Barry Lynn: Jesus cares more about helping the poor than about abortion
Let’s get this straight. Even though abortion is not mentioned in the Bible, it is obvious to these conservatives that not only should Christians not get one; the government should bar anyone from obtaining one. However, when the deep concern for the poor is commonly located in the same sacred text, it means absolutely nothing in regard to policy making. It is just a suggestion for individuals….
From my study, I’d guess that Jesus wouldn’t be shouting out at debates that if people needed health care but didn’t buy it privately, we should just “let them die.”
~ Barry Lynn, The Washington Post, September 28
Lynn is a United Church of Christ minister, lawyer, and the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
[Photo via au-sac.org]
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.
Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible: false. “Thou shalt not murder,” for one. For more examples, see here. For a minister, he sure is ignorant of Scripture.
I do agree with his larger point (that Jesus wouldn’t be shouting “Let him die”) [never mind the fact that no one in the crowd actually did that; rather, one or two boorish idiots – hardly a sizable representation of the entire GOP – inexplicably cheered when Paul asked a rhetorical question that he immediately after answered in the negative].
However, government-mandated health care is not a Biblical mandate; how to care for its populace in regard to heath care is an issue of prudential judgment for any given government.
Joanna – I think you need to go back and watch the tape – when the question was directly asked by the host “should he die”, numerous people DID yell out “YES”. Clear as day.
Helping the poor by recommending they kill their unborn children is not much help.
Jesus meant to help all poor — not just those who are poor with financial poverty.
He also meant those who are poor in spirit, poor like Barry Lynn who is worse off than any homeless prolifer.
Is there anything I can do to help you, Barry? Steer you towards a bible study group? Sign you up to help poor women who want to keep their child? Let me know.
Satan’s Strawman®
That’s not an argument – that’s simply an accusation.
And if he’s guessing at what Jesus would do at a debate – then he really doesn’t know the Lord.
While I believe a government needs to protect the rights of its citizens and provide general welfare, it has no moral obligation to “take care of widows and orphans.” The government cannot follow the Commandments and is not subject to Mosaic Law nor to Jesus’ summary of the Commandments as loving God and neighbor. The government cannot be condemned to death as the wages of sin, nor can it be saved by Christ’s redemptive death.
That said, Christians, not the government, have a moral obligation as directed by Scripture — not a suggestion — to take care of widows and orphans.
Poor Barry. Perpetual confusion.
Yes Barry. I agree. “Let’s get this straight.”
The function of government is to protect human life. The same scriptures which he quotes enjoin the elders of the community (Israel’s government back then) to inflict capital punishment for the crime of murder. No such power was given to the government to ensure charity.
God will deal with us individually at the end of our lives concerning charity and whether or not we practiced it. Even in the scriptures that mandate was on the individual and not left to the government to enforce it. The only exception was the Year of Jubilee, when all slaves were freed, when debts were cancelled, and when property was restored. That was every 50 years.
Apart from that, God permitted people to make their own private arrangements. The individual works out their salvation within that arena. When the government dictates the terms of charity and compels through taxation, it infantalizes society. Are the rise of narcissism and the implementation of the Great Society merely coincidental? I think not.
What Barry doesn’t grasp is that here are positively and negatively worded commandments. “Thou shalt not,” is closed-ended.
“Thou shalt,” is open-ended and subject to interpretation as to implementation.
It’s easy for the government to regulate the negatively worded commands. As we have seen in social policy, implementing the positively worded becomes a nightmare, especially when God left social and business arrangements to the individual to craft in such a way that they fulfilled the Divine mandate for justice.
The Rev. Lynn is obviously woefully ignorant of Catholic social teaching and well, every other Catholic teaching as well. He should broaden his “study” to include the principle of subsidiarity, and the irrefutable fact of the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. If he has any doubt about that latter fact, I would encourage him to “study” the Incarnation.
I’d also then encourage him to “study” the actual text and meaning of the Establishment Clause, so he might gain an accurate understanding of the “separation of Church and State.”
Guys like Lynn give ministers a very bad name.
Rev. Lynn, the Episcopal Church called. They want their talking points back.
Eric: Well said, and to the point.
I have nothing against socialized medical care per se. I definitely am against it run by the federal government. If each state wants to experiment with it, power to ’em.
All the bold experiments, in our constitutional order, should be done at the state level. Federal tyranny was deemed a genuine risk by our founders, so federal power must be limited if we’re heirs of their vision.
The brilliance of a limited federal government over 50 states is that citizens of states can walk, if their states run amok. No need for a passport to find a new home elsewhere. But if the entire republic goes bonkers because a national government gets ambitious, best of luck with that hike. It’s surprising how few countries have generous immigration policies.
Barry Lynn, a member of the very liberal apostate United Church of Christ, has been a spokesman for secular humanism for a long time. Though abortion is not directly mentioned in the Scriptures, “Thou shalt not kill” (as another commentator on this post mentioned) is clearly taught. That the preborn child is a human being from conception is taught in both the Old and New Testaments. Psalm 139:13-16 is an especially pertinent Old Testament teaching of the sanctity of the preborn child. The whole doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ is a powerful affirmation of the sanctity of life from conception. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. That is how God chose to begin His human life and identity with mankind.
We certainly ought to be sensitive and open and helpful to the really needed. (Many liberals and leftists are real “pious” about this, as was Judas Iscariot, as long as it is someone else’s money they are using to implement their utopian programs). But helping the poor does not excuse killing the innocent.
This man is hopelessly confused. Again, it’s not about not wanting people to get abortions because we “don’t like them.” It’s about NOT KILLING PEOPLE. What part of “NOT KILLING BABIES” do pro-aborts not understand? There is too much proof on the pro-life side….these are babies. Killing babies is wrong. The end. What is the problem here? We are not talking about gay rights, or the legalization of marijuana….we are talking about not butchering babies and calling it “choice.” It is abhorrent act. Just as we should oppose female genital mutilation, and rape, and slavery, the only right thing to do is reject abortion completely. It is not a preference–it is recognizing injustice and wanting to fix it. Stupid, stupid pro-aborts.
Why can’t we fight this injustice AND help the poor? What is the matter with these people? We have to sacrifice one to save the other? I don’t think so.
*HEADDESK*
Who is more poor or more vulnerable than the baby in the womb? Even if he can’t make the leap that “thou shalt not kill” applies to abortion…along the lines of poverty, who is more poor than the one whose very life & existence is at risk?
Ex-GOP – once again, why do the actions of a few boorish idiots suddenly represent the mindset of the entire GOP? If I waved around some of the idiotic stunts pulled by Democrats and claimed that these three or four people OBVIOUSLY represented the ENTIRE Democratic party, it wouldn’t be exactly fair, would it?
Also, do these people not understand that “Separation between church and state” means there can be no government-sanctioned religion; it does NOT mean our religious beliefs should not inform the way we vote or how we live. Indeed, I should hope that any good Catholic/Methodist/Jew/Buddhist/Taoist would live and vote and breathe their philosophy. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.
Planned Parenthood proves that abortion IS a government-sanctioned religion. And they want us to stop “forcing our beliefs” on them.
Who is more poor or more vulnerable than the baby in the womb? Even if he can’t make the leap that “thou shalt not kill” applies to abortion…along the lines of poverty, who is more poor than the one whose very life & existence is at risk?
Great point, K.S. No one is more poor or vulnerable.
“The function of government is to protect human life.”
The function of government is to satisfy its end of the social contract. The citizens define the terms of that contract. Americans have modified those terms over time to include, among many other things that go beyond merely “protect[ing] human life”, helping the poor, by electing officials who have successfully implemented various social safety nets and by reelecting officials who continue to maintain them. You’re right, of course, that charity is definitionally a private practice; however, citizens expect their private values to be reflected in the public actions and policies of representative government: thus, entitlements.
“Again, it’s not about not wanting people to get abortions because we “don’t like them.”
Sure it is. That’s ultimately what it boils down to, framed in more grandiose terms. You don’t like them because you believe that abortion is murder and therefore immoral. Thus, you want the government to step in and regulate that particular private behavior on moral grounds. Okay, fine, but what I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer for, despite repeatedly asking on this site, is why it’s appropriate for the government to step in and regulate that particular private action on moral grounds but not numerous other private actions that are arguably immoral as well.
Uh, Joan, have you read the Declaration of Independence lately?? Life is first. All rights after that are meaningless if you can’t insure that one.
THE RIGHT TO LIVE. My eight year old understand this. Why can’t you?
The function of government is to satisfy its end of the social contract. The citizens define the terms of that contract.
Golly gee whiz, Beaver, I guess this doesn’t apply to China!
why it’s appropriate for the government to step in and regulate that particular private action on moral grounds but not numerous other private actions that are arguably immoral as well.
What other private actions do you believe are immoral as well that the government doesn’t step in and regulate, joan? Do any of these actions involve killing humans?
You need to pinpoint what you are referring to before we can start our debate.
Yeah, Joan? You can’t have any other rights if you’re dead. So. The right to live trumps all. And no, it does not have to do with us “not liking” abortion. Hey, there are some things that are stupid, like smoking….and we have more restrictions against smoking than we do with abortion. What is that??? Should we lift laws against rape, because, you know, it’s not fair since we’re imposing our beliefs on those who “like” to rape? Or child abuse?
“Don’t like child abuse? Don’t abuse one!”
“Don’t like rape? Don’t rape anyone!”
It’s just ridiculous that you don’t get this. The fact that you have to waste this much energy DEFENDING THE KILLING of babies just proves how solipsistic and sophist your movement is. We don’t want to control women or their bodies. We don’t want babies to be killed. Ta da. See? Killing = wrong. It’s very, very simple. Just like rape = wrong. And slavery = wrong. And the Holocaust = wrong. And child abuse = wrong. Abortion is a gravely disturbing act….the dismembering and incinerating of baby human beings. It was bad enough when we didn’t have all the scientific knowledge years ago….because you pro-aborts could just plead ignorance. But now it’s just….it’s completely horrific, that you KNOW what it is, you know WHO you’re killing, and yet you will defend this as a “right.” It makes me shudder and gag.
Abortion goes against everything good and decent in the world. It is the worst form of rebellion and destruction. It isn’t “cool.” It isn’t about “choice.” It isn’t about “independence.” It is a disgrace. There is NO REASON to abort. The reasons women abort are not reasons, they are excuses. These are not insurmountable problems. Abortion is selfish, and bloody, and horrific. Anyone with a brain should reject it immediately, and instinctively, and not waste their time defending it as a “right.”
Well, well said, Mary Lee.
Thank you, Courtnay!!
“The function of government is to satisfy its end of the social contract.”
Is there anything outside the social contract for which the government should be held accountable? I’m not necessarily talking about the way our government functions, but an ideal government. Is there anything outside of its social contract?
Joan, a question, when the citizens of Germany defined their social contract as the Third Reich uber alles and others must be subjugated or liquidated, was that good government or bad government? By your definition they were functioning by definition, yet if it was functioning properly, why did their government collapse so quickly? Either government exists to protect inalienable human rights, or government is just another vicious animal wandering the forest, looking for victims for lunch based on his appetite of the day.
Why regulate this and not that, it’s really quite simple. We proscribe murder and theft precisely because those actions violate the rights of life and property ownership. Those acts exist specifically to infringe the rights of others. If all human beings have intrinsic value, then abortion is an act that specifically is designed to infringe on the rights of another person.
Things like eating french fries, the parameters of a mutually-agreed upon business deal or drinking alcohol don’t exist precisely to take away another person’s life. They may play a part, but they are incidental actions, we regulate them or not based on tradition, public opinion and practicality. But what good government sanctions murder if 50.1% of people are for it? Is genocide in Darfur good government because a majority there support it?
Your entire concept of rights and government is a mound of sand. If we can draw lines through humanity and define those on one side as persons with rights and those on the other as property, what right is sacrosanct? Does your life even have value, or are you a pointless heap of matter? We believe your life has value, but your beliefs threaten your own sacrosanct right to life, and for what? What do your beliefs get you? We kill unborn children to make ourselves feel better? Does it really, in the end?
JoAnna: Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible: false. “Thou shalt not murder,” for one. For more examples, see here. For a minister, he sure is ignorant of Scripture.
Holy Crow – abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times. It’s not like killing, per se, was prohibited in the Old Testament….
“Golly gee whiz, Beaver, I guess this doesn’t apply to China!”
Considering China is an authoritarian state without any philosophical or historical basis in contractarianism, no, it doesn’t apply to China.
“What other private actions do you believe are immoral as well that the government doesn’t step in and regulate, joan? Do any of these actions involve killing humans?”
“Killing humans” is the only moral issue the government has a mandate to involve itself in? I’m just trying to pick apart the justification for the government forcibly preventing abortion but leaving other “immoral” private actions to the discretion of the individuals engaging in them.
“Yeah, Joan? You can’t have any other rights if you’re dead. So. The right to live trumps all. And no, it does not have to do with us “not liking” abortion. Hey, there are some things that are stupid, like smoking….and we have more restrictions against smoking than we do with abortion. What is that??? Should we lift laws against rape, because, you know, it’s not fair since we’re imposing our beliefs on those who “like” to rape? Or child abuse?”
Those other things are not in any way comparable to abortion. The justification for restricting smoking, child abuse, and rape is rooted in the fact that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harm. However, fetuses are not citizens. The government has no responsibility to them. They have no political or social standing, and what’s more, “protecting” them would necessarily violate the bodily autonomy of a pregnant woman.
“Is there anything outside the social contract for which the government should be held accountable? I’m not necessarily talking about the way our government functions, but an ideal government. Is there anything outside of its social contract?”
No, and if there was, that would undermine the entire concept of a social contract because the government would no longer be ultimately and exclusively responsible to its citizens, but also some external force, whatever that may be.
“Joan, a question, when the citizens of Germany defined their social contract as the Third Reich uber alles and others must be subjugated or liquidated, was that good government or bad government?”
The citizens of Germany never defined their social contract as “Third Reich uber alles”. Hitler was not elected dictator-for-life, he assumed that position in contravention of existing democratic government institutions. Hitler rendered Germany’s social contract null and void by creating a government with no responsibility to the will of its citizens.
“They have no political or social standing, and what’s more, “protecting” them would necessarily violate the bodily autonomy of a pregnant woman.”
But there would be nothing wrong with this if the social contract said that the “bodily autonomy” could be violated. Otherwise, this would “undermine the entire concept of a social contract because the government would no longer be ultimately and exclusively responsible to its citizens, but also some external force, whatever that may be.” In this case, the government should not be responsible to the outside force of “bodily autonomy.” So it seems that there is nothing “transcendent” about bodily autonomy, it simply is part of teh social contract that we have made with the government, which we could presumably change at any time, and nothing would be wrong with that.
Joan, are you the Decider? The other laws are to protect “citizens” but abortion laws are to oppress women’s liberty? Pffft. Give me a break, PLEASE. Abortion has NOTHING to do with bodily autonomy. NOTHING. That is a sound bite, a slogan, it doesn’t even MEAN anything. How is the life of a human being less important than a woman’s right to be temporarily inconvenienced? If you’re old enough to decide to have sex, then you’re old enough to have a baby. There is NO justice in abortion, and there is no medical necessity for abortion. We can’t fight for “bodily autonomy” (whatever the heck that is) while DESTROYING THE BODY OF ANOTHER! We cannot do that! That is NOT a right. There is no such thing.
well, considering that not being able to have children was like a curse in the bible (Sarah, Abraham’s wife…..Hannah….the mother of Samuel….both had difficult times with getting pregnant until they were finally granted the answers to their prayers and each had a baby). And the midwives that saved the lives of the Jewish baby boys when the Jewish people were SLAVES in Egypt…..they didn’t kill the babies!
I believe there is something about deliberately causing a miscarriage…..not sure which verse….but I am sure someone who is a biblical scholar could help me.
But here’s something I found on a website about old testament studies
but the lack of children was often considered a curse. Therefore, a voluntary abortion was unthinkable for an Israelite and, consequently, was not an issue to them.
Oops my computer won’t let me edit.
Joan: Pro-abortion arguments are not rooted in truth or science or logic. They are functionalist, relativist, and scientifically ignorant. We are humans, no matter how big or small we are. We deserve the right to exist. It is not about how ‘developed’ we are, or how we ‘function’ or what we ‘do.’ It is about what we ARE. These are human babies, beautiful little lives. They are not considered persons by pro-aborts because that would mean killing them would be WRONG! (*GASP*)…..But killing them IS wrong because logic and science tells us that they ARE people. We cannot put value on people based on how they function or their education or their ‘feelings.’ We have value simply because we are of humankind. Whether we are 12 weeks along, or 114 years old, it doesn’t matter. We do not ‘earn’ value. We all deserve to live, all of us, whether we are smart or stupid, small or big, born and ‘unborn.’ We are all alive and we all deserve to STAY THAT WAY. Nobody—NOBODY—has the right to kill us.
Considering China is an authoritarian state without any philosophical or historical basis in contractarianism, no, it doesn’t apply to China.
And yet you fully support the forced abortion and sterilization policies of that authoritarian state.
Apparently Joan only believes a woman’s bodily autonomy is valid if her government TELLS her it’s valid.
“The justification for restricting smoking, child abuse, and rape is rooted in the fact that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harm. However, fetuses are not citizens. The government has no responsibility to them.”
I’m pretty sure it is also illegal for me to kill a visitor from another country or an illegal immigrant. Oops. Guess our government doesn’t just protect it’s “citizens”.
I notice that many who wish to speak for God on the abortion matter also make God out to be a fool. Only a fool in his heart has said there is no God, and only a fool would pretend to say that God condones abortion.
God knows about poor people, rich people, sad people, happy people, ignorant people, and foolish people. He knows us all better than we know ourselves. And He is not to be mocked by saying He is so foolish as to “forget” those people in the womb.
The next step after calling God a fool is to call the fools wise. After that the guilty become the innocent. There’s no end to how foolish people become when they first make God to be a fool.
“But there would be nothing wrong with this if the social contract said that the “bodily autonomy” could be violated.”
Yes, that’s true, at least to the extent that you (in the collective sense, as the body of citizens that are party to the social contract with the government) could agree to a contract that specifically allows you to be violated. A better example would be a situation where there literally is no social contract to begin with (again, the example of China as I responded to above), in which case there is no inviolable concept of bodily autonomy.
“So it seems that there is nothing “transcendent” about bodily autonomy, it simply is part of teh social contract that we have made with the government, which we could presumably change at any time, and nothing would be wrong with that.”
You’re right, if the social contract was changed with the consent of the governed then it could, with the caveat mentioned above, allow for that. Of course, the social contract, in the philosophical sense that we understand it and the sense in which it serves as the basis for our government, is sturdy enough that it cannot be changed on a temporary democratic whim (in other words, the second a theoretical 50.1% of the population has changed their minds).
“Joan: Pro-abortion arguments are not rooted in truth or science or logic. They are functionalist, relativist, and scientifically ignorant.”
Or maybe you don’t fully understand them? Maybe when you figure out whatever the heck bodily autonomy is (hint: it’s what prevents the government from harvesting your organs after sentencing you to prison), you’ll be more capable of grasping an argument based on such in favor of abortion.
“I’m pretty sure it is also illegal for me to kill a visitor from another country or an illegal immigrant. Oops. Guess our government doesn’t just protect it’s “citizens”.”
A person capable of murdering a foreign national or illegal immigrant is just as capable of murdering one of their own countrymen. Also, countries have certain responsibilities to each other that they observe in order to maintain good relations, and one of them is recognizing the value of each other’s citizens. There are pragmatic reasons for why forbidding the murder even of non-citizens is a valid governmental interest.
JoAnna: Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible: false. “Thou shalt not murder,” for one. For more examples, see here. For a minister, he sure is ignorant of Scripture.
Doug: Holy Crow – abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times. It’s not like killing, per se, was prohibited in the Old Testament….
The Bible prohibits the killing of innocent persons. It does not prohibit the killing or execution of the guilty.
Exodus 21:22-
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. .New Living Translation (©2007)
I’ll say it again because you may not have seen when others have quoted this before – but this isn’t talking about miscarriage. It refers to harm coming upon a preborn child as a result of the actions of another. “Gives birth prematurely” is the correct translation in Hebrew.
I can quote you other passages in which the Bible describes the Lord knowing the preborn child before birth, forming him/her in the womb, the conception of John the Baptist and Christ, etc, but I know none of that really matters to you, Doug.
I’m kind of stunned that you even responded to this statement – why should it even matter to someone who puts no stock in the Bible whatsoever? Anyone who believes the Bible teaches the unborn have so little value as to be acceptably aborted is not rightly dividing Scripture.
joan: A person capable of murdering a foreign national or illegal immigrant is just as capable of murdering one of their own countrymen. Also, countries have certain responsibilities to each other that they observe in order to maintain good relations, and one of them is recognizing the value of each other’s citizens. There are pragmatic reasons for why forbidding the murder even of non-citizens is a valid governmental interest.
It’s not about good relations with other countries. It’s not legal to murder one of the thousands of “stateless” people in the U.S. either. The lack of citizenship of the fetus has nothing to do with why it isn’t protected by law in this country.
Our government plays a role in protecting innocent life, even the lives of those that aren’t citizens of our country. We get involved in addressing mass atrocities and serious human rights violations around the world. I pray for the day our government recognizes the mass atrocity and human rights violation of abortion.
Wrong again, Joan.
This is from our founding document, which tells with crystal clarity the purpose of government:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Dear “Pro-Lifer,”
Reverend Lynn is right and all of the short-circuiting brains witnessing here are proof positive.
So, if you’re gonna talk the talk, you’re gonna have to leave your politics behind and walk the walk.
Life doesn’t end at childbirth.
Um, nobody said it did, “mp.” That’s why I said it’s not either/or. If you don’t believe in protecting life at all stages, then you have no respect for life, period.
If you don’t believe in protecting life at all stages, then you have no respect for life, period.
Then why did the respected commenter “Mary,” on a previous thread, say to me that the governor of Arizona was correct in denying health care to Medicaid patients, which would likely result in their deaths? Is this forum about the children of G_d, or is it about taxes and politics?
What’s it gonna be?
If you don’t embrace life–all of it–as a matter of faith and policy, the term “pro-life” degenerates into a meaningless propaganda tool.
What is a specific comment here that you believe juxtaposes protection of unborn human life with post-born human life or that implies that life ends at childbirth, mp?
You know what else isn’t mentioned in the Bible? Drunk driving. Clearly there is no Biblical or moral framework for a Christian to oppose it. So, since it isn’t mentioned in the Bible specifically, every Christian may consider themselves at liberty to drink and drive as much as they like. It’s great that Lynn explained this to me, since I never would’ve thought of something as stupid-sounding as that on my own…
mp:
Commenting Rules
Do’s
“Criticize ideas, not people.”
“Criticize ideas, not people.”
I criticized no one. I simply asked why.
too bad the reverend does not believe in life for all humans. In endorsing abortion, horrifyingly via Jesus and the bible, he commits a sin against God’s special creation: humankind.
If God created and said it was ‘good,’ we are not to destroy. He gave us brains to till the soil, take care of the Earth and each other. We were not created to destroy. And when we do grave sin – doing things with forethought and cause hurt and injury to others (especially the innocent) – we end up being the opposite of what God wants.
While everyone has free-will, we hope that in the end, humans choose wisely and for the good – not for evil or destruction. Even non-believers should know good from evil with the Natural Law written in their hearts. But if a person has a hardened heart – then he does not act with the highest good in mind…. we hope for help, hope and love for all and that they recognize their fellow brothers and sisters – no matter their location, and situation.
This reverend is unfortunately a poor role model of Christ’s love, mercy, obedience and trust. I hope he re-reads the bible. He needs a remedial course, unfortunately.
JoAnna – I’m not reading through all 45 posts to see if this went a different direction, but I did see the one post directed towards me (yours) – and the problem I have with it (along with the booing of the US soldier) is that all the candidates just stood there looking like idiots – nobody denounced the person (or people) who did something stupid – it was as if they stood around during a crime and watched and then said they had nothing to do with it.
Yes, it was a few individuals – but it would have said a lot for a candidate to get mad and say we aren’t going to boo a soldier, or we aren’t going to yell that people should die. Are the candidates afraid to say anything that might make them look compassionate in the eyes of tea people?
I love it when these anti-choice tea partiers try to bring a constitutional argument into the abortion debate lol
The U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. Citizens… and fetuses are not citizens. Not in the womb of a US citizen or an illegal immigrant, not until it is born… Only after said fetus is no longer a fetus and is born is it a US citizen.
MP – If you don’t embrace life–all of it–as a matter of faith and policy, the term “pro-life” degenerates into a meaningless propaganda tool.
They don’t like it when you throw reality and logic into the argument. They prefer to rely on scripture and faith. However if you wish to see just how far their love of life goes just read back a couple months to the posts about Osama being killed right in front of his wives… Most of these “pro-life” commenter’s were cheering his death as was I but I am pro-choice meaning he choose to knock down out towers and we choose to shoot him in the face.
Before I get a bunch of argumentative comments shouted at me, There were also some anti-choice commenter’s here that did not want to see him killed but rather jailed or converted to Christ which as a matter of principal I respect, if not agree.
Biggz – thank you for recalling that commentors on this board found the purposeful death and the media-endorsed glee at Osama’s death was not echoed here universally by pro-lifers. Many of us found that repugnant, which I am glad you acknowledged.
Killing is repugnant, and should be avoided if possible. With abortion – it’s totally possible to avoid that direct ending of human life…. Abortion is for life-style choices, due to coercion or ignorance. No woman has to raise that child if she does not want to. If women did not deliver their children for slaughter, there would be no abortion.
But good behavior – toward our citizens and those visiting and in our country for other reasons – should be the norm. Killing should be the last resort.
And the golden rule applies here of course: Do onto others what they would do onto you. If you don’t want your life to be forcibly ended, even as a matter of courtesy, then do not support abortion.
No religious argument. Just plain courtesy and common decency.
I read many verses’ that talked about helping the poor but I do not recall seeing the word abortion in the bible…
Can someone tell me which versus it is that I can find abortion on in the bible? Is abortion in the new testament or the old testament? Should I ask a Rabbi about the old testament? I have seen a lot of speculation about the interpretation of the bible in which they talk about abortion but I don’t remember reading about Jesus or God talking about abortion…
I remember Mathew 7 1-5
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye”
But I cannot remember a single passage that mentions abortion… anyone?
Not in the Bible? Thou shalt not kill! This minister needs to watch an ultrasound of a pre-born baby as I did several months ago. It’s not a cow! It’s not an alien from outer space. It is a pre-born baby.
Biggz -
I think “thou shalt not murder (or kill)” is a tough one to say is definitively about abortion because you could refer to a lot of things – people, babies (before or after birth), animals, criminals – people use that verse for a lot of things.
There isn’t a direct version that hits on abortion – but there are several verses regarding a person being a person either at conception, or in the womb. This is what most folks will run with.
I think Barry Lynn could have handled it a lot differently (I don’t know much about the guy and what his motives might be…) – he could certainly say something along the lines of abortion surely being an evil, but you can’t just ignore the sheer volume of scripture devoted to helping the poor. You just can’t focus on a few verses will ignoring huge chapters.
I mean, have you seen many Christians fighting for a year of Jubilee?
Biggz,
I don’t usually reply to your posts, since they’re usually “troll-flavoured”… and this one seems full of vacuous rhetoric, as well… but just to illustrate the point (and to honour the extent to which you were fair-minded about pro-lifers, on this thread): can you find anywhere in the Bible where the word “homicide” is mentioned? I cannot, myself. Are we then to conclude that murder (by which a slippery apologist might mean “1st- or 2nd-degree murder”, but not “homicide” as classified by USA law) is morally wrong, while homicide is acceptable?
Do you seriously not see how silly this argument of yours is? The murder of an unborn child is murder, just as the murder of an infant is murder, and the murder of an elderly person is murder. Your search for a specific term used to describe a particular subset of murder is rather bizarre; one might as well say “Certainly, theft is wrong… but I see nowhere in the Bible that even mentions embezzlement! Thus: stealing from individuals must be wrong, while stealing from businesses and groups must not be wrong!” Have some sense, man!
In the Old Testament, there are some 10 Hebrew words that could be translated loosely as “kill” not including several words that mean “smite”, or to strike causing injury or death. The Ten Commandments, as given in Exodus 20:13 and again in Deuteronomy 5:17, use the Hebrew word ratsach, which translates more precisely to “murder” or killing of someone innocent. As directed to kill animals for sacrifice, as in Deuteronomy 12:21, the Hebrew words zabach and the closely related tabach are used, which more closely translate to “slaughter”. The Hebrew word that means kill in a broad sense of purpose but focuses on the manner of death is harag, which suggests slaying, as by a sword, as used in Numbers 22:29.
Assuming a child in the womb cannot be guilty of anything, abortion would be murder and forbidden by the Ten Commandments.
Mary Lee (at 11:37 a.m.) ,
Lift up your head from your desk and hold it high with pride. You said it all, and you said it right! :)
LOL thanks, Hans!!
Ex-GOP – I don’t know about the other candidates, but Rick Santorum stated afterwards that he did not hear the booing (so I’m assuming the other candidates didn’t hear it as well). When he realized it had happened after the fact, he condemned it.
Well – the word abortion is not in the bible – and neither is trinity or the word bible. Just because the language in the bible does not mention a specific thing or sin, does that mean it does not exist?
Take wife-beater – I am pretty sure that word is not in the bible – so does that mean that wife-beating is ok? What about sexual assault – those two are not in the bible in that way – does that mean that it’s ok for a man to sexually assault anyone? No – of course not.
The bible is the course in how to live – in ALL TIMES, despite new sins, difficulties, new technologies and the like. We are NOT to: kill, steal, covet, lie, etc by the 10 commandments.
Notice that God did not say they were the 10 suggestions. ;)
But honestly – when one trumpets the purposeful ending of any human – no matter there size, development, location or degree of dependency – we are in real trouble.
Love all. Love big. Help protect every member of our human family – including the unborn.
JoAnna – not being there, it is tough to know if Santorum is telling the truth or not – I would assume that the candidates could hear people cheering (they seem to react to that), but who knows.
Regardless – not much comments after that (or the cheering of how many people Perry has executed, or the “yes” to the question of letting people die) - either at the debate or in statements afterwards, by any of the candidates, which is disappointing.