Stanek weekend Q: How to respond to assertion abortion isn’t in the Bible?
Rev. Harry Knox, CEO of The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, recently posted an op ed at Talking Points Memo, using the Bible to support abortion as an act of compassion.
Ironically, the photo accompanying his piece included me, from a day earlier this year when pro-life activists conducted a prayerful sit-in at Speaker Boehner’s office, which resulted in arrest.
From Knox’s piece:
With the myriad ways that God was invoked on the House floor, one might reasonably assume that the Almighty had sent a gilded memorandum, replete with red letters to the Speaker of the House.
Let’s be very clear: The Bible says nothing about abortion. Anyone who tells you otherwise is offering you their inaccurate interpretation of scripture. But let me tell you what is in the Bible: compassion. Indeed, compassion and love of neighbor are common to many faith traditions.
We read in Zechariah that God proclaims: “Make just and faithful decisions; show kindness and compassion to each other.” Paul writes in Colossians that we ought to, “Put on compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.” And in the Quran, compassion is the most frequently used word.
It’s simple: Our faith traditions call us to acts of justice and compassion. Yet that isn’t what anti-choice legislators are offering….
Women seek abortions for many different reasons. God trusts and empowers us to make the best decisions for ourselves and our families. It’s not our place to judge a woman’s personal decisions. God calls us to offer compassion, respect, and support so she can be at peace with whatever decision she makes. We believe this not in spite of our faith, but because of it.
How do you respond to Knox and others like him who say that since abortion isn’t specifically mentioned in the Bible as a sin, it is not only not a sin but a deed to be supported as an act of faith?
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.
There is nothing compassionate about abortion– especially when you are specifically talking about abortions on babies who can feel pain! Secular Pro-Life (secularprolife.org) is a great resource for defending the lives of preborn children without ever citing a chapter or verse.
Matthew 17:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
Everyone alive today, and everyone who has ever been alive on planet earth, has been involved in at least one pregnancy. When we were in our mother’s womb, we were involved in the pregnancy that gave us life. If we hadn’t been there, we wouldn’t be here. Pregnancy is, then, something we would wish for others simply by the fact that we are here. What was done for us we would wish could be done for others. What we would not wish done to us, we would not wish be done to others. This is the Law and the Prophets. This is, then, the very definition of compassion: “Follow the Golden Rule and you will keep the whole of the Law and the Prophets.”
Correct – the Bible does not explicitly mention abortion – but the scripture makes it clear that a pre-born life is a life. Furthermore, I’ve always liked the verse in James – “You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God.” Abortion often comes from fear and lack of trust in God for provision – it’s a sin in not trusting God as much as anything else.
With that all being said though, the Bible is even more explicit on things like helping the poor and immigrants – and our society ignores that all the time – heck, a lot of people on this board think the Government has no role in those things – so how somebody can say “Oh, the Bible says the Government should outlaw abortion but helping the poor – that should only be on private citizens” – I think that’s hogwash and it more about using the Bible to support beliefs, not getting all your beliefs from the Bible.
I’ll also go as far as saying that I believe a person who says that the Bible is okay with abortion is right on par with a person that says the Bible is okay with the death penalty.
The Bible DOES mention abortion!!!
It mentions the child in the womb and it mentions the murder of the child in the womb-or the destruction of-or the eradication of-or… depends on the TRANSLATION. Depending on this, what we know as abortion varies but in language only, not in description.
Usually when it is talking about the savagery of abortion it describes killing a per on “before they see the light of day.” The Jerusalem Bible uses the term “abortion.”
So among Knox’s outrageous statement is the lie that the Bible never specifically mentions abortion. Please see The Psalms 58:3;
Right from the womb these wicked men have gone astray,
these double talkers have been in error since their birth;
their poison is the poison of the snake,
they are deaf as the adder that blocks its ears
so as not to hear the magicians music
and the clever snake-charmer’s spells.
God break their teeth in their mouths,
Yahweh, wrench out the fangs of these savage lions!
May they drain away like water running to waste,
may the wither like trodden grass,
like a slug that melts as it moves,
like an abortion, denied the light of day!
I am not sure what the ancient Greek word for abortion was, does anyone?
Ancient Greek was different from modern Greek and Siliphium made it possible in the ancient world. I doubt it was any less painless then than it is now. But know is oblivious and uncaring to the pain of abortion, which makes it obvious he is a political mouthpiece not a soldier in this battle to save mothers from the pain of abortion.
knox is blending in the Koran to make it even more appealing to liberals who have misinterpreted the bible. Compassion has nothing to do with disregarding the truth, in fact, it is just the opposite. The hard truth is the essence of compassion, and has nothing to do with the fantasies knox and others are preaching as gospel truth.
The fact is there is an OVER-abundance of evidence revealing the pain of the unborn at the 20 week stage. The fact of the matter is liberal leaning institutions are hanging this fact on some cerebral connections saying those are not valid until much later. The reality is that these are invented to slur the truth. The truth is the reaction to pain has been witnessed, “like a scene in a horror movie,” a phrase that can be used like a slogan for the passage of this bill.
Ex-GOP, which bible are you reading? The Bible absolutely allows for the death penalty. Through the Bible we read of God’s institution of the death penalty. What’s the wages of sin? Death! It is the punishment for every man and woman who has fallen short of the glory of God. On another note I hope you don’t feel smug, or, dare I say, self-righteous that you’re helping the poor by paying taxes. The Gospel is personal. You can’t abdicate your responsibility to the “least of these” to your government. But what’s more is that despite spending more than $22,000,000,000 on the war on poverty since the 60’s our government has only exacerbated the problem. I wouldn’t suggest bringing that up when we’re all asked what we’ve done for the “least of these” on Judgement Day.
As far as abortion is concerned, it’s life by scientific definition. It’s life by biblical definition. To deny that is to deny the Bible and science.
My typical response to such absurdities is to cock my head and ask “where exactly did they look? One page of Habakkuk?”
Ex-GOP I know it’s useless to try to engage you, but, at the same time, I can’t see God slandered that way. God Himself commands the death penalty: “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.” Genesis 9:6 and here is a very short and incomplete list of places where God demands the death penalty for various crimes: Exodus 21:12, 14, 15, 16, 23, and 29, Leviticus 24:16, and Romans 13:4 (which specifically speaks of governments in general having the right to execute). My response to you is the same as for someone who claims the Bible didn’t mention abortion, doesn’t condemn homosexuality, or divorce: where did you look? One page of Habakkuk? Because the Bible is abundantly clear that certain crimes and sins justify and require the death penalty to be properly enforce and that governments (even evil ones) are ultimately given the power by God to enact laws for their citizens clearly and expressly including a death penalty. When God set up His perfect earthly government, the Hebrews of the Old Testament, the death penalty was very much in evidence. The Bible explicitly and wholly supports the death penalty for major crimes of society.
Cityof Angels –
Again, I think you can piece together a solid case – but almost every denomination and various critique of abortion and the Bible starts with “the Bible does not mention abortion directly”.
Joe –
There is a pretty big difference, and I hope you see it, between God’s judgment and man’s judgment. Under your odd support of “the wages of sin is death”, you’d kill a third grader that lies to you. Come on man – you can do better.
On the ‘Gospel is personal” – are you saying that Christians shouldn’t care about other people’s abortions when it comes to legal status – they should just personally apply scripture to their life? I mean, if it’s personal, that seems to be what you are arguing.
Jespren –
I 100% agree with you if you throw out the New Testament – if you are arguing for that (not sure what your religious beliefs are), then just state that and we have a different Bible we are reading from.
Furthermore, if you are going to rest your beliefs on those verses, can you please enlighten us on what sort of actions we would give the death penalty for?
The Bible does not mention my name directly, but it does mention the Book of Life, and I hope my name is written in it. God will not save us without our direct cooperation in protecting the innocent.
Proverbs 24:11 Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back. 12If you say, “See, we did not know this,” Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?…
The one that speaks to me is in Proverbs 24–“rescue those who are being led away to death.” Isn’t that where those little ones in the womb are being led?
“Thou shalt not kill” is about as basic a Bible commandment as you can get.
Yay, Melissa – exactly – it’s right there in the 10 Commandments. And if you would like an example of unborn children clearly pictured in the Bible as living people, try the first meeting between John the Baptist and Jesus, Luke 1:41
Guns don’t appear in the bible so it must be okay to shoot people.
Outer space isn’t described in the bible so the moral law can’t apply on other planets.
Muslims don’t appear in Christian scriptures so they should be disregarded.
America is not mentioned in the holy books so it must not exist.
The internet is not in the Bible or the Quran so obviously you are not reading any of this.
I think this is one of the better weekend questions in a long time because I do think Christians should have an answer – should understand their beliefs on abortion. As I read more commentaries on the subject – because it isn’t explicit in the Bible, Christians themselves have really ‘evolved’ on the subject over time. A lot of denominations, including Souther Baptists (some of the strongest now against abortion) once argued in favor of abortion – and many denominations are pretty neutral on the subject.
Again – some interesting reading and history. The Bible stays the same, but the way we approach the Bible has really changed over the years on a lot of subjects.
The Bible is also silent on female infanticide (which was widely practiced in those times). Should Christians support that too?
How to respond to assertion abortion isn’t in the Bible?
In my experience, it’s been more that Bible-based Christian pro-lifers are the ones asserting that abortion is not in the Bible, while pro-choicers assert that it is, i.e. Numbers 5:11-31 where a woman suspected of infidelity is made to drink a concoction made by priests using sweepings from the temple floor, which would contain ergot mold, a known abortifacient.
The theory being that if she was guilty she would miscarry, but if innocent she would be unharmed and able to have children in the future.
Doug, your interpretation is completely silly and is solely the creation of modern skeptics. It has been exploded again and again.
First of all, there is no suggestion in the text of Numbers that the woman is even pregnant at all. The husband simply wants to know if his wife has been unfaithful or not.
Second, your interpretation of the words in the Hebrew, “Her belly will swell and her thighs waste away” doesn’t suggest an abortion. This interpretation was unknown to the ancient rabbis: The Mishnah interprets it to mean: “Her belly swells first and then her thigh ruptures and she dies”. The famous Jewish interpreter Moses Maimonides even writes: “When she dies, the adulterer because of whom she was compelled to drink will also die, wherever he is located. The same phenomena, the swelling of the belly and the rupture of the thigh, will also occur to him.” Since men can’t have abortions or miscarriages, that obviously can’t be the meaning here.
Now if these rabbinic interpretations (which themselves tend to go a bit beyond this text), don’t contain any hint at miscarriage or abortion, you can be sure that meaning is not there in the original, for those rabbis knew the original Hebrew language much better than we moderns do.
But given that in the Hebrew Bible the word “thighs” is often a euphemism for the sexual/reproductive organs, the “wasting away” of the sexual organs is probably meant. I think the meaning of the original was probably that the guilty woman would become infertile, since it would be the direct corollary to the innocent woman remaining fertile.
Your naturalistic explanation of ergot poisoning as the way the curse works is also ridiculous: such a naturalistic means would not make any differentation between the guilty woman and an innocent one; it would cause an abortion /miscarriage to every woman who drinks the water. The text indicates that anything that happens is due solely to the power and judgment of God.
There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood…..
~Proverbs 6:17~
The only way abortion is not the shedding of innocent blood would be for people who procure them and commit them to believe that the preborn are either not persons or they are not innocent, and for that to be true. It’s not true. Therefore, people believe lies. Exactly what people are led to believe by liars who know the truth and call the truth a lie and lead others to believe their lies.
The liars are those who will have to answer for their lies, and those who have been lied to may or may not be guilty, depending on their capability of discerning truth. Be that as it may, there must be many, many who choose abortion who aren’t deceived and who nevertheless believe that carrying a healthy pregnancy to term is impossible. Or they have an animus against Sacred Scripture that causes them to try to twist Sacred Scripture to their advantage or to rebel against it. Or both.
According to Exodus 21, striking a pregnant woman, even inadvertently, such that she goes into labor is a serious offence. If no harm, beyond early labor, comes to mother or child, then the father may demand what recompense he chooses. If mother or child are harmed, then it’s an eye for an eye and a life for a life.
Rachel, there is no getting around the point that the Bible is, at the least, ambiguous with Exodus 21:22.
There is a good explanation of it here: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/exodus/21.htm
The King James Version says, If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
In biblical times, the “fruit departing” was going to mean that the baby was dead. To maintain that no, it necessarily meant that the baby would live, is just plain silly.
What we have are ambiguous Bible versions, where we can infer that the baby would die, or versions which leave no doubt about it – the baby dies.
There are plenty of Bible versions that are less ambiguous, and which make it plain:
The Wycliffe Bible: “If men chide, and a man smiteth a woman with child, and soothly he maketh the child dead-born, but the woman liveth over that smiting, he shall be subject to the harm (he shall be subject to a fine), as much as the woman’s husband asketh (for), and as the judges deem (appropriate).”
The Amplified Bible: “If men contend with each other, and a pregnant woman [interfering] is hurt so that she has a miscarriage, yet no further damage follows, [the one who hurt her] shall surely be punished with a fine [paid] to the woman’s husband, as much as the judges determine.”
New Revised Standard Version: “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.”
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”
Common English Bible: “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges.”
Complete Jewish Bible: “If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges.”
New American Bible (Revised Edition): “When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges.”
The Message: “When there’s a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Contemporary English Version: “Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn’t badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve.
Living Bible: “If two men are fighting, and in the process hurt a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage, but she lives, then the man who injured her shall be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband shall demand, and as the judges approve.”
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition: “If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.”
Jubilee Bible 2000: “If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that she aborts but without death, he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay by the judges.”
Lori Pieper: Your naturalistic explanation of ergot poisoning as the way the curse works is also ridiculous: such a naturalistic means would not make any differentation between the guilty woman and an innocent one; it would cause an abortion /miscarriage to every woman who drinks the water. The text indicates that anything that happens is due solely to the power and judgment of God.
Lori, why would it necessarily not make any differentiation? Certainly – there is some implied “magic” going on, from the get-go, especially when we look at things like what you said about the further translation from one person: ““When she dies, the adulterer because of whom she was compelled to drink will also die, wherever he is located.”
Hey – if we’re going to accept that, then we can certainly accept that the pregnant and unfaithful woman – which obviously would be the case at least once in a while – would have events turn out differently for her than for the one who was innocent. The Biblical God would presumably know the difference.
I grant you that it does not say that the woman is definitely pregnant, but the Bible is ambiguous about many things, anyway.
However, if there really is no significant debate over this Bible passage, then I stand corrected. I did say, “In my experience…” – this from arguing abortion over the past 19 years. Perhaps you are correct, but seems to me that it’s not so clear-cut as you assert.
Here is a well thought out and logical answer to the question: https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D2K2LSEnbvQg&h=tAQFZQdLR&s=1
By the way Doug, ironically enough, Klusendorf also addresses the Exodus 21 passage in the full interview of the clip I just shared. I think he pretty much blows out of the water, any flimsy excuse used to justify abortion from that passage. He addresses it at the 10 minute mark on this video: https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?list=PLxm7BdN5JahyQ87tYaKuOTW5DVvVbygIQ&v=FNWlq601Lp8
Using the Numbers passage to defend abortion is also highly problematic. If we are going to say there is “magic” involved, then obviously that is not any ways close to abortion. Granting the “magic” interpretation (for the sake of argument) then it would not be a intentional ending of the human life by a human being, God would be the sole determiner of whether the baby lives or dies; not an abortionist with a scalpel. So even if we grant your interpretation as correct, it would still not have anything to do with authorizing the intentional killing of unborn human beings through abortion.
You shall not kill. Abortion is murder!
Jonathan, thanks for the replies. I need peace and quiet to listen to the video – and right now that ain’t here. Tomorrow evening, probably – and I will reply.
Pardon me for not having the scripture reference on-hand…
But I was actually thinking on King Solomon recently and a ruling he made that got to the heart of the abortion debate. There were two women, both wit babies, sharing a home. One of the women accidentally rolled over on her child and smothered it, and then exchanged her dead child for the other woman’s living child. They went before the king to ask him to sort out who’s child was dead and who’s was living. He ultimately appealed to the love a mother has for her child – the true mother wanted life for her child even if it was life at the breast of another woman. True this account does not speak succinctly to life before birth, but maternal love can still be upheld as a love that strives for life even at personal cost.
@Laurie 1 Kings 3:16ff
I tend to give the woman who accidentally smothered her son a pass for acting the way she did afterwards…she was blinded perhaps by her own tremendous grief. The loss of a child, especially given her station in life, would have been overwhelmingly tragic in many ways.
Note that there is no record of King Solomon giving out any sort of punishment for her deceit.
People sometimes do outrageous things…like have an abortion…when they feel themselves cornered, scared, and unsupported…like this woman.
[…] Over the weekend, Jill Stanek asked a question in her post Stanek weekend Q: How to respond to assertion abortion isn’t in the Bible?: […]
I think the meaning of the original was probably that the guilty woman would become infertile
That wouldn’t answer the husband’s question about her fidelity, unless you’re saying that elsewhere the Bible indicates that infertile women were presumed to be adulteresses.
The fact is there is an OVER-abundance of evidence revealing the pain of the unborn at the 20 week stage. – an over-abundance of refuted evidence maybe. The relevant experts have agreed that 28 weeks is the earliest time of gestation where a fetus has the wherewithal to experience pain.
Pain capability is not the only indicator of personhood, and “relevant experts” disagree on lots of things. For instance, when a Muslim chops off the head of a Christian, his anti-Christian bias and Muslim faith reveals to him that the more pain the Christian feels, the more righteous is his act in killing the “infidel.” Therefore, torture to death is preferred to beheading. Other Muslim scholars would disagree with that interpretation of the Koran.
Similarly, “expert witnesses” in the anti-life, scientific community would tell you something similar to what is advised by the Koran: the pain of the victim of the execution is only given moral weight when it advances his or her moral objective. In the case of the abortion enthusiast, his or her moral objective might be, for instance, to create a coldness of heart within human beings for the rights of the preborn.
No, it’s not the only indicator. I was being specific.
“relevant experts” do often disagree on some things. What’s relevant is how many, why and on what evidence. The AMA have stated 28 weeks.
Your koranic/christian stuff is a little interesting but doesn’t add anything.
The pro-choice movement isn’t driven by abortion ‘enthusiasts’.
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision,” said Hillary Rodham Clinton, “I am really in awe of her, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life”
en·thu·si·ast
in?TH(y)o?oz??ast,en?TH(y)o?oz??ast/
noun
a person who is highly interested in a particular activity or subject.
“a sports car enthusiast”
synonyms: fan, devotee, aficionado, lover, admirer, follower
I don’t see the word ‘abortion’ mentioned in the quote you supplied. She spoke of her attributes and how she lived her life. Not what she espoused.
Hilary doesn’t drive the pro-choice movement.
2: By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example by recoiling.
Documentation:
http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/fetal-pain-the-evidence/2-documentation/#.VXZGw89Viko
Planned Parenthood Honors Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for Her Commitment to Women’s Health Care – See more at: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-honors-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-her-commitment-womens-health-c#sthash.nQyDsZIA.dpuf
“Mutual admiration society” It’s difficult to tell who is in more admiration of whom. Experts will disagree. One thing’s for sure: Hillary surely seems to think so highly of abortion that she thinks of it as one of the most important aspects of human life on earth:
“It was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award,” said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in accepting the award. “It’s part of a movement which is about economic and political progress for all women and girls. It’s about making sure that every woman and girl everywhere has the opportunity she deserves to fulfill her potential, the potential as a mother, worker and human being. The overarching mission of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the cause of reproductive freedom that you continue to advance today is as relevant in our world now as it was 100 years ago. So, I thank you.”
The peak body of meical science says 28 weeks. One small, biased clique of anti-choice doctors are exceedingly trumped.
Hillary surely seems to think so highly of abortion that she thinks of it as one of the most important aspects of human life on earth: – yet the subsequent quote you supply does not articulate abortion as the prime, let alone sole, issue of importance.
Biases and conformity in scientific research today are often formed by the political correctness political movement, which is nothing more than coerced conformity to a standard of speech and conduct achieved by jamming, shunning, prosecuting and penalizing the non-conformant. When objections are raised to the methodology used or some other deficiency in research, the typical response from academia, the media and the Present Administration is to not provide a reason why the methods used are provident of the claim, but instead will claim the researcher providing contrary views and evidence should be ashamed of himself or herself for being a bigot, misogynist, hater, white supremacist, lover of fetuses, out of touch with (the youth, the masses, etc.)…unintelligent, fascist, a head-case, unimaginative, crazy, deluded, brainwashed, incompetent, inbred…any pejorative that can be imagined can and will be used against the entity providing countering evidence. This shifts the focus of the debate and gives researchers a strong indication of which kind of results would not receive the same amount of opprobrium from his or her peers and the whole PC culture in general. No one wants to see themselves or their families being the target of a hate campaign, or find themselves unemployed.
That one finds so much unanimity in the scientific research community on PC-hot topics such as pain capability of the preborn only tends to prove my case that science is no longer a free exchange of theories, testing of theories and sifting and winnowing of truth.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/05/scientists-may-have-lied-to-promote-epas-global-warming-agenda/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/psychiatry-expert-scientifically-there-is-no-such-thing-as-transgender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t–MhKiaD7c&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_1FUDn1CjU
The Wednesday after U.S. House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Hillary Clinton tweeted:
“When it comes to women’s health, there are two kinds of experts: women and their doctors. True 40+ years ago, true today. -H”
This is direct evidence, using Hillary Roddam Clinton’s own words, that she is an enthusiastic supporter of abortion, probably at any stage of gestation. To see this is not an obvious reference to abortion and to say, for instance, “the word ‘abortion’ wasn’t used,” is disingenuous at best, willfully ignorant at worst.
This is direct evidence, using Hillary Roddam Clinton’s own words, that she is an enthusiastic supporter of abortion – no it’s not. It’s direct evidence that she isn’t happy about legislation drafted on factual error and based on ideology seeking to control women.
Biases and conformity in scientific research today are often formed by the political correctness political movement, which is nothing more than coerced conformity to a standard of speech and conduct achieved by jamming, shunning, prosecuting and penalizing the non-conformant. When objections are raised to the methodology used or some other deficiency in research, the typical response from academia, the media and the Present Administration is to not provide a reason why the methods used are provident of the claim, but instead will claim the researcher providing contrary views and evidence should be ashamed of himself or herself for being a bigot, misogynist, hater, white supremacist, lover of fetuses, out of touch with (the youth, the masses, etc.)…unintelligent, fascist, a head-case, unimaginative, crazy, deluded, brainwashed, incompetent, inbred…any pejorative that can be imagined can and will be used against the entity providing countering evidence. This shifts the focus of the debate and gives researchers a strong indication of which kind of results would not receive the same amount of opprobrium from his or her peers and the whole PC culture in general. No one wants to see themselves or their families being the target of a hate campaign, or find themselves unemployed. That one finds so much unanimity in the scientific research community on PC-hot topics such as pain capability of the preborn only tends to prove my case that science is no longer a free exchange of theories, testing of theories and sifting and winnowing of truth.
Rubbish. The AMA deal in facts, not philosophy. They have reviewed scientific studies. They have explained how conclusions were drawn. They are peer reviewed. Your attempt at an excuse for the 20 week claim being discredited is lengthy but empty.
No one wants to see themselves or their families being the target of a hate campaign, or find themselves unemployed. – what, like ‘advocating’ outside an abortion workers home, or their child’s school? Warning various service providers not to accept work from abortion facilities?
Being an advocate for the good, true and beautiful is a very good use of one’s life, and can save lives. Why should advocating for everyone’s highest and best good be discredited? Isn’t that what “Love your neighbor as you would wish to be loved” is all about? What do suppose this world would be like if no one advocated for protection of the most vulnerable? There will never be a time when the preborn who are no threat to anyone being denied their choices is a legitimate moral option.
There is no absolute way to know when the preborn are or are not capable of feeling pain. The pain of death itself must have something unnatural attached to its experience, and should, if medicine were properly within its own house, be prevented at all costs, not welcomed as an answer to the difficulties of life.
Being an advocate for the good, true and beautiful is a very good use of one’s life, and can save lives. – ah, so now you recognize Hillary’s position.
There is no absolute way to know when the preborn are or are not capable of feeling pain. – is that some sort of admission? The eminent scholars in the applicable fields have explained things with great clarity.
It’s impossible to determine with absolute certainty when that “moment” in time arrives when “the fetus begins to feel pain.” Do they not feel pain at 19 weeks and 6 days, and then, as if by some magic stroke of an off-stage director suddenly feel pain? I think you have to stretch the imagination into the “philosophy and faith” category to arrive at that “understanding.” To say “the science is settled on when the fetus begins to feel pain” is a faith claim based on some esoteric understanding of the meaning of “pain,” and probably a high-minded double-mindedness, with a dose of willful blindness thrown in for good measure. The 20 week timeline is arbitrary no matter who makes the claim because it could be earlier, not because it could be later. If that sounds like an admission to you, so be it.. Open minds are willing to set that point in time because of observable reactions to stimulus are not subtle, but it could be even earlier, but not later. I assume your mind is closed to an earlier date, yes?
Hillary Clinton is a great admirer of the woman who wanted to zero out the entire Negro race. This doesn’t seem to you to be a waste of her ability to discern good from evil? I think she’s missing some capacity to feel others’ pain, unlike her famous husband, who claimed he could.
There would be variations between fetuses as to an ‘exact’ moment. But it has been determined that 28 weeks is the earliest time at which the facilities required to experience pain are present. Erring on the side of caution.
There is clear science behind it, not just ‘observable reactions’.
You still appear to be missing the point of what Hilary had to say about why she was impressed by Sanger.
Erring on the side of caution would mean to allow the child to be born. Throwing caution to the winds and taking the consequences of having the abortion procedure, despite the numerous health and emotional outcomes experienced by the majority, would not be erring on the side of caution.
I have a low opinion of both Hillary Clinton and Margaret Sanger. That Hillary admires Margaret doesn’t impress me. If Hillary can admire Sanger, and judge her worthy of admiration, I can exercise my right to judge, as well, and judge them both worthy of my pity, with prayers and hopes that Hillary will some day live long enough to regret her having admired Sanger.
No, abortion is quite clearly the path to erring on the side of caution. Based on a number of factors.
I doubt Hilary is concerned about impressing you. Maybe one day you’ll regret your current position on her, who knows.
Apparently the vast majority of women don’t share your opinion on abortion being the best path. If they did, they would abort all the time instead of none of the time.
I don’t give a fig about what Hillary Clinton’s opinion is of me. I just know that there are millions of women who have the same low opinion of her that I have, and many of these women are those who regret having abortions who once had a high opinion of Hillary Roddam Clinton.
Don’t be disingenuous. Not every pregnancy invokes a question of whether to abort or not. But when it is contemplated many choose to err on the side of caution and abort.
I doubt Hilary has any opinion on you. Many more million women have a much higher opinion of her than you do. On what basis do you allege that the few women who regret their abortions once had a high opinion of her?
Disingenuous? Simply by the fact that abortion has been decriminalized, more women contemplate it now than ever before. Therefore, every pregnancy is contemplated as a potential abortion by someone. Abortion enthusiasts, for instance, who think someone who already has “her quota” should abort, and make their opinion known to the pregnant mother with snide, cutting and personal remarks, looks and actions. Draconian laws engender more draconian laws, and more cold-hearted, bloodthirsty people.
It may come as a shock to you, but where high moral principles are used to write laws, people adjust gradually to live according to those laws. When they do, they look back at those who opposed the implementation of the laws that eventually led to themselves becoming better people. Women and men actually, believe it or not, often become better and less selfish people when they become parents. Those are the millions who have a low opinion of Hillary and her enthusiastic admirers who once were deceived by her secular progressive humanist rhetoric.
Therefore, every pregnancy is contemplated as a potential abortion by someone. – you’re over-egging the pudding. Most of the ladies here would never contemplate abortion. Neither would their families or circle of friends. Other people probably wouldn’t know they were pregnant or wouldn’t be concerned either way.
Draconian laws engender more draconian laws, and more cold-hearted, bloodthirsty people. – which is why republicans need to be ousted wherever and whenever possible.
It may come as a shock to you, but where high moral principles are used to write laws, people adjust gradually to live according to those laws. – cr*p. They change them or overturn them.
Those are the millions who have a low opinion of Hillary and her enthusiastic admirers who once were deceived by her secular progressive humanist rhetoric. – you don’t know that. You’re just expressing your wishful thinking.
and your version of ‘high moral principles’ is open to question
Jonathon Stevenson: June 7, 2015 at 1:54 am
Here is a well thought out and logical answer to the question: https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D2K2LSEnbvQg&h=tAQFZQdLR&s=1
Jonathon, took me a while but I finally watched the video.
He seems pretty sensible. Looks to me like the whole argument there boils down to what he says near the end – that since the unborn are human, then biblical proscriptions against killing should be extended to the unborn.
Well, okay – if we are to pick one tack to take, then that one would certainly be in the running, in my opinion, but it would be contradicted, directly, by many things in the Old Testament, to start with….
By the way Doug, ironically enough, Klusendorf also addresses the Exodus 21 passage in the full interview of the clip I just shared. I think he pretty much blows out of the water, any flimsy excuse used to justify abortion from that passage. He addresses it at the 10 minute mark on this video
Jonathon, here’s that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWlq601Lp8
I couldn’t see it at your link. He does make a case against people willfully aborting, there, but that’s not what we were talking about. The Exodus 21 passage, does the baby die or not? What I see are Bible versions that make it clear that the baby dies, or the other bible versions – which are ambiguous about it.
In addition, it’s clear to me that some of the stuff in the Bible came from the Code of Hammurabi, sometimes practically word-for-word, and the relevant thing there is:
“If a man strike a man’s daughter and bring about
a miscarriage, he shall pay 10 shekels of silver for her
miscarriage.
If that woman die, they shall put his daughter to
death.”
What I see are Bible versions that make it clear that the baby dies, or the other bible versions – which are ambiguous about it.
And the versions that make it clear the baby doesn’t die. There’s those too:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/21-22-compare.html
“He does make a case against people willfully aborting, there, but that’s not what we were talking about.”
Actually Doug, it’s exactly what we are talking about. That passage isn’t referring to abortion so therefore it cannot be approving abortion. It is therefore irrelevant to the subject of abortion.
There is strong reasons to believe the baby referred to was alive and if not that the “life for life” clause applied to the baby as well. See this: http://www.str.org/articles/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion#.VXtXc-PX3OY
But regardless, the passage has nothing to do with abortion.
Navi: And the versions that make it clear the baby doesn’t die.
Navi, I think you are talking about the ambiguous ones. I’ve never seen one that clearly showed the baby living.
Jonathan: There is strong reasons to believe the baby referred to was alive and if not that the “life for life” clause applied to the baby as well. See this: http://www.str.org/articles/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion#.VXtXc-PX3OY
But regardless, the passage has nothing to do with abortion.
Jonathan, the relation to abortion would be indirect, i.e. the passage is not directly referring to willful abortion. It comes up frequently in abortion discussions when people are asking about or asserting things about how unborn life was valued in the Old Testament or the Old Testament times.
The site you linked to has its opinion, and there are others that agree with it. There are also others that disagree. It really is an ambiguous deal in some Bible translations and there are people trying to spin those translations both ways.
It’s also just one passage in the book. There are many others that show that unborn life was most certainly not always valued positively.
– – – – –
“He does make a case against people willfully aborting, there, but that’s not what we were talking about.”
Actually Doug, it’s exactly what we are talking about. That passage isn’t referring to abortion so therefore it cannot be approving abortion. It is therefore irrelevant to the subject of abortion.
Well, if it’s what we *are now* talking about, then fine, but they really are two different things. I think Klusendorf makes a pretty good point that the accidental nature of the woman being hit would not mean that willful abortion was thus permitted. Or, likely being more accurate – that it was not necessarily permitted. There is the whole rest of the Old Testament to go through, to better identify how unborn lives were valued.
Doug, it really doesn’t matter what this translation or that translation says. They are translations of the original Hebrew. So evaluating how the Hebrew word was used in other texts shows us how we should interpret it in Exodus 21. Stand to Reason does just that to determine that there were other words that consistently meant a dead child and that the word used there never meant that in any other passage.
As to what other verses you are referring to, not valuing unborn life, you’ll have to be more specific. I’m not aware of any.
Were you going to be more specific regarding those other verses you alluded to, Doug?
Jonathon, the Stand to Reason site may make good points about the language used – I’m not sure, there. Yet there is a larger context – the times and the fact that we are talking about Jewish people, customs and laws. I think that site neglects some things that are givens, things that it would rather not consider, such as the mortality rate of premature birth after the woman gets hit – hit hard enough to bring on labor. Infant mortality, even for normal, full-term births that occurred without serious problems, was around 30 to 50% in those times; this is figured based on comparisons with times in the 1600s, when we have good, detailed records. In the case of the Exodus 21:22 passage, that “the fruit departing” meant death might be such a given that it does not matter what the exact words were that the writer chose.
On just a real-life, physical basis too, is it plausible that the woman would be hit hard enough to bring on the birth, yet that “there would be no further mischief/harm” to the woman or baby?
There is the way the Jewish people themselves read the passage, the book of Exodus, and as part of the Torah, etc. – it’s common for Jews to study the original Hebrew, but quite rare for Christians.
There is also the obvious derivation of the passage from the older Code of Hammurabi, which makes it clear that it’s a miscarriage that results from the woman getting hit.
I realize I’m not going to convince you, but it’s a good discussion – and I haven’t given up on it. It’s after 1 a.m. and I need a day when I get off work a little earlier.
As for the other verses that show a lack of positive valuation for the unborn, from memory – in Hosea, Samaria had rebelled against God, and the infants there were to be all busted up, and the pregnant women ripped up – which obviously would be killing the presumbly innocent unborn babies.
In Genesis, Judah condemns Tamar to be burnt, no consideration for the unborn baby. Weird that old Judah didn’t even know that he was the father, but it shows what the writers of the Old Testament thought about the unborn.
This thread will “time out” in a couple days, and we won’t be able to comment more. If that happens, I usually move the discussion forward, to the most recent “Pro Life Buzz Blog” post or the like.
I don’t think you are really looking very closely at the passages you are bringing up nor thinking about the logical extensions of your arguments, Doug. I think you are just looking for anything that you can use from the Bible to justify abortion without even really looking to see if that’s what it really does.
For instance, the Law of Hammurabi. While it does have some similarities with the Exodus passage. It also has major differences. Or else we should conclude that the Exodus passage was not only speaking of a dead baby being born but also that the “life for life” clause was not talking about the man’s life that killed the woman but that his daughter should be killed (Law of Hammurabi 210. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.)
Also, the Hoses 13 passage was a prophecy of divine judgement that was not only limited to unborn children but also to the pregnant mothers and also already born infants. So you can’t just pick one of those three out and ignore the other two. Are you saying that passage indicates we should be able to kill pregnant women and born infants? I doubt it. Because God’s divine judgment doesn’t indicate a lack of worth for any of those three, does it?
The Genesis 38 passage regarding Judah and Tamar also does not accomplish what you are trying to make it do. For 1. It was merely a description of how things happened. There was no commentary on whether Judah was right or wrong. He thought he was having sex with a temple prostitute. Was that right or wrong? Of course we know it was wrong! He realized he was in the wrong and did not follow through on his orders to kill her. That’s hardly showing what you are trying to whistleblower into that text.
As for the chance of survival of the unborn baby in the Exodus passage, maybe the chances weren’t very good of survival. But that doesn’t matter. The Hebrew word used for the birth was one of a live baby, not a dead one. The passage is saying that only IF there was no loss of life or injury, that there would only be a fine. The passage did not comment on how likely that was to occur.
If there was loss of life (which would include the baby’s life) then the offender would pay with the loss of his own life.
The bottom line here, Doug, is that you aren’t really using any passage that defends abortion or demeans the worth of the unborn unless you come into it TRYING to see that. It’s just not there.
By the way, the word “whistleblower” in my comment should have been “shoehorn”. Sometimes I really despise autocorrect…
One other thing, Doug. If you go here and scroll down to the concordance part, it shows every single instance in the Bible where the word that was used in Exodus 21:22 was used (Hebrew word “yeled” which is Strong’s # 3206.) You can see for yourself it meant a dead child or a live one in all the other verses in which that same Hebrew word was used: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H3206&t=KJV
I think you are just looking for anything that you can use from the Bible to justify abortion without even really looking to see if that’s what it really does.
Jonathan, no – really not doing that. Going clear back to what Klusendorf said about Exodus 21:22 – that it was an accident, and thus is no necessary pronouncement upon willful killing – I think that makes perfect sense. As above, I am saying there are plenty of “verses that show a lack of positive valuation for the unborn.”
I’m really just saying, “This is the way it was, back then,” and that the Old Testament God in no way was always worried about “innocent lives,” etc. While I’m not a believer in the Bible, literally, I realize the deal is also supposed to be that there was a new deal, the new covenant, the rules changed, Jesus came along, etc. So I’m not at all trying to use the Old Testament to justify modern-day abortions.
Also, the Hosea 13 passage was a prophecy of divine judgement that was not only limited to unborn children but also to the pregnant mothers and also already born infants.
Yes, no argument there. Sounds to me like God was going to wipe ’em all out. Samaria had angered God by rebelling against God, and there was gonna be real heck to pay. My point, here, about the unborn would be that obviously the unborn cannot be blamed for any of the actions, here, that angered God.
So you can’t just pick one of those three out and ignore the other two. Are you saying that passage indicates we should be able to kill pregnant women and born infants? I doubt it.
Through this entire thread, I’ve never said that the Old Testament justifies anything, now. Contrast that with many pro-lifers who do cherry-pick O.T. stuff and proceed as if it must necessarily apply today. To be fair, I don’t see how born infants could be said to be “guilty” of Samaria’s transgressions, either, but the women obviously could. I didn’t mean to ignore the born – it’s just that the unborn are obviously (and totally, imo) blameless. There is no capacity for guilt, period. I reckon that could lead into a discussion of Original Sin and so forth, but that too is purely a matter of belief, and there is no point in debating between two people when they differ on their unprovable assumptions. I’m also not sure what you think about Original Sin and the unborn – I realize there are different feelings about it.
Because God’s divine judgment doesn’t indicate a lack of worth for any of those three, does it?
Here I would have to disagree. If the biblical God didn’t value them negatively enough, he wouldn’t have killed them (or at least Hosea 13:16 would not read like it does). Wasn’t God saying that they were worthy to die, rather than worthy to live?
The Genesis 38 passage regarding Judah and Tamar also does not accomplish what you are trying to make it do. For 1. It was merely a description of how things happened. There was no commentary on whether Judah was right or wrong. He thought he was having sex with a temple prostitute. Was that right or wrong? Of course we know it was wrong! He realized he was in the wrong and did not follow through on his orders to kill her. That’s hardly showing what you are trying to whistleblower into that text.
I wasn’t trying to make the text do anything. Just saying that this is another example of the way things were back then – that if the mother was gonna become a crispy-critter due to her whoredom, there was no concern for the unborn baby, though obviously there was no guilt there. I’m just saying that there are plenty of O.T. examples where the unborn baby didn’t count. Again – not saying this has any bearing on modern times.
As for the chance of survival of the unborn baby in the Exodus passage, maybe the chances weren’t very good of survival. But that doesn’t matter. The Hebrew word used for the birth was one of a live baby, not a dead one. The passage is saying that only IF there was no loss of life or injury, that there would only be a fine. The passage did not comment on how likely that was to occur.
Jonathan, you are proceeding as if there is general agreement on what the exact Hebrew words were, and their rendering into western characters, but that is not the case.
I cannot directly make heads or tails of Hebrew writing. I do see differing words than the ones presented at the Stand to Reason site. The Stand to Reason conclusion differs from most Jewish Hebrew scholars, and from several noteworthy western/Christian/Latin ones, including St. Jerome, who rendered it directly from the Hebrew Original of the O.T.
“Jonathan, you are proceeding as if there is general agreement on what the exact Hebrew words were, and their rendering into western characters, but that is not the case.”
I was unaware that ANYONE thought there was a word other than the Hebrew word “yeled” used in Exodus 21:22.
Could you tell me what other Hebrew word someone else thought was in place of that word and who it was?
By the way, thanks for clarifying where you are coming from. That does help me better understand.
As to Original Sin, I agree, that’s not really a conversation we need to have. Regardless of innocence or guilt, God created human being so He has a authority to do with them as He pleases. That does not make one human more or less valuable in any way. As you acknowledged, newborns were included in that passage as well. So unless you are saying that newborns (as a class of individuals) were not valued either, then I fail to understand what you are saying.
God chose to have human beings of varying ages, genders, nationalities, etc killed in various parts of Scripture. But that was God’s sovereign choice for that particular instance and says nothing to the general worth of the particular classes or groups of people mentioned, in general.
As to Judah and Tamar, as I mentioned already, this says nothing of the worth of Tamar or her baby. It only shows what Judah was about to do. Many people in the Bible are recorded doing things that were not acceptable.
So unless you are saying that newborns (as a class of individuals) were not valued either, then I fail to understand what you are saying.
Jonathan, I’m saying that in the Old Testament, the unborn were not always valued positively, both by the people and the times, as well as by the biblical God.
God chose to have human beings of varying ages, genders, nationalities, etc killed in various parts of Scripture. But that was God’s sovereign choice for that particular instance and says nothing to the general worth of the particular classes or groups of people mentioned, in general.
Yeah, I was never generalizing about everybody and everything in the Bible. “Not always valued positively” means just that.
It has come up in the past, and often in response to people saying that “God wants all the unborn to live.” This was demonstrably untrue in the Old Testament, and – considering the huge amount of the unborn that die in the first couple weeks after fertilization alone, from failure to implant and genetic deficiencies, mostly – deaths that occur without conscious input from the pregnant woman, deaths that presumably would then be under the control of an all-knowing and all-powerful being – it seems incredibly far-fetched that it would be true now.
I was unaware that ANYONE thought there was a word other than the Hebrew word “yeled” used in Exodus 21:22.
Could you tell me what other Hebrew word someone else thought was in place of that word and who it was?
Jonathan, I’ve seen other spellings than “yeled” – several others, in fact, but in the end I think they are all referring to the same thing. In looking at the Hebrew word itself, and noting the characters, it looks exactly the same to me in what I can find for the Hebrew text of Exodus 21:22.
I gather that what is going on is people taking the sound of the word, read in Hebrew, and then assigning English characters to it.
Biblehub.com gives these as different forms: ????????? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????????????? ????????????? ????????????? ????????????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????????? ????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??????????? ????? ?ay·ye·le? ?ayyele? haiYaled haiYeled hay·l?·?îm hay·y?·le? hay·ye·le? haylaDim hayl??îm hayy?le? hayyele? laiYaled lay·y?·le? layy?le? mî·yal·?ę mîyal?ę miyalDei ?·??·yal·?ę ???yal?ę uveyalDei vaiYeled vehaylaDim veyalDei veyaldeiHem veyaldeiHen veYeled vilaDeiha vilaDim w?·hay·l?·?îm w?·yal·?ę w?·yal·?ę·hem w?·yal·?ę·hen w?·ye·le? w?hayl??îm w?yal?ę w?yal?ęhem w?yal?ęhen w?yele? wî·l?·?e·h? wî·l?·?îm wîl??eh? wîl??îm y?·le? yal·?ę·hen yal?ęhen yaldeiHen Yaled y?le? y?·l?·??w y?·l?·?ay y?·l?·?e·h? y?·l?·?îm ye·le? yelaDai yelaDav y?l???w y?l??ay y?l??eh? yelaDeiha yelaDim y?l??îm Yeled yele? yil·?ę- yil?ę- yildei
So, no argument from me at this time that it’s not “yeled.”