Catholic church rescinds offer to host Jewish service – Rabbi on Planned Parenthood board
Weekend extra.
This made my day. No justice, no peace. The last minute scramble to change venues means these Jewish congregants will most assuredly be forced to think about abortion during their Yom Kippur service tonight. From KVUE in Austin, TX:
Opposing views on abortion are causing controversy on one of the most holy days of the Jewish faith, Yom Kippur.
Temple Beth Shalom does not have a building of its own, and it planned to meet at a Catholic church Friday night in Austin for holy services.
However, differing views on abortion changed all that. The Rabbi of Temple Beth Shalom sits on the board of Planned Parenthood [click to enlarge graphic, above right – he’s the chairman] an organization that provides women’s health services, including abortion.
“I truly support personal choice, and I support my rabbi – standing up for that and standing up for women’s right to make personal choices,” said Patricia Torres….
The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to abortion and withdrew its invitation for services to be held at the Saint Louis Catholic Church….
Read the Rabbi’s letter here.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Was Margaret Sanger also an anti-semite?
“I truly support personal choice, and I support my rabbi – standing up for that and standing up for women’s right to make personal choices,” said Patricia Torres.
Let’s rephrase, shall we?
“I truly support killing babies, and I support my rabbi — standing up for that and standing up for women’s right to kill their babies,” said Patricia Torres.
There, that’s more honest.
Why doesn’t the local Planned Parenthood host the service in their fine facility? Like, in the lobby or RIGHT THERE in the procedure room?
Really? REALLY?
Do pro-lifers really think this will do crap for the movement? Jill: they won’t think about abortion, they’ll think about what douche bags pro-life Catholics are–a sentiment I can often relate to.
How about instead of “making a statement” by kicking them out, they establish a relationship with them by letting them have their service? Isn’t that how most minds are changed about abortion anyway–someone they know gradually shows them the truth?
they’ll think about what douche bags pro-life Catholics are–a sentiment I can often relate to.
Classy.
Lucy: it’s true, really. I’m not saying all pro-life Catholics are like that, but what do you think OUTSIDERS (read: a bunch of Jews who were going to go to a Yom Kappur service) think? Seriously, what do you think they’ll think of the whole situation?
If we think that they’ll be pensive and really re-think abortion, we’re fools.
they’ll think about what douche bags pro-life Catholics are–a sentiment I can often relate to.
Nate,
What did you hope to achieve with that statement?
There was no motive of achievement there, MIT, just stating a fact.
Nate,
So, according to you Pro-Life Catholics are Douche-bags is a FACTUAL statement? Yeah, okay…you just keep telling yourself that.
Um, no. Perhaps try re-reading it?
Nate,
I read your comment, and you also said you can agree with it! In fact, you said you often do. YOUR WORDS: they’ll think about what douche bags pro-life Catholics are–a sentiment I can often relate to.
Whether or not it’s true that the Jewish people of that community will be thinking about that, you said that YOU often relate to that sentiment. Suggesting that you think it’s true (aka factual. You can’t have something be factual if it isn’t true).
I’m sorry, MIT, let me clarify so everyone understands:
It is a FACT that I often view pro-life Catholics as douchebags. Now, why would a gay atheist ever have such a sentiment?
Nate,
Well you might want to focus on the issue of the post rather than your personal crusade.
For the record, many devout Catholics care about homosexuals as human beings, we just understand that to care about someone doesn’t mean you have to approve or support absolutely everything they do. In fact, a homosexual male friend of mine undestands this! While he doesn’t agree with my faith, he supports me as a human being. He knows where I stand on his lifestyle decisions, but that has never stopped us from supporting each other as people who need friendship and comfort.
But then again, LIKE I SAID…that’s not the topic of this article is it?
Um, my original comment had nothing to do with my sexuality, but you seemed perplexed that someone would ever consider people who oppose me being able to live my life like everything else douche bags, so I clarified.
My ORIGINAL comment, of which you ignored all but one sentence, dealt quite directly with the post at hand. Indeed: pro-lifers choose to stand on principle at the expense of actually starting dialogue and saving children. But then again, that’s probably why the pro-life movement hasn’t done much to decrease abortions yet.
Nate,
You’re the one who added on the qualifer: “a sentiment I often relate to”.
As to the rest of your original comment: it would be a bad idea for them to allow the community to have their services there because the rabbi is on that board. It fits in with our doctorine NOT to allow them to.
Now if we want to talk about the Jewish faith as a WHOLE that’s entirely different matter. But if we were to allow them to KNOWING FULL WELL the rabbi is on that board AND is pro-choice, that wouldn’t reconcile with Catholic beliefs. It would be blantantly hypocritical. Now, if it wasn’t well-known that he was on the board and they had the services there and then they found out AFTERWARDS, that would be different since they wouldn’t have known. But since they DO know, it’s appropriate that they rescinded the invitation.
Oh and by the way, Nate…how do you KNOW there wasn’t any dialogue? I read the Rabbi’s letter and it sounded like he sat down the the priest and they actually talked about that. Doesn’t that count as dialogue?
Ugh. Religion: why the pro-life movement sucks.
That wasn’t the dialogue I am talking about, MIT. You wouldn’t say to a pro-choice friend, “Sorry, you can’t come into my house for a birthday party because I’m Catholic and you’re pro-choice”. You’d allow her in, reach out to her, and give her the truth bit by bit.
but you seemed perplexed that someone would ever consider people who oppose me being able to live my life like everything else douche bags, so I clarified.
I’m not perplexed that you’d think that way. Quite the opposite. I’m used to people viewing the Catholic Church in a bad light due to its stance on homosexuality. But, the Catholic Church’s stance is summarized in the following phrase: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Since the acting upon homosexual desires and orientation is what is deemed a sin, (not the orientation in and of itself–but the ACTION) then it stands to reason we’d have a problem with people living out the homosexual lifestyle. That doesn’t mean we hate homosexuals themselves.
Like I stated before, a homosexual male friend of mine knows my position, which is, I don’t have to approve of everything he does to be his friend, I just have to support his humanity. He knows I’m against his lifestyle, but he also knows that if he needs someone to pray for him, encourage him as a person and believe in the goodness given to him by God, I will do that. We came to this understanding a long time ago.
But again, I’m getting us off topic. (Yes, I admit, I had a big part in this whole thing going off topic and I apologize for that. I just get sick and tired of my faith being attacked without, as you suggested in the situation with the article, dialogue–and many Catholics have been open to dialoguing, but people want us to change our stance and that’s not going to happen–not to be rude, it just isn’t).
Nate Sheets
September 18th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
That wasn’t the dialogue I am talking about, MIT. You wouldn’t say to a pro-choice friend, “Sorry, you can’t come into my house for a birthday party because I’m Catholic and you’re pro-choice”. You’d allow her in, reach out to her, and give her the truth bit by bit.
You don’t know that that didn’t happen when the rabbi and the priest sat down and talked. Neither of us knows that since we weren’t there.
Hey, Nate. How have you been? :)
I have been considering this debate in great detail as of late. I love your comment here: “You’d allow her in, reach out to her, and give her the truth bit by bit.”
I am trying to establish myself as more of a moderate as of late, and I feel much lighter for it- a lighter being overall. I have made a new space for myself in this debate and it seems to me to be like paradise. If pro-choice is “liberal” and pro-life is “conservative,” what would pro-moderate be? I think that it would be pro-peace. And that is where I have arrived and that is my own space that I think that you seem to fill as well. Like a third movement- well, I sort of see it that way.
I think that it would be good for our generation: pro-peace. Help women. Help children. Equality for all. No more fighting about morals, just reaching out. :)
Vannah,
Your stance suggests that pro-lifers aren’t for peace. We are, we’re just also not for babies being murdered in their wombs. We know that there is no peace when the right to life is being threatened. In that case we must stand up and defend life. If we could peacefully come to an agreement that life should be prized above abortion, then I think pro-lifers would be behind that. But there is no peace when life isn’t being given it’s proper respect.
How can I have peace of mind when babies are being murdered every single day inside their mother’s wombs which is SUPPOSED to be the safest place for a developing human being. If a child’s own mother can’t be relied on to give that child a safe haven inside her own womb, then how can there be peace?
P.S. A lot of pro-lifers reach out to help women, we just don’t reach out to help them have abortions.
Nate Sheets,
Religion aside, what if I were to say: “They’ll think about what dirtbags gay people are- a sentiment I can often relate to.” Your reaction?
Nate
As as charter member of Phlaming Hetrerosexuals Opposing Bigoty In America [PHOBIA] I want to go on record supporting a private organizations right and authoriity to determine who may use their facilities.
The bigots are those people, no matter their ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual preference, who would obstinately refuse to acknowledge the humanity of the pre-natal child.
ps: How would you even know what a ’douche bag’ is?
Nate:
“…they won’t think about abortion, they’ll think about what douche bags pro-life Catholics are–a sentiment I can often relate to.”
“Sorry, you can’t come into my house for a birthday party because I’m Catholic and you’re pro-choice”. You’d allow her in, reach out to her, and give her the truth bit by bit.”
Do we see some inconsistencies here? Like one minute spewing hateful garbage, and the next preaching how to reach out? If you want to be taken seriously my friend, grow up! Moronic sentiments such as the first quote above are extremely insulting.
As one of the “traditional” Catholics named in the rabbi’s letter, I am pleased that this decision was taken. I wish that more churches would do the same and make perfectly clear the teaching that we espouse but don’t put into action.
Nate,
The Church cannot welcome into their house a gathering of worshipers led by someone who denies the humanity of the child in the womb and believes it is acceptable to murder the preborn. To outsiders it would seem a tacit endorsement of such killing, which of course, the Church explicitly condemns as evil.
This Church absolutely did the only thing they could do and I am thrilled to see them stand up for the truth.
There is nothing moral about killing babies in the womb and it is appalling that any Christian or Jewish religion would endorse it with their stamp of approval. There’s nothing to “dialogue” about here. There’s no compromise to be reached. Babies are human beings with the right to life. Period.
Your crass remarks about Catholics are uncalled for. Keep your vulgarity to yourself, please.
Julie and Jennifer,
You’ve expressed my sentiments exactly. Thank you.
I will refrain from calling Nate a stinky jockstrap because I am more mature than that. (:
Nathan,
I appreciate your viewpoint but disagree. Personally welcoming pro-abort/pro-gay friends and family into my home is different than a church corporately enabling another pro-abort church and pastor, particularly a pastor so militant as to be the clergy chairman of the local Planned Parenthood.
I think Catholic parishoners gracious to welcome Jewish believers to worship in their facility in the first place. That was extending the hand of which you spoke. But there comes a line, and I think the church made the right call.
I also disagree with you that Jews worshiping tonight will be thinking with animosity toward Catholics. There may be those. But abortion will be the overriding spoken and unspoken word in the room and thought in the mind.
Thanks, Nathan.
As I understand it, Yom Kippur is supposed to be a time of repentance, for thinking soberly upon one’s failings, sins, and for changing one’s heart toward doing the right thing.
If I am correct about this, I truly hope the rabbi and all those who agree with him will use this occasion to repent of taking a stand for the killing of babies. The 6 million Jews who died in the Nazi Holocaust was a horrific number. The 50 million babies who have died in this modern American holocaust were no less human, or more deserving of death, than they were.
“Personally welcoming pro-abort/pro-gay friends and family into my home is different than a church corporately enabling another pro-abort church and pastor, particularly a pastor so militant as to be the clergy chairman of the local Planned Parenthood.” (emphasis added)
Precisely.
I don’t even want Planned Parenthod in my town. If I thought they were at my church I would definitely take Nates advice and reach out to them, and give them the truth bit by bit. It sounds like all parties involved realized that. Hooray for the Catholics who live their faith!
Nate – did you read the Rabbi’s letter?
Here’s a clip:
So is abortion Nick
day of atonement: regret over killing millions of God’s precious creation.
I agree with what Nick said about the Jews holding their service in a Catholic Church.
They managed to find an alternate location at one of their own facilities, anyway.
Since Jews buy tickets to attend their High Holy Day services, why couldn’t they rent a ballroom at a local hotel?
I’m glad the priest put his foot down and said NO. Would that the higher ups at Notre Dame had done the same thing when BO spoke there at their graduation.
Jill, cleared it up. Mother in Texas, and Nate got off topic.
We are to reach out to the lost, but the Saint Louis Catholic Church had to stick to their (& Scripture’s) convictions. By not compromising, perhaps some Jewish people will reconsider their lack of loving the unborn and their worldly values? The news video really helped. Tastefully done. The very name Temple Beth Shalom contradicts Almighty God’s mission. Peace for the people who “know” Him. How can we/they focus on the atoning work of Christ when we hold little innocent children in such low estate? GOD is not honored on their most high holy day. I am so glad to know that the final Atonement was completed when Jesus said, “IT IS FINISHED” from Calvary. Christ met all the demands of the Holy God for the payment of our sins. God Himself provided the Lamb! Jesus’s blood is efficacious for all the sins of His people.
Nick,
You say serious Jews are pro-choice? Would you agree that “serious” Jews use scripture as their guide? Then you must know what scripture a serious Jew references to show God’s approval of their “choice” to terminate the lives of the unborn? Either share that scripture passage with me or quit blaspheming the God of the “serious” Jews cause God disapprove of killing human life.
Nick,
These pro-choice ones may be a majority but they are not serious because these ones find their comfort in society’s laws and not in keeping Yahweh’s laws.
Pray for the Jewish people whether they follow the Holy Scripture’s stance on life at conception or not. They need to KNOW Jesus as their Saviour, Messiah. May their eyes be opened to know His unending, redemptive love.
I love your endearing, precious picture, Truthseeker. (I am a nurse-midwife, and have many blessings of my own.) We are His image bearers. ~in His Amazing grace, ~J
Pray for the Jewish people whether they follow the Holy Scripture’s stance on life at conception or not. They need to KNOW Jesus as their Saviour, Messiah. May their eyes be opened to know His unending Love. <3
I love your endearing, precious picture, Truthseeker. (I am a nurse-midwife, and have many blessings of my own.) We are His image bearers. ~in His Amazing grace, ~J
Nick. people who are serious about their Jewish faith believe that scripture is the Word of God. Serious Jews believe God is the author of life. Just for starters I can give you a few passages from scripture that would lead one to think one should respect the sanctity of life. 1) The angel Gabriel came down to announce the salvation of mankind through conception. any serious Jew would see that as an obvious biblical indication NOT to destroy the unborn. 2) “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb”. Jeremiah 1:5 3) “Thou shalt not kill”. Exodus 20:13 Now I’ll ask you again to tell me ANY scripture passage that any person can even “interpret” as supporting the destruction of the unborn, or quit blaspheming the God of the Jews.
Thanks Julia. That picture is my boy JP minutes after birth. And congratulations on your blessings.
Nick and Nate don’t get it. Tolerance doesn’t mean putting up with murder. Reaching out doesn’t mean accepting the murder of children. Jews know their own scripture and yet this rabbi denies it. The bible is pro-life, book to book, chapter by chapter. We could go on all week quoting verses, but the good rabbi already knows these verses and what, thinks they’re quaint but irrelevant?
A lot of well-meaning people thought that appeasement would work. That’s how Hilter’s henchmen got away with killing so many people, how Stalin got away with mass murder, how Mao got away with mass murder, etc. Children are being slaughtered by the millions all over the world, and calling us names doesn’t change that.
Considering that the jewish people still await the Messiah, you’d think they would NOT support abortion!
Excellent point Liz.
The bible is pro-life, book to book, chapter by chapter.
Ninek, I most definitely agree. But I wonder if Jews who don’t accept Jesus as the Messiah will accept anything other than the first 5 books in the Old Testament from the Bible, given that the Bible is pretty much a CHRISTIAN book. Of course, a person might come across Orthodox Jews that are familair with the Bible (and maybe even respect it), but I’m not sure that the Bible would carry the same kind of “weight” for them as it would for a Christian. Now, go into the Torah, you could get on common ground with them pulling from there.
You could pobably even point out Psalm 139, where it says “I knit you in your mother’s womb” or Jeremiah and Exodus like truthseeker did.
P.S. I truly hope you don’t think I’m attacking you, I’m just trying to clarify your post, that’s all.
Nick,
The “you” referred to in the passage “before I formed you in the womb” is the victim of abortion. You are just trying to be obtuse cause you have no scripture passage to support your position. Now either tell me ANY scripture passage that any person can even “interpret” as supporting the destruction of the unborn, or quit blaspheming God. Anybody who supports abortion is anti-God.
My Bible (Torah) has a rich deep love for the blessings of life! The entire book of Deut. is on the blessings of obedience, and the punishment for rebellion. We are his treasured “hesed” We are a holy people. “Choose life”. The first commandment to be fruitful and multiple. Can’t count how many times the word, “descendants” is in there. It’s just saturated with the sanctity and respect for all life.
In Exodus, we see how mighty God’s people were, but that threatened Pharaoh. Read Ch. 1 vs. 20- 21.
Pleasing our Father and loving what He loves, and despising what He despises.
“Before” means He does have amazing plans for each life, each eternal soul. . . Jeremiah 1:5. And, Psm. 8:2, Psm.22:9-10, Psm. 103:17-18. His hand is on His beloved.
NEVER, is it “justified”. Lord, have mercy on us, and may we live for His glory!
Homicide is only justifiable if someone is trying to hurt or kill you or another person, and killing the perpetrator is the only chance you have of survival. Even if someone yells, “I’m going upstairs to grab my gun, and when I come back I’m going to kill you!”, you wouldn’t be justified in killing that person at that moment, provided you had the opportunity to run for it or do something else to save yourself. A tiny percentage of abortions are performed for “life of the mother” reasons, and even in those cases, abortion should be the very last resort. It’s not justifiable homicide to kill another person because you don’t know how you’ll support a baby, or don’t feel ready to have a baby, or don’t want your parents to find out you had sex, or never want to have kids, or think the baby’s father will be upset.
The priest at St. Louis’s wasn’t solely representing himself – he’s the one in charge of that particular church, and it seems he didn’t want anyone to mistakenly believe that the church condoned abortion. If both he and the rabbi agreed it would be better if the service weren’t held in the church, then I think the conflict between the people involved is settled.
Nate: I’m a bisexual pro-life Catholic, and the Catholics who know I’m bisexual have always been kind to me, even if they thought I was wrong or misguided. Really do not appreciate the generalization, even if it is based on your personal experience. If every single Asian person (for example) that I knew was an idiotic jerk, it still wouldn’t be fair for me to talk about “what idiot jerks Asians are,” even if that was my personal experience.
Abortion is NEVER EVER JUSTIFIED!
The unborn child did NOTHING WRONG.
Marauder, I am glad the Catholics you have come in contact with are kind to you. But you cannot rightly call yourself a Catholic in good standing or join in the Body of Christ while engaging in homosexual acts. You would be called to chastity. But I would assume you must already know that.
If I’m engaging in homosexual acts, that’s news to me…
Nick, I notice you have a Greek-sounding surname. Are you Orthodox? If you are, you should be aware that the Orthodox Church condemns abortion as child murder.
marauder, you stated that you are bisexual. I thought bisexual meant you engage in both heterosexual sex and homosexual sex.
Is there justification in Judaism for the practice of abortion? As it happens the matter has been examined and is exposed as a fabrication. An excellent essay on the matter is linked below.
For those whose busy schedules do not permit a reading of the link here is an attempt to consolidate the highlights of the ten-page essay.
In Judaism and Abortion: The Hijacking of a Tradition author Richard Nadler undertakes an examination of current view, held largely by reform Judaism, “that the fetus lacks an independent, juridical personality in rabbinic law.”
The source for this conclusion is attributed primarily to the book: Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law by David M. Feldman. The edition of the book that Nadler references contains a “glowing endorsement from Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher.” Nadler goes on to say that “in the journals of Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Judaism, one is hard pressed to find an article on abortion that fails to reference Feldman’s tome, or to build on his conclusions.” He continues, “it is the only book on the topic that most English speaking Jews have ever seen.”
Through his own independent survey of Jewish laws and traditions Nadler deconstructs the basis of Feldman’s conclusions. He goes on to say “…in one respect Feldman is correct: There is no single “firm and direct” basis in Jewish law forbidding abortion on demand. In fact there are ten. Orthodox authorities have forbidden or restricted abortion on the following bases:
Retzicah—abortion is murder.
Abizraihu—that abortion, by destroying a hereditary line, is akin to murder, sharing some of its “appurtenances,” or consequences.
Pr’u ur’vu—that abortion violates the obligation to people the earth with God’s servants.
Hash-hatat zera—that abortion unlawfully wastes male seed, which contains potential human life.
Chabbala—that abortion is the wrongful wounding of the mother, the fetus, or both.
Nezikim—that abortion unlawfully deprives the parents of a value in property.
Bal tash’chith—that abortion unlawfully deprives the community of something of value.
Pikuah nefesh—that the affirmative responsibility to protect and preserve human life applies to the fetus.
Chalell Olov Shabbat Echad Kiday SheYsihmor Shabbatot Harbeh—that the developing human life of the fetus requires its preservation, overriding other laws, as in the case of “violating on Sabbath so that many Sabbaths may be kept.”
Siyog—that abortion is banned preventatively, as a hedge against other sexual sins that might flow from it.
Nadler then goes on to summarize each of the above. He continues further on “…the falsification of Jewish teaching on abortion is the result of a systematic deconstruction undertaken by David Feldman and other non-Orthodox scholars from the middle of the 20th century.” “For Reform Jewish leaders the deconstruction was simple: These Jews rejected the authority of Orthodox teaching.”
Feldman concludes: “Absent Jewish theology, the progressive scholar might deconstruct Judaism’s magnificent 5,700 year pro-life tradition into a squabble among advocates of conflicting theories and conflicting punishments. Adjudicating among these with standards individualistic and humanistic rather than sacerdotal and covenantal, he might eventually conclude that Judaism had no pro-life tradition at all. And his views, disseminated through the seminaries of liberal Judaism, might inform a whole generation of rabbis and their congregants.” “That is the point that most—not all—American Jews have reached in the abortion debate. But that is not what traditional Judaism teaches.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200601/ai_n17186907/?tag=content;col1
Nick,
OF COURSE, the baby is inside the mother’s womb. Any pregnancy book will tell you that that’s where the baby grows and develops so he/she can live outside the mother’s womb. (That’s practically sex ed 101). It’s pretty much how all of us have gotten here (I sincerely doubt anyone on here believes in the Stork bringing a baby).
HOWEVER:
Just because the baby is inside the woman doesn’t mean it’s RIGHT [moral/ethical/loving/kind/] to kill the baby.
There may not be anything in scripture which specifically says you may do abortions, but there is nothing there that says you may not. Scripture is silent on the subject of abortion. (Not that I care what scripture says–I don’t, but the fact is, it says nothing at all about abortion.)
Anyone who does believe in Old Testament/Bible will recall Psalm 139:13 which has the words “You formed my inmost being: you knit me in my mother’s womb. I praise you, so wonderfully you made me…” thus suggesting that the development of a baby inside his or her mother’s womb is an act of God. Therefore, to WILLFULLY abort such an act would be going against God; since He is the author of Creation. (I misquoted it earlier, but I knew it had something to do with God creating inside the mother’s womb).
Great news about the parish. I applaud the decision to stick to principle when support of abortion is on the line. How could the parish go forward with that arrangement knowing the rabbi contributes quite directly with the largest abortion provider in the U.S.?
I do wonder why our dedicated bunch of mods let Nate by with such hateful speech, though- seemed so against the rules.The comment was too immature for me to feel insulted, but it did kinda derail a good post with potential for good discussion.
And it is ironic to the point of really funny that someone who lectured about how to build bridges first called a huge group of people something so crass.
Nick,
Does scripture also give these people license to spread AIDs since it says nothing about AIDs one way or ther other? Anybody who is honest about what the scripture says would say God would disapprove.
Nick,
People like you who openly say you don’t care about what the Jewish Bible or any other Bible Bible says really have no place in debating what the Bible says. But it does explain why you are unable to interpret scripture. IMO opinion people who look at other human life as a burden are not good people and they extend those same beliefs outside the womb and to their outlook on life in general. They would just as easily kill an adult if they thought it was to their advantage and they thought they could get away with it
Sorry to burst your bubble Nick, but Scripture actually does specifically condemn abortion.
Leviticus 20:2-5: “Tell the Israelites: Anyone, whether an Israelite or an alien residing in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall be put to death. Let his fellow citizens stone him. I myself will turn against such a man and cut him off from the body of his people; for in giving his offspring to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. Even if his fellow citizens connive at such a man’s crime of giving his offspring to Molech, and fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who join him in his wanton worship of Molech.”
2 Kings 17:29-31: “But these peoples began to make their own gods in the various cities in which they were living; in the shrines on the high places which the Samarians had made, each people set up gods. Thus the Babylonians made Marduk and his consort; the men of Cuth made Nergal; the men of Hamath made Ashima; the men of Avva made Nibhaz and Tartak; and the men of Sepharvaim immolated their children by fire to their city gods, King Hadad and his consort Anath.”
2 Chronicles 28:3: “Moreover, he offered sacrifice in the Valley of Ben-hinnom, and immolated his sons by fire according to the abominable practice of the nations which the LORD had cleared out before the Israelites.”
2 Chronicles 33:6: “It was he, too, who immolated his sons by fire in the Valley of Ben-hinnom. He practiced augury, divination and magic, and appointed necromancers and diviners of spirits, so that he provoked the LORD with the great evil that he did in his sight.”
Psalm 106:37-39: “They sacrificed to the gods their own sons and daughters, Shedding innocent blood, the blood of their own sons and daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed. They defiled themselves by their actions, became adulterers by their conduct.”
Ezekiel 16:20-21: “The sons and daughters you had borne me you took and offered as sacrifices to be devoured by them! Was it not enough that you had become a harlot? You slaughtered and immolated my children to them, making them pass through fire.”
Ezekiel 20:31: “By offering your gifts, by making your children pass through the fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols even to this day. Shall I let myself be consulted by you, house of Israel? As I live! says the Lord GOD: I swear I will not let myself be consulted by you.”
Jeremiah 7:30-32: “The people of Judah have done what is evil in my eyes, says the LORD. They have defiled the house which bears my name by setting up in it their abominable idols. In the Valley of Ben-hinnom they have built the high place of Topheth to immolate in fire their sons and their daughters, such a thing as I never commanded or had in mind. Therefore, beware! days will come, says the LORD, when Topheth and the Valley of Ben-hinnom will no longer be called such, but rather the Valley of Slaughter. For lack of space, Topheth will be a burial place.”
Jeremiah 32:35: “They built high places to Baal in the Valley of Ben-hinnom, and immolated their sons and daughters to Molech, bringing sin upon Judah; this I never commanded them, nor did it even enter my mind that they should practice such abominations.”
Amos 1:13-14: “Thus says the LORD: For three crimes of the Ammonites, and for four, I will not revoke my word; Because they ripped open expectant mothers in Gilead, while extending their territory, I will kindle a fire upon the wall of Rabbah, and it will devour her castles Amid clamor on the day of battle and stormwind in a time of tempest.”
You see, any time that the Bible mentions Astarte/Ashteroth or Moloch or Gehenna/the Valley of Hinnom, it is specifically mentioning the form of sacrifices that the Ammonites and Canaanites made to those deities in Gehenna, which was abortion. Everyone back then knew it, but the meaning has been less and less known through the years. In fact, let’s look at a verse from the New Testament which makes this very clear:
The Gospel of St. Matthew 18:1-10
At that time the disciples approached Jesus and said, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a child over, placed it in their midst, and said, “Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one child such as this in My name receives Me.
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come! If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.”
Note that in this passage from St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is holding a child, and talking about sin. Then He mentions that those who sin against children will be, themselves, thrown into the fire of Gehenna, which as I mentioned above, is ALWAYS code for abortion in the Bible. In other words, He is saying that if you cause abortion, you will be aborted. Oh, and any time the word “woe” is used in the Bible, it’s a curse. There are two “woes” here, which indicates double the curses.
Therefore, the condemnation of abortion IS in the Bible. You just have to know your Bible history, and know where to look.
Nick, I don’t even believe in the Bible, and I’m against abortion. When a woman is pregnant there are TWO patients: The mother, and the child. Most abortions are performed on women who are healthy, with healthy babies. I’ve said this a million times, and yet none of you want to admit this. Abortion is an elective procedure; it is also a destructive and violent procedure. It is not necessary, and it seems pro-aborts want to do nothing to eliminate the causes women seek abortions. How can pro-aborts be pro-women, when all they really want is to make sure women keep aborting, at all costs?
I thought bisexual meant you engage in both heterosexual sex and homosexual sex.
No, bisexual means you’re attracted to both men and women. Sexual orientation is about attraction, not behavior.
Nick: It seems to me like your definition of “justifiable homicide” is one you made up yourself. Legally speaking, justifiable homicide is a last resort when you have no other way to stop a person from killing, or possibly killing, you or someone else.
Abortion is not a medical necessity.
Nick:
Your position is contrary to placental mammalian biology and is therefore objectively wrong.
You are asserting a doctrine that would properly apply to living beings whose biology is different from ours, in other words beings who were independent and separate entities. They would have no right to live in each others’ bodies.
We however are placental mammals and require a period of time in our mothers’ bodies by our very nature. Just as we have a fundamental right to oxygen and water (necessary for our existence), we also have a fundamental right to live through the unborn stage.
To assert that we have NO right to something which is intrinsic to our nature and is essential for our continued existence is just ludicrous. It would appear that you have taken a position that you find psychologically pleasing even though it is completely inconsistent with natural law.
Well said, Joe.
Thanks, Joe! I always applaud good science over faulty logic.
“I’ve said this a million times, and yet none of you want to admit this. Abortion is an elective procedure; it is also a destructive and violent procedure. It is not necessary, and it seems pro-aborts want to do nothing to eliminate the causes women seek abortions.”
Yes, it IS necessary for many women who don’t want to be bothered. Wasn’t it Mother Teresa who said something to the effect that it is a crime to have an abortion so that you may live as you wish? I know it’s not PC among prolifers, but there is a great deal of selfishness involved in this issue. Most women know they are destroying their offspring and many don’t care. There are some women who are coerced, but I think they are the exception. They just want to live as they wish.
Thanks Joe! We are called to love God with all our hearts, souls, MINDs and strength. Why would we want to destroy something God loves? That is not loving! Different DNA means the baby is its own IMAGE BEARER!
Marauder, Thanks for the firm stance which values the dignity each new life has. I will pray for you to not act out on your attractions. (self-control is tough.)
Amy, you did great! Nick doesn’t want to concede. And this (Miss Stannick) page is for those who want to be pleasing to GOD I’m not religious but know from being an RN & seeing hundreds of births (and hundreds of deaths) that there is a Supreme Authority we will answer to. I hold to a solid, valiant & noble character that respects all life.
Womb-time must be given freely, not taken by force.
Uh huh. Yeah. That tiny little human FORCED his way into that uterus. He took his little machete and hacked his way in and demanded a room.
We need food, but we are not entitled to take another person’s food without that person’s permission.
We need water, but we are not entitled to take another person’s water without that person’s permission.
And mammalian reproduction is a whole different ballgame than either of these things.
Nick —
So if I want to kill my husband and the government says “No,” is that force too? Are you in favor of all murder or only that of innocent children?
What if you’re a conjoined twin? Is it just a matter of who can reach for a weapon faster?
“The fetus IS located inside your body, therefore you are entitled to kill it if you want to.”
I’ve been pregnant 5 times (so far) in my life. Are you telling me that 5 times in the past 6 years I have had two brains, two hearts, 20 fingers and toes, two blood types, two sets of DNA, and (in the case of my son) a penis? How is that biologically possible?
Obviously the unborn are unique individuals, in their own little body; they aren’t a part of anyone else’s body.
Moreover, 99% of abortions happen after a CONSENSUAL act of sex, in which two consenting partners engage in the act that is biologically meant to create babies. Pregnancy is not “forced” upon anyone, and neither is a baby. S/he is an innocent bystander, and innocent human life, and is entitled to the same rights to which all human beings are entitled.
Not sure, but I tried to change my picture. The coffee cup says:
The government is not “taking womb time,” as you stated before, Nick. A fetus occupies a womb as a natural result of human reproduction. It is not a foreign object which must be removed. A uterus is a reproductive organ which houses the unborn child. That is its purpose. It is nothing short of odd to act as if a fetus in his/her natural environment (the uterus) shouldn’t be there.
Ooops, here you go Nick, Truly on Starbucks cups. (and I don’t drink coffee, & I’m NOT LDS!)
“You are not an accident. Your parents may not have planned you, but God did. He wanted you alive and created you for a purpose. Focusing on yourself will never reveal that purpose. You were made by God and for God and until you understand that, life will never make sense. Only in God (in the Triune God) do we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance, and our destiny.”
–Dr Rick Warren
Author “The Purpose Driven Life”
Nick,
A morally pure person doesn’t commit suicide merely because it’s unwelcome somewhere. That’s a weak argument. Besides, where is the child supposed to go anywhwere anyway? Babies can’t survive outside the womb until like around 35 or something weeks anyway–plus they’re completely helpless. They can’t do anything hardly for themselves until several months after delivery. Have you ever been around a newborn? They completely depend on whomever is their parents/guardian–they’re helpless–what makes you think a pre-born baby is any less helpless than a newborn baby?
Just because the baby is located inside of her does not give her the right to kill it in that willful manner.
I’ve been through pregnancy. I know the emotions because I lived them. Hormones do strange things to women during pregnancy (and sometimes when not pregnant) but it doesn’t mean the woman should end the life of the baby inside her. There’s a myriad of emotions and hormones associated with pregnancy. I’m not saying a woman can’t make decisions while pregnant, but when it comes to abortion a woman should not trust her feelings. Plus, there’s help for women who truly need it that does NOT involve abortion.
The baby being inside is NO excuse to end the life. Absolutely NOT an excuse.
Nick,
Proaborts having consentual sex is akin to mass murderers inviting their next victim into their house. What makes this union of pro-aborts even more evil is that it is a conspiricacy between man and woman to defile their union knowing they will destroy any gift of Life that has been given to them by God. A mass murderer luring their prey into their den and killing them is like a pro-abort couple conceiving life knowing they will terminate any life they conceive
Nick, my advice to you is to keep studying and speaking about the scriptures like the ones you were discussing above. Scripture has the ability to show you the Holy Spirit of the Living God. For it is written, ”So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11
Amy, thank you for posting the scriptures above. Nick, why would I stop posting scripture when it is so illuminating?
Nick,
If one went by your logic then the mass murderer could deem some arbitrary time when he has a right to kill you for being in his den even though he lured you in. The more logical reasoning would be once that child is conceived he/she owns their own life. And the mother who deemed this life to be formed by having consentual sex has placed this life in her womb and now has an obligation not to destroy said child just for being there.
St. Michael the archangel, defend us in the balttle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of evil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou oh Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God thrust into hell Satan and all the other evil spirits who would roam through this world seeking the destruction of souls. Amen
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses; as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. Amen
The angel Gabriel was sent from God
to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph,
of the house of David,
and the virgin’s name was Mary.
And coming to her, he said,
“Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you.”
But she was greatly troubled at what was said
and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
Then the angel said to her,
“Do not be afraid, Mary,
for you have found favor with God.
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son,
and you shall name him Jesus.
He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High,
and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,
and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever,
and of his Kingdom there will be no end.”
But Mary said to the angel,
“How can this be,
since I have no relations with a man?”
And the angel said to her in reply,
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore the child to be born
will be called holy, the Son of God.
And behold, Elizabeth, your relative,
has also conceived a son in her old age,
and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren;
for nothing will be impossible for God.”
Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord.
May it be done to me according to your word.”
Then the angel departed from her.
Luke 1:26-38
Nick,
It is amazing to watch your liberal mind stretch and bend. If one was to use your logic then murderers and pro-aborts would have no obligation to let their victims go cause the victim never “gave anything up” in exchange for a place in the den where the murderers placed him/her.
A morally pure person doesn’t commit suicide merely because it’s unwelcome somewhere.
People who feel unwelcome in the world or in their families frequently commit suicide, and that’s because of depression and desperation. Moral purity has nothing to do with it. When I was ten years old and wanted to kill myself because I couldn’t stand another day of being tormented by kids in my class, trust me, I was not the one behaving immorally.
Hi Nick.
“Cancer is natural. The drugs and surgery which cure cancer are unnatural.”
This is a misunderstanding of what we mean by natural. By natural, we mean anything that acts in accord with the nature of an object or being. So cancer is unnatural in the sense that when one has cancer, one’s body is not functioning properly according to its nature. Any surgery to remove that cancer would be an attempt to restore proper function to the body and allow it to operate according to its nature so in that sense, surgery to rid oneself of cancer would be natural. The idea of natural is more nuanced than simply “found in nature.” Again, it has to do with those actions which are in accord with the proper function and nature of a being. Of course, pregnancy does fit this definition. When the woman’s body is “growing a fetus” their body is properly functioning, and an abortion does violence to that proper function of the body.
(*sigh*) It almost never fails: self-styled “atheist rationalists” are notoriously the most illogical people in any bunch.
Nick, please try to consider this reasonably. As one who purports to be “logical and reasonable”, it’s not an unreasonable request to make of you.
1) When you say, “Scripture is fiction, written by human beings”, I assume you have conclusive proof of that? You didn’t use any qualifiers in the statement (e.g. “probably”, “in my opinion”, seems to me”, etc.), so I assume you have a knock-down proof of your absolute position, aside from your raw, unsubstantiated opinion–and your undeniably vehement feelings on the matter.
2) You wrote: “When you invite someone into your house, the person GIVES UP SOMETHING by accepting your invitation–he gives up the rights and privileges he was enjoying by being on his own property, or on public property. This obligates you to return these things to him, by allowing him to leave your property rather than killing him.”
Sorry, friend, but–unless you suppose that he has the right to life only by virtue of the fact that he’s on his own property (which would do wonders for “not depriving anyone of life without due process of law”!)–this is utter nonsense. Your statement “he gives up the rights and privileges he enjoys by being on his own property” is so mind-bogglingly broad as to be useless. You’ll need to itemize these “surrendered rights”, and explain why you think they must be “surrendered” by virtue of leaving one’s property.
And as to your second point: if a person “voluntarily gives up his rights” when accepting an invitation from me, then why–in your mind–does this obligate me to “return the rights to him”? To what principle of morality do you appeal, when laying such a burden on me, or anyone else? The conclusion doesn’t follow at all, from what you’ve written here; you pulled it out of thin air.
In contrast, the fetus does not give anything up by being conceived. Before conception it had nothing, not even a self. Therefore, the pregnant woman is not obligated to give it anything.
See above; you really need to unpack your reasoning behind the “therefore”, here; “therefore” implies logical causality, and you’ve shown nothing of the sort, yet.
Donating blood does not obligate you to also donate the next transfusion the patient might need.
Even that is arguable… but for the sake of argument, let’s accept it as true. How does it follow that a woman is then entitled to kill her unborn child? That would be more akin to repenting of one’s gift of blood, taking a syringe, and forcibly “removing your gift of blood” from the recipient’s body after the fact. (In your example, “donating a life” would certainly not obligate a mother to choose to have *another* child; that’s true… but that doesn’t seem to support your pro-abortion position.)
The blood he gets from you is just so much gained and does not entitle him to take more. Similarly, giving you a short life inside my body does not obligate me to also give you a longer one.
Ah. So giving you my blood for 5 minutes doesn’t entitle you to have it for 10 minutes–and I can forcibly remove it, no matter what ill effects that might have on you? I think you need to think this issue through, a bit more…
“If you don’t agree, I will come locate part of myself (finger) inside part of your body (eye-socket) and we can measure how long it takes for you to agree that inside your body belongs only to you.”
Nick, What are the chances that someone would give you permission to do this to their eyesocket? Unless the majority of women are consenting to having the majority of men stick a finger into their eyesocket, you make a very silly comparison.
A child has an inherent right to live safely in the womb. You don’t have an inherent right to poke your finger in anyone’s eyesocket. I think you need to think about this issue alot more.
Write this down in your notebook. We’ll be having a quiz tomorrow:
Wombs - for babies
Eyesockets – for eyeballs
Nick:
Why is it necessary to kill the fetus? Do you think abortions after 23 weeks are okay, when the child could be delivered and potentially live, if other people are willing to adopt him or her and care for him or her? What is the justification for dismembering the child before removing him or her? Do you have a problem with destroying embryos for research? The embryos in question are not occupying a womb. What if someone were willing to give them their “womb time”? Whether the fetus is born or aborted, he or she comes out somehow. Why is it ever necessary to make sure he or she is dead? Your argument allows only for the ejection of the fetus, not for killing it.
Also, do you believe in child support? Why or why not? What obligation do parents have to their born children? Why is this? What care, resources, and time am I required to give my two-year-old daughter? My nine-month-old son? Last week my nieces, who will become 3 and 2 in October, stayed with us. If I changed my mind and decided I didn’t want to watch them anymore, should I have a) killed them (or hired someone to do so), b) put them off my property, c) just removed them from my house, d) just stop feeding them, e) put them off my property and killed them if they came back, or f) found someone else to watch them (doing what in the meantime?)?
A child has an inherent right to live safely in the womb. You don’t have an inherent right to poke your finger in anyone’s eyesocket.
Paraxedes,
Sometimes I just adore your posts! This is very well put!
You’d think pro-abortionists like Nick would join the circus, because they’re so twisty and bendable. The straw-man arguments really crack me up. My favorite example of hilarity is the ‘you wake up and a violinist is sewn to you’ straw guy. I’m shocked that Nick didn’t give that one a go. If you’re pregnant when Mercury is in retrograde and the barometric pressure is rising and it’s after sunset on the third tuesday of the month, then murder is OK. IF it’s not in the Bible but it is in the Dhammapada, would you then turn pro-life? Lol!
your a tough bunch. do you think he is gone? lol
Truthseeker, After you posted the prayers, I think I heard, “i’m melting…i’m melting…”