine, condemned abortion, but not “unequivocally.” Augustine thought induced abortion was allowable prior to the “ensoulment” of the fetus, which he surmised to be at 40 days for males, 90 days for females.
Augustine must have been pondering Two Parents in Four Acts:
God made man gradually. So far as we know, He made all other creatures with an instantaneous command, “Let there be. . ” God spoke the word and presto, a species in one act. For man, however, He used a multi-stage process:
ACT I: God put his fingers into the mud and sculpted a form that looked like His reflection in a mirror.
ACT II: God performed artificial respiration, infusing the clay with something from His own body, breath, a divine gift not bestowed upon any other creature, so far as we’re told. The debut of soul and spirit enabled man to speak and to name.
ACT III: Obviously, divinity wasn’t enough, and Adam’s humanity was not yet achieved. Therefore, God removed the rib and propagated woman.
Act IV: God gave them law. Without it, Adam and Eve must have been either beasts of nature or usurpers of divine authority.
The Genesis concept is simple. The fetus is one stage in the manufacture of “the image of God.” The fetus is anatomically human, but in order to become fully human, the fetus has to breathe the breath of life, enter society, and be constructed by law.
Augustine and other Platonists were onto this non-materialist rationale for abortion.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
Fetuses still use oxygen, just not directly breathed. One would have to say that an adult on a respirator isn’t fully human, by that rationale. In other words, Augustine was sometimes wrong. Clearly the fetus is formed by God, in His image. For a mother to say, “No, thank You, God,” and murder His gift is not only murder, but an insult to her Creator and that of her baby.
Report comment to moderator
“In short it is worth noting that besides the unique DNA argument, which fails the twin test, you have provided no no information to the discussion, you have not explicitly refuted any of my points, and yet peculiarly you appear to suggest that your opinion on this issue should out wiegh the evidence available.
I suggest that this is truly weak argumentation indeed.”
You argue that since twins are two unique people who share identical genetic material that somehow, the living embryo developing in her womb, genetically distinct from its mother, can not be differentiated in any meaningful way from the mothers’ own skin cells. How exactly does that logic work? I do not merely suggest that your argument is preposterously weak, and utterly irrelevant to the genetic differences between mother and child, I am astonished that you thing such sophistry supports your position and undermines mine.
Your confusion of skin cells with embryos was explicitly refuted by my argument, and your counterargument serves to confirm my position contra your insupportable category confusion. My opinion considers the evidence that you distort or ignore.
I also confronted your poor exegesis of Exodus 21:22 with specifics. That both added to the discussion and refuted your point. You were unwittingly citing a translation that undermined your own argument. You are clearly in no position to be so dismissive of someone else’s contribution.
“I suggest for the anti-abortion argument to be logically rather than emotionally based, the anti-abortion forces need to actually address two issues:
1) what is humanness and how is this definition clearly operationally useful in this case
2) cxlearly demonstrate why the woman’s rights during a period when the fetus is not independently viable should be negated
And as we have see at least in this discussion, the anti-abortion forces seem neither interested nor able to address these issues.”
I’m mystified why you stumble over what “humanness” is. The biological markers for human life and human tissue are obvious enough for forensic proof in a court of law. If we are unable to come to a consensus definition of “humanness” it is perhaps because we are so close to it and intuit it fully. Like “love” and “joy”, being a human is something of which we are so concretely aware we quail before the task of defining it in the abstract. Nevertheless, we can begin with a minimal definition that confines itself to the empirical and biological. Perhaps you have some abstraction in mind, some thisness or thatness that defines a vague subjective quality intrinsic to human beings that affords them dignity and moral worth. If that is the case, you should learn to use words with more precision and clarity. Words are the primary tools of thinking and discourse and if are sloppy with words, you are perforce sloppy with thinking, as witness your confusion over what the NIV says and how cloning and twinning relate to the genetic differences between a mother and the child in her womb.
To move beyond your emotional responses and subjective states such as independent viability to the hard clarity of logic we start with the irrefutable biological verity that from conception forward a unique, living human being exists in every sensible meaning of the words and with the full weight of modern science behind it.
To address your second point, no humans have absolute rights, even over their own bodies. We may not take certain substances lawfully, we cannot go unclad wherever we want, we cannot swing our fists wildly in a crowd. The burden is on the mother to demonstrate why her needs should be given preference over the living child in her womb.
Since the one thing we know with certainty is that abortion destroys a living human being, we must begin from that point and reason outward. Many embryos die, many fetuses miscarry, many children and all adults eventually die. That does not give any of us the right to kill them.
Report comment to moderator
“The church fathers, including Augustine, condemned abortion, but not “unequivocally.” Augustine thought induced abortion was allowable prior to the “ensoulment” of the fetus, which he surmised to be at 40 days for males, 90 days for females.”
Augustine did condemn abortion unequivocally and never held it to allowable at any stage. He did differentiate between pre and post ensoulment abortions, based on his poor understanding of embryology in that pre-scientific era, augmented by the Septuagint’s mistranslation of a key verse.
See:
http://benedicamus.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/what-did-augustine-really-say/
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Ken, for your reasoned answers in this.
I think it’s humorous, BTW, that you got an italicized “Report comment as offensive” by ending your post with italics. Can I get a bold?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!