We Won't Go Back: The Biblical Case for Protecting Women Who Need An Abortion

"Moderate" or "liberal" English translations of the Bible (RSV, NRSV, CEV, etc) do indeed render the phrase in Exodus 21:22 as "miscarries" or some-such, meaning the fetus is born dead. Thus the "any harm that follows" must apply solely to injury to the mother.

But "conservative" translations (NIV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, etc) render the phrase in Exodus 21:22 as "gives birth prematurely" or some-such - meaning the baby is born early but alive. So the "any harm that follows" then applies to both mother and/or baby.

Since your contention hinges upon a miscarriage instead of a live birth, it would seem important to know which rendition is more likely - from historical-grammatical evidence alone, ideally. How can we know?

[As a side-note, it is interesting to see how Bible translations seem to pattern again and again, in every way, into "conservative" and "moderate" camps, whenever it comes to any contentious translation. Isaiah 7:14 for example, plus numerous phrases in Genesis 1 and 2, and so on.]

Scott

Any attempt to translate the Bible in a manner that resembles the text is an interpertation. The concept of translators acting as interpreters has a long tradition going back to Martin Luther, who not only saw a duty to translate the Bible to German, but also to illuminate some of the dark spots for his readers.

Any intellegent reader will read key verses, like the ones used in the abortion debate, in multiple versions, and analyze what the agenda of the interpreter of each version was. Then they'll pull out a concordance to see how the Hebrew of Greek word is used in other verses to get a better idea what it means. (For the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh is also very useful)

A more intellegent reader will try to anaylze the cultural context and influences on both the original author and the translator. They will look at other laws from the ancient near east to compare what Isreal was doing to what its neighbors were doing. They'll look at what the theological backgrounds the translators were brining to the table.

This may seem to be of more a secular than spiritual matter but the subject of different translations has come up. As a young student of classics with a deep passion for foreign languages I have a brief comment.

I'd like to encourage people to study other languages, including the so called "dead languages" of Latin and Ancient Greek.

Not only is it an enjoyable experience, opening up the mind to new ways of viewing the world, new cultures, new poetry and literature,
but think of if Christians began teaching themselves Ancient Greek. Why not? Many Jewish young people are taught Hebrew, and learn to read their religious texts in the original language. If we could read the Gospel in its original tongue and learn the nuances of the culture in which Christ lived and taught, perhaps we can gain some new insight into our own lives in modern times.
I won't be immersing myself in Greek til I take Greek 101 in the fall, but from studying the mythology and drama of the ancient Greeks for many years I've come across numerous words that are so potent, so full of meaning, words that describe concepts for which we have no equivalent, I feel I have the right to hypothesize that the New Testement is full of similar words, words that have been simplified through out the history of translating the Bible.

I realize that not everyone is in my situation where most of my time is spent studying and going to class, learning is my primary activity each day, and it's hard to find a teacher of classical languages, especially with adult or continuing education. There's also of course the fact that we all live in a time of hectic lives where we find trouble finding time to be with family, friends, God, much less taking up a new language.
I'm just suggesting that if anyone does have the time and means, it would be a worthwhile endeavor spiritually.

The aspect of the Right Wing that offends me most is their vehement judgements against women who have abortions. It is this judgement that leads me to believe they are more concerned with the sins of others than with saving their own souls.

In my opinion, most Christians don't have a whole lot of right to go around judging others since the majority of their time should be spent getting the log out of their own eye. For some reason, this teaching of Jesus just falls to the wayside when it is time to judge others about abortion.

As for myself, I don't have the right to judge anyone who has an abortion or anything else I don't perceive as Christian. I'm too busy trying to straighten out my own spiritual misgivings and enhance the gifts God gave me through work, progress, and service to the world. That doesn't leave me a whole lot of time to point the finger at anyone who I don't feel is following God's path.

I cannot help but be suspicious of those who believe their souls are already so perfected in the eyes of God they have time to so speak out against others so loudly.

Ellen -- --

One of the things that has always fascinated me about the antiabortion movement,is its refusal to own up to its own rhetoric regarding abortion as the taking of innocent life when it comes to talking about the women who get abortions. They are very careful in not attributing to the women who get abortions either manslaughter or murder and even bristle when folks on the left suggest that the antiabortion position will one day result in the criminal prosecution of women. I think that they know that the majority of American people have no interest in throwing desperate women into prison. But their position becomes hopelessly inconsistent if this is actually how they are going to operate once abortion is outlawed. If the fetus is a child, if it is a person, anyone who participates in its extermination has to be guilty of either manslaughter or murder. They just can't go after the doctors.

I think that the anti abortionist are perfectly well aware of this inconsistency in their rhetoric, and that this is just one aspect of their radical agenda that is flying under the radar.

PT

Unless its the Peterson trial. Or have we all so quickly forgotten Laci?

I know I'm a guy, but this is not about gender issue to me.

First off, this may seem oversimplified, but it's actually this simple: Why do we see killing a pregnant woman as double murder? Because it is. It most certainly is. So how is only killing the infant okay? It's not. There are very few sitautions in which this is even remotely justifiable. I'm not completely against abortion, so please hear me out.

There is nothing in my bible that says that following God is some sort of guarantee that life will be free of hardship, pain, and suffering. To use the argument that an unwanted pregnancy is somehow violating someone's ability to love themselves, therefore kwwpinf them from loving their neighbor, is flawed. We do not, can not, and have never, loved first. It was because ..."God so loved the world..." My love is a reaction to Him and His love, and has nothing to do with my comfort or circumstances.

This is, of course, within the realm of Christianity. It is not wise to expect a level of moral standards from people who do not know the Lord. But we can and must live by example.

I believe in self sacrifice, in always putting others before yourself. That includes the life of a baby.

Now then, I do not fully oppose abortion, either. Please hear my heart on this.

If there is, medically, little or no chance that a pregnancy will be successful, meaning that the baby, mother, or both, will probably die because of complications in birth, I believe that in this regard it is ok to take a life in order to save a life.

Case in point: A friend of mine got pregnant, and the baby was developing in her philopian tube. If the baby was allowed to grow for very long, the tube would have burst, killing the baby and likely causing a life threatening situation for my friend.

In this case, the pregnancy would not have been successful (literally 0% chance of survival), and the only way to preserve any life would have been to terminate the pregnancy. The child had no chance of survival anyways. There was no grey area.

Beyond the situations that arise like this one, I believe that it is indeed selfish to claim that the birth of an unexpected or unplanned baby would destroy someone's life and therefore warrant termination.

When something happens, by no consequence of our own choices, that devastates our life, God is faithful. We do not turn on God in the face of natural diasaster, we turn to God. When something happens as a result of our choices, shouldn't we turn to God? Isn't God supposed to sustain us?

If we are not responsible for our decisions (having un-safe sex, premarital sex etc..) then how can we advocate this principle in other areas of life. We must be consistent.

If I do something like have sex before marriage(which I, personally, have), I have violated God's principles in my life. Truthfully, I have also payed for it, in the way I realte to my current fiance, and I honestly wish I had never made the mistake. I was lucky. Had my girlfriend at the time become pregnant, there would be no reason to termintate the pregnancy other than to eliminate the consequences of my mistake by ending a life. How selfish. "I screwed up, so honey, why don't we just have an abortion? My life would be devastated if I had to live out the consequences of my mistake."

The point is, my decisions have shaped my life, the good and he bad. I can't complain because of my choices. I can pray for grace and strength to cope with the circumstances I have brought upon myself because of my choices.

Abortion should not be off limits completely, but it should never be a get out of jail free card in hte name of personal comfort.

Tony

Having read a bit more on the interpretation of Exodus 21:22, it appears I will need to take the conservative side on that matter.

First, evidently the same Hebrew wording translated "miscarry" or "give birth prematurely" in Exodus 21:22 appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in contexts that imply a normal, healthy live birth (eg Genesis 25:25-26), and only rarely in contexts that imply the death of the offspring (Numbers 12:12). Second, it seems that the Hebrew Bible elsewhere contains different wording that always refers to miscarriage (eg Exodus 23:26), which the author/editor of 21:22 could have used if miscarriage is what was unambiguously being referred to here. Finally, there doesn't seem to be anything in the context of 21:22 that requires the death of the fetus to be in view here (or for that matter that requires a live birth to be in view) - a reading of the context works either way, such that the "any harm" referred to by the passage may encompass harm to mother or child.

So Exodus 21:22 seems to be inconclusive for Christians in this debate, and if pressed tends more to support the idea of weighting the fetus' life as comparable to a person's. In any case, what really makes it inconclusive is the fact that this is set within the context of the Jewish Law, which is progressively shown in scripture (first within the Hebrew prophets and most fully, of course, in the Gospel) to be subsumed under later revelation. In short, the Law is not God's Final and Best Word for mankind, but a culturally- and historically-appropriate expression of it for the time and place. We see this in verses 20 and 32 of Exodus 21, where a slave's wellbeing is valued less than a free person's - but in Christ we now see more fully. So, perhaps the same is the case with Exodus 21:22, even should the original posting be correct about the exegesis of that passage.

This is not to say that we Christians cannot find other grounds on which to, at least reluctantly, permit early-term abortion in our non-Christian society - for example, on the basis of letting go of what is Caesar's. And what is Caesar's, in our society, includes liberty in matters of personal conduct where the personhood of the "offended party" (ie the embryo or early-term fetus) is scientifically disputable.

But I do think that trying to establish a positive Christian scriptural case for abortion, in most circumstances, is on thin ground.

Scott

Well, I'm torn on this issue, as I see it to be rife with complexity. On the one hand, I would have to side with Tony; I can't simply support giving anyone an abortion 'carte blanche' to deal with some of the regrettable consequences of their choices. I would have difficulty supporting abortion for the sake of permitting women with an 'out' when they get pregnant but don't want the baby. We don't allow others to deal with the regrettable implications of their choices by any means necessary (e.g., robbing a gas station because I chose to use my paycheck to drink rather than pay the rent). So, on the one hand, we need to hold people responsible for their choices.

BUT, on the other hand, we must recognize the social environment that often circumscribes the individual's responsibility for many choices. Many unwanted/unintended pregnancies grow out of regrettable social circumstances that pervasively affect the conduct of individuals, yet those circumstances are beyond their control. We (as a society) can do something about these circumstances. We can work toward greater social justice and equality, which would give people increasingly better chances at life. So, I agree with PT that we need to give women real options by providing health care, affordable housing, adequate job opportunities, affordable day care, etc. Of course, as PT noted, this won't eliminate all abortions; but it will cut down on the large number that arise from desperate social conditions. It can hardly be just for society to relegate women (or men for that matter) to social conditions that preclude them from freely choosing (i.e., not under external compulsion, whether from social conditions or otherwise) how to live, and then compel them to bear the burden of the consequences that arise from such desperate conditions.

So, while I am sympathetic with much the PT has written, I am suspicious of some universal 'right to abortion' that would give women licence to avoid the consequences of those choices they are responsible for. But even when women use abortion in this way, it seems to me that Ellen's comments are particularly pertinent (I think they are also relevant for the gay marriage debate). It seems to me (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that the many NT injunctions for Christians to 'hold others accountable' and not countenance sin to which Christians appeal as justification for moral legislation are injunctions for Christians to hold other Christians accountable so that their witness would not be weakened by sin. Nowhere is there a call to coercively eradicate sin in society by legislation; partly because this would be futile (a person is not moral simply because they abide by a set of laws), and partly because devotion to Christ is largely asymmetrical (a person must make a free choice, not a coerced one). Anyway, this has become long enough. I won't even start on the 'fetus as person' debate...

I think those who would interpret the verse to be a ban on abortion will need to explain why there is several thousand years of companion Rabbinical writings that do allow abortions in some cases.

Here's the plain fact: Abortion is not mentioned a single time in the Bible. Here's another plain fact: It was known fully well how to perform an abortion for at least a thousand years before Christ. You're going to have to explain the total lapse of this, plus the above problem of limited abortion being deemed as morally correct.

Why do we charge a person with double murder? Because it increases the probability of achieving a conviction. Also, because Conservative politicians have been very busy over the last twenty years passing such laws to lay a legal groundwork for exactly the argument you are making.

As I wrote in my post - the true Biblical response for unwanted pregnancy is to kill the offending woman - or in a minority of cases, to marry her to the rapist. If you are going to deviate from that, I think you are going to have more than a scholarly debate about the meaning of one or two words.

Quit playing with God's word to try and make it say what you want it to. Acient Hebrew (the type that was used when the Law was created) was very rudimentary and didn't discriminate between a miscarriage and a live birth - that's why the KJV says "causes her fruit to be issued". Basically, the Law covers anything that makes a baby come out of the womb - the condition of the baby is irrelevant. Such wounds were incurred prior to the ensoulment of the baby and the penalty was very much obviously due to the damage to the woman - who was likely to hemmorage and suffer from being hit so hard as to cause a miscarriage.

XT

I must say that this does not really address the argument of the Roman Catholic Church, an argument which differs significantly from the argument of Evangelical Christian Churches. The Roman Catholic Church's argument is much more grounded in philosophy and theology than it is in scripture, and it is also grounded in the undeniable scientific fact that a human fetus is a human life.

As a Roman Catholic, it was the Christian Alliance for Progress' position on abortion that caused me to hesitate to affiliate with CAP. I did eventually end up signing the Jacksonville Declaration, but I still have some reservations about the Alliance's position on abortion. That's also why the blog that I contribute to has not affiliated with the CAP, despite the fact that we were invited to do so.

This is, without question, the area where you will encounter the most resistance.

God Bless,
Nathan Nelson
Contributing Writer
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis

Scott -- --

it is quite clear from the context that the expulsion of the fetus is as a result of the accident, and that what is in view here is a miscarriage. the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that is about 250 years older than Jesus, uses the word meaning "not fully formed" here. So this is not some sort of latter-day liberal attempt to read a modern idea back onto the text. As Xpatriate Texan says, one has to deal with the several thousand years of interpretation . in the Jewish and Christian traditions that have understood the text this way, as well as explain why it has only been in the last 200 years that the conservative view has asserted itself.

Regards,

PT

David -- --

I find your post breathtakingly misogynist. So we don't let folks off of the consequences of their actions do we? I suppose all of those women just impregnated themselves. And all the little girls who get raped and are the victims of incest, they probably asked for it, didn't they? And the women whose men abandoned them, they probably deserved to be dumped, didn't they? Women like Kate Michaelman, the former president of the National Abortion Rights Action League, who was a Roman Catholic mother of three and two months pregnant with her fifth child, when her husband walked out on her. Don't you imagine she was a lousy wife? And her other three kids have to pay for what she did to their father, too, right? The sins of the fathers and all that.

And the price that these women have to pay is their just desserts right? You're a little squeamish about any of them dying, but anything short of that is all right, isn't it? I mean, a little paralysis, a coma, some organ failure, a couple months of recovery after c-section gone wrong, maybe a few years in poverty--that's not too bad, is it? Bet they'll think twice before they jump in bed again next time, won't they?

PT

PT, I won't mence words with you.

Very few people would oppose aborting a baby if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, because then it will no longer be murder but self defense, which is always supported in scripture.

We are made in God's image as you also acknowledged. We should always desire to promote life not death.

God has created us for his good pleasure. There is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy in God's mind.

Human beings have nothing to do with the forming process of a human. It is God alone who makes us in the womb, he has our genetic blue print in mind before we even exist. Some of us will live long according to his will others will die sooner. But all have a purpose to live. We are not to interfere with this. We don't have the wisdom or the foreknowledge to know the future of how we think a person will turn out. That is not our calling, we are called to be conformed to image of God's Son Jesus. Recognize this, life is a miracle and a gift. If you treat it this way you won't need to worry about abortion, because you will value life first.

We are talking about babies, children, INNOCENTS, who don't have a voice yet. Lets give a chance to live the life both you and I have enjoyed.

GOD KNOWS THE UNBORN

PT,

It pains me to think that we would decide to direct the penalty of sin (ie; rape, incest or unplanned pregnancy) on the innocent bystander of that sin.

Let me first say that I do agree, as I stated above, that high risk pregnancies should be evaluated on a quality of life basis. This has nothing to do with inconvenience and everything to do with the health of the mother and child. In these circumstances, I am open to abortion as a necessary, though painful choice.

If there are complicaitons and health risks involved, then aborting a high risk pregnancy is much the same as when conjoined twins are seperated, and the circumstances dictate that only one will survive, and the parent must choose which one. That is a very hard decision, but that is a realistic decision.

I also agree that rape and incest are terrible things. I admit I can't fully grasp what that would be like first-hand, since I am a man and obviously won't ever be pregnant msyelf. At the same time, my heart breaks to think that we wouldn't cherish the life of that child regardless. It's the rapist, the perpetrator who should be pursued and punished. The child is alive, unique and special.

Life is life.

When it comes to unplanned pregnancy as the result of carelessness, unprotected and/or pre-marital sex, I have little sympathy. This is where we send the wrong message by allowing abortion. That message says "It's ok to knowingly do things you shouldn't do, because you can bail out if you get pregnant."

We have the technology and ability to recognize risk factors in fetal development, and to that end we should protect the life of the child and mother and avoid risks to life and serious conditions like you mentioned above.

We also have the methods necessary for pursuing rape cases with DNA evidence, making it much more succesful.

We must also have compassion on the defenseless little ones who rely entirely on us for their protection. And we must never use abortion as a free pass to avoid the ramifications of a personal choice like unplanned pregnancy consumated between willing participants.

Tony

Dear Zealot -- --

If there are no unwanted pregnancies in God's mind, then why is God spontaneously abort 15 to 20% of all pregnancies? That is a nice soundbite but it doesn't bear any relationship to reality.

By the way, the Scripture does not allow for self-defense as you suggest. Jesus is quite clear in the sermon on the mount in the Gospel of Matthew . that those days are over, incidentally quoting Exodus Chapter 21 as the specific text he wishes to overturn. Even St. Augustine, the father of just war theory in the Christian theological tradition, stated emphatically that if Christians ever used force, it never could be for self-defense, for this would be to violate the clear teaching of Jesus.

Regards,

PT

Nathan -- --

No one is questioning whether a fetus is a human life. The question is, when does it have standing in the community as a person? You are right that the Roman Catholic position is grounded more in the other theological ideas than it is in the reading of scripture. As an outsider to the Catholic tradition, I think it no small coincidence that the promulgation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the church's prohibition of abortion came about the same time in the 19th-century. Most of the Roman Catholics who lived throughout history, including St. Thomas Aquinas, would be quite surprised I'm sure to find out that what they thought all along was a perfectly moral option for women is now considered such a heinous sin by the church.

I don't know any way around the issue until the church goes back to its historic position. Until then the best thing that I think Christians can do who disagree on this issue is to work on the areas where we share common ground. And it is here that the long-standing Catholic tradition of social justice, of working with and standing beside the poor and oppressed, can best be melded together with the gospel activism of liberal Protestants, who want to ameliorate the conditions which cause so many women to choose abortion as an option. So I hope that you can work with us, because there is much that your tradition can teach us

Regards,

PT

Wrong Again PT,

I addressed your point about miscarriages "Some of us will live long according to HIS WILL others will die sooner." And I also mentioned that we do not have the foreknowledge and wisdom to determine the outcome of a child's future.

He created the child so let His will be done not ours.

The Bible does defend self-defense. Augustine wasn't always right pacifism is never supported in scripture.
Ps 82:3 -(To individuals and government)
Luke 22:36 (to individuals)
Rom 13:4 (To governments)
I Pet 2:13-17(To governments)

Dear Zealot--

Most Christians don't share your fatalism. When we get sick, we go to the doctor, rather tahn sitting around talking about God's will. That is because we believe that God wants us to be responsible stewards of the body that we have been given. The antiabortionists want to try to tell women how they have to care for their bodies insisting that they take a break from the stewardship of self care and just let God do God's thing. But that is the counsel of irresponsibility which will only do women harm, both spiritually and physically. Christian women know what the Lord requires of them and it is up to them to do what discipleship demands, rather than listening to the extrabiblical legalisms of fundamentalists.

No one likes abortion. We all wish that every child was the prodcut of a loving, stable relationship and was born in perfect health to a mother who sailed through the pregnancy without a single moment of physical or emotioanl distress. But that is not reality, so for the government to demand that women be forced to bear children against their will and against their own interests is the height of tyranny and the very opposite of the love and compassion made manifest in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Regards,

PT

Are we playing the proof text game again with Zealot?

"Pacifism is never supported in scripture."

Matthew 5:9 - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Luke 6:27-29 - But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also.

Matthew 5:38-39 - ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.

Matthew 26:52 - Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Romans 12:17-21 - Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

That's five to your four. Are you going to raise or call?

Interesting post, and interesting discussion. I guess I come at the issue of abortion from a different angle.

Maybe it's just my experience in having one or two verses of Leviticus quoted at me over and over, but I think any ethic about abortion that relies almost solely on one verse is Exodus is ... well ... lame and hardly worthy of the liberal enterprise. Leave that to the anti-intellectual fundamentalists.

Rather than try to proof text my way into one viewpoint or another (which is bad enough when conservatives do it, but even more annoying when liberals do it) I try to look at what I believe to be the foundational message of the social aspect of the Gospel: God loves everyone equally, but he roots for the underdog. Liberalism -- and Liberal Christianity especially --should be about looking at who is getting screwed over and helping them.

Thus, in most cases of abortion, we should side with the child.

Are there situations where abortion is justified? Sure. Rape, incest, the health of the mother. Otherwise, I think we, as liberals should be about helping the helpless.

Plus if I'm against the death penalty for murderers, then the only consistant position is to be anti-abortion. The second best argument I know of against the death penalty is that some innocent people might be put to death. Well...I don't know how one could possible take that position for the death penalty and not take the same position on abortion.

However, this does not mean that we shouldn't work to make abortions as rare as possible through comprehensive and thorough sex ed for every kid, throughout their education.

PT, thanks for the information about how Septuagint. I did not know that, and checking in Brenton's LXX English translation just now, I find your claim confirmed there. That is very interesting, and I agree that it does indicate how at least segments of Judaism understood the passage as far back as we have record. The later rabbinical writings (mentioned by another poster, and which I already knew of) do so as well.

Still, it is interesting, isn't it, that the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text is evidently ambiguous, or even in disagreement with the LXX, on this. As I said earlier, the Hebrew apparently refers simply to the "child coming forth". There is no necessary implication as to its health, but the particular wording is used much more frequently in the context of an unambiguous live birth than in a stillbirth. It is also not the same as the wording, used elsewhere and which could have been used here, that does unambiguously refer to a miscarriage. Thus the MT in Exodus 21:22 is not strictly referring to a miscarriage, and thus the rest of the argument doesn't follow - based on the MT, at least. I don't know why we should give LXX precedent over MT when translators usually give precedent to the MT over LXX in other matters - although certainly LXX is a useful guide.

Anyway, even if it is granted that the Law did not regard the fetus as fully human, it certainly did regard it as something valuable - as evidenced by the fact that a punishment of at least some kind was to be assessed.

And in any case, again, we Christians (unless we are reconstructionist fundamentalists - which I trust we here are not!) do not believe the Law inerrantly reveals God's heart, but merely foreshadows what is supremely revealed in Jesus. Jesus reveals there is accommodation to man's hardness of heart in the Torah laws and codes (Matthew 19:7-8 in reference to Deuteronomy 24:1), which is one reason why we today are now able to see the evil in slavery, for example, whereas the Law clearly sees slaves as lesser persons. Establishing whatever view Exodus 21:22 has on the fetus gives us interesting historical data to roll together with the rest of our considerations, but doesn't in itself give us any binding allowance to go by.

Now, I'm not saying that Exodus 21:22 "bans abortion" or teaches against abortion, let alone that it would be binding on us as Christians to attempt to legislate against that in the world. I am only saying that the passage is inconclusive and no "proof text" at all for the permissibility of abortion one way or the other (though if it must be pushed one way or the other, I think the conservative side has a little bit more going for it). I would just hope we would be a little more tentative about trying to make a positive biblical case for the acceptability of abortion in the eyes of God, when the scriptural data isn't clearly there. To do otherwise seems too reminiscent of committing a common fundamentalist error.

Scott

This whole concept of "supporting life whenever possible" strikes me as being something a person comes up with when they don't really spend time looking at reality. We literally have the mechanical means at our disposal to prevent a body from dying almost indefinitely. Are we really supposed to hook up every person in danger of dying to a heart/lung machine? Is the real tragedy of Terri Schiavo that her case is not repeated ten thousand times per day?

There is nothing in the Bible that says life should be defended at any cost. To say there is merely renders the entire lesson of the Bible moot. The moral lesson of the Bible is that our life here is but a span and the real issue will be what we do when we leave this mortal coil.

God makes babies? Are you saying that God literally breaks out the Holy Knitting Needles and puts each cell together? Come on. Pick up an eighth grade biology book.

Conception takes place when a blind sperm cell slams into a blind egg cell. Those two cells then unite and begin to divide. It isn't holy intervention that causes this, it's simple biology. I'll go as far as say that God did a real bang-up job on designing us, but it's simply ignorant to say that each child is specifically pieced together like a jig-saw puzzle by God. The process is total auto-pilot - which is why there are occassional problems.

We are called to be IN the world - we cannot bury our heads and cling to dogma as truth. It is not faith to believe in something that has been proven false. In fact, it is the very antithesis of faith.

XT

Tony--

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to allow for abortions in cases of rape and incest and to protect the health of the mother. I wish that everyone could agree to at least this as the the baseline of humane treatment of pregnant women.

But your refusal to go beyond this assumes something about personhood which your posts do not unpack. Why is the fetus a person whose rights trump those of the mother? I would agree that after the second trimester a fetus' rght to live does trump the mother's right to be free of it, except in cases where her safety is in question, because personhood is established at that time with the development of the cortex. But what are you basing your earlier understanding of personhood upon?

Regards,

PT

Scott -- --

I am thinking of your admonition from your first post , which suggested that the most intelligent reader after having looked at all of the words in question, would try to place the passage in its historical and cultural context.

The reason that the text does not describe the condition of the fetus is because in antiquity the fetus would've been dead if born prematurely. It is only been in the past few decades that modern neonatal science has been able to push back a few weeks the survival time of premature infants. Given that this text was addressed to a situation concerning any pregnant woman, the context would indicate a dead fetus, given that even now, with all of our advances, we still can't do much before the 24th or 25th week.

Regards,

PT

Alan -- --

That I was not trying to proof text is evident by the second half of my brief post , which was devoted to a theological rationale for why abortion is a moral option for women. What I was attempting to do in the first half was to explain how in the Jewish theological tradition moral reasoning on this issue took place. The Exodus 21 passage is the clearest articulation of the issues in question, and it is found in the earliest collection, historically speaking, of Hebrew law, in the section that scholars call the Book of the Covenant, which is Exodus 20-23.

Regards,

PT

Jake

A peacemaker is not someone holding a sign saying "No War only peace" that is call a peace-demonstrator"

A peacemaker is someone who is only for righteousness and will not let evil overtake.

Look at the word Jake. True peace can only be achieve if evil is resisted. When Jesus returns he will be the Ultimate Peacemaker. He is going get rid of evil forever.

Why do you think people call this a Christian nation? They believe it to be because of the efforts as nation to make peace in world where there is oppression. Therefore at times we fulfill the words of Jesus in the beattitudes, "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God."

PT,

I saw what you're trying to do ... I'm just not sure why a Christian would find it a convincing argument ... or perhaps I should say I don't find it a convincing argument. As Scott said above, Christian's are not bound by the Law (well, not exactly, anyway), so why should I bother with that line of reasoning?

You ask the question of Tony, "Why is the fetus a person whose rights trump those of the mother?" If you'll allow me to butt in here and take a stab at that, my reply is that you're asking the wrong question. It isn't about protecting one life versus another -- that's a question that is ethically unanswerable on it's face. Without any other means to decide, no ethical decision could be made either way. In other words, you've constructed the question so that there can be no ethical answer.

However, having said that, we can realize that there is a difference between the mother and the child. Namely that the child has no voice. The reason we protect the child over the mother is that we should be about protecting the voiceless, the powerless. Except in cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother is at stake, the mother has already made her choice. I don't think asking someone to accept the responsibility of their decision to have sex is too much to ask.

Just a side question here, but am I the only one who thinks the traditionally liberal and conservative stands on abortion are strange and should be reversed? Shouldn't conservatives believe that government shouldn't be regulating a woman's right to her body? And shouldn't liberals be standing up for those whom no one else will stand up for?

I find it strange that we are so quick to say that abortion is okay in the case of rape and incest, but not in the case of a broken condom. Is it any more the fetus's fault that the condem broke than that its father violated its mother? Clearly not. I find it immensely hypocritical when people allow abortion in certain cases but not in others, when they stick to the claim that fetuses should not be punished for the deeds of their parents or their parents lack of desire for another child.

So much of our biblical text that gets related to abortion is nothing more than texts praising God. These praises are hardly texts to base doctrine on. Additionally, I find it hard to base doctrine on ancient Hebrew law or Pauline statements that were written in a society that knew hardly anything of the biology of reproduction. Ancient Isrealites did not understand how a pregnancy worked, biologically speaking, and because it was so mysterious, it was attributed to the great mysteries of God. In Paul's time, the Hellenistic culture firmly believed that all the material for a child came from the father and the mother was little more than an incubator. Now that we can examine the phenomenon of pregnancy with a good scientific understanding of whats going on, we are in a position to make judgements on issues like abortion based on our interpertations of what is just.

When I read the Bible and think of its message of justice, I see a need for us to allow people to take agency over their own lives. I see a blatant call to protect women and insure that they are not being oppressed. I see no reason why women should not be allowed to terminate pregnancies if they wish to.

I am repeatedly suprised at how many opponents of abortion rage on and on about people needing to take responsibility for their actions, but then say nothing about trying to help people avoid these pregnancies in the first place. Better sex ed, wider availablitiy of birth control and emergency contraception, addressing gender inequality in our society, and addressing issues of poverty that put families in a place where they can not support children are all very effective ways to lower the abortion rate in this country. But instead of taking any of these actions, abortion opponents seem set on simply illegalizing abortion and leaving those who are pregnant out in the dark. That hardly seems the Christian thing to me.

PT

My apologies for not making my comment clear enough for you. I think it 'breathtakingly' unfortunate that my comment came across as misogynist, so let me address your rhetorical questions by making my distinctions a little clearer in the hopes of avoiding further misunderstanding. To summarize, I had two main points, which you seem to have missed: (1) when responsibility can be adequately determined, then we ought to hold those responsible to account for their choices; (2) 'responsibility' is notoriously difficult to determine adequately, therefore we should proceed with more grace and less judgment. In no place did I even insinuate that women must bear the burden of responsibility for the childrren they bear, nor did I say that women are responsible for conceiving those children in every (or even many) cases. I find it tragic that your read this into my comments.

Of course, women do not impregnate themselves, which is why I think that men should not be let off the hook either. When men father children, they should be held responsible for those children. Unfortunately, our society currently places the preponderance of the burden on the women, which I would categorize as unjust and one of the issues that a just society would need to rectify if it were to move toward greater justice for all of its citizens. Note that I am suspicious about allowing abortions in cases where an abortion would be chosen as an easy 'out' to escape responsibility for free choices; I didn't even insinuate where the line of responsibility should be drawn or when a choice can be deemed 'free'. Indeed, I think that 'responsibility' is a notoriously difficult theoretical issue; my own fledgling position is that individuals qua individuals are responsible for far less than liberal societies traditionally hold them to be responsible for, and society must assume much more responsibility for the outcome of people's lives than it traditionally has.

As for women who are victims of rape, incest, and abandonment, the results of these crimes clearly do not fall under under 'consequences for which the women is responsible' (no compassionate person could conceivably hold to such a position). Thus, I would say that society and the law ought to be more concerned with eradicating instances of rape, incest, and abandonment (in order to give women greater control of their lives) before they concern themselves with abortions that arise due to such monstrous crimes.

Your last paragraph of response is such a gross misreading of my comments I can hardly believe it. Let me quote myself here: 'It can hardly be just for society to relegate women (or men for that matter) to social conditions that preclude them from freely choosing (i.e., not under external compulsion, whether from social conditions or otherwise) how to live, and then compel them to bear the burden of the consequences that arise from such desperate conditions.' The 'burden of consequences' I am referring to here include any and all of the tragedies you list--paralysis, coma, organ failure, giving birth, poverty. I don't think I need to say any more on this.

So, you might be wondering now, who do I think falls under the 'responsible' category? In short, if I think some people should be denied access to abortions, who should they be? {For I clearly stated that I don't think abortions should be available for all.) The short answer it... there is no short answer. I guess what I meant was that I am wary of permitting those who are responsible (both guy and girl) from abdicating their responsibility for the conception of a child by resorting to abortion. Maybe the subset of people who are actually responsible for conceiving children is so small as to not warrant much consideration. But I doubt it. Anyway, determining where that line should be drawn is a diffferent conversation.

"Why is the fetus a person whose rights trump those of the mother?"

This opens up a can of worms for me. Rights talk has always been difficult for me to reconcile with the message I find in Scripture. Of course, rights talk has been and can continue to be valuable in opposing oppression and injustice and promoting liberty and equality. But rights talk has developed an invidious cast: to claim a right has become a way to claim 'more (fill in the blank) for me', often at the expense of others. Underlying the notion of rights is a particularly powerful commitment to the notion of ownership, entitlement, and property. Thus, we claim a 'right' to something because we 'deserve' it, because we are 'entitled' to it. In this case, the mother has a 'right' to life/happiness/a good life (?), a right that 'trumps' the right of the baby since the baby is not a person and (therefore not a rights holder).

Quite frankly, I don't see Christ grounding his message of social justice upon rights, ownership, and entitlement. In fact, I see him opposing such notions (e.g., Luke 12:13-32) insofar as they are used to perpetuate injustice (which they often are). Instead, I see the Bible advocating an ethic of stewardship, an ethic wherein my life (and the advantages that come along with my situation) are to be lived in service of the disadvantaged. In short, I am not the 'owner' of my resources, but a faithful steward of them, called to use them to accomplish God's purposes on earth (which I understand along the lines of Isaiah 58, Matt. 25, James 2). Inevitably, this will mean using my resources to go to bat for the oppressed and dispossessed, including women who find themselves in the tragic position of carrying an unwanted, unintended, or potentially dangerous (to the mother's health) child. In some (maybe many) cases, this will mean supporting abortion. But I think the idea of a right of the mother that trumps in all cases can be misleading. There may be cases when our stewardship responsibility call us to go to bat for the child.

Anyway, I haven't fully unpacked the implications of this here (or anywhere for that matter). This is a difficult issue (one that is increasingly consuming my own research). I simply wanted to register my discontent with right talk generally, and its use here specifically. Of course, none of this changes what I said in the the post I just made.

PT,

Thanks for seeing where I'm coming from.
Now, I'm not making claims to personhood, really. What I'm sying is, in situations when a child is the direct product of bad choices, human mistakes or simply bad planning (unprotected sex between consenting adults, pre marital sex, unplanned pregnancy etc.) that the people involved should be expected to live out those realities. When life hands you a bad situation, I can't see how running from it and guarding yourself from its consequences is Christ like.

Here's a not-so-tight metaphor for mistakes...
Earthly laws state that we may not trespass on, say, gov't property, and are there for a reason, right? When I break that law, God can forgive us, sure, but that doesn't mean we don't pay the consequences?

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When you break a law in Rome, you should expect to be treated the same as every other person.

So when there are God's laws at stake, and people break them by having premarital sex, that does not, to me, justify a good reason to abort the child. An error in judgement is just that.

I'll take it a step further and suggest that when a married couple gets pregnant unexpectedly, that has not happened while God was on vacation. Maybe they *were* using birth control, but the facts of life are that things happen. So now they're pregnant and they don't think they can handle raising the child, say, in addition to the two children they already have. Instead of saying "God, I can't do this... we can't do this. We can't see how this will work out. Please sustain us so that we may live in faith." ... they decide to terminate the pregnancy. At first glance, this may look like they are putting their family first, but you must realize that they are also saying "God, I just can't see how You will provide for me and mine in this situation. I choose to take matters into my own hands rather than risk uncertainty."

It may sound crazy, but isn't it great that Mary didn't have that option during her unplanned pregnancy? To save face in society for her and for Joseph, abortion may have been an attractive option. Get rid of the kid before it shows... just don't let anyone she was pregnant out of marriage.

I know that's a bit convoluted, but it puts things in perspective. Would someone who was truly Christ-like have an abortion. Christ, the man who submitted himself fully to all that humanity and a fallen world could hurl at him. I can't imagine Jesus teaching and fielding questions, like he often did, and saying it would be ok to have an abortion just because the mother felt like it would make her life un-liveable. I think he'd say "Do you not trust God to sustain you? Do you really not believe that God, who is aware of even the insignificant sparrow, does not see your situation? I tell you, truly, he knows what you're going through and he is sufficient."

God is that big, I believe. Abortion should be a worst case scenario.

Now to be honest, I have not really considered levels of development as a guideline for when an abortion should occur, so I can't really coment to that end. My thoughts are; until killing a pregnant woman isn't double murder, I have to consider the fetus a life. Beyond that, I need to find out more before I can discuss something like that.

Tony

I think what we need to do to help solve the abortion issue is to nip it in the bud by giving people accurate information on sex, those baby simulators used in classes, and easier access to birth control (and that includes the Morning After Pill). An educated person is less likely to make a stupid mistake that could cause an unwanted pregnancy.

It's not a 100% fool-proof, but I'd rather see an educated teenager who understands themselves and where they are sexually than some kid who think that they got their "spit-baby" from swollowing sperm.

Alan--

I think that your position about the law is too extreme. Christians believe that all of scripture is God's word through which the Spriit of God speaks. That Gentiles do not have to follow the demands of Torah in order to be grafted onto the family tree does not mean that the principles contained in the Torah are somehow extraneous. Recall that it is in Leviticus that we find the statement that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, which Jesus himself cited. In fact, the OT was ALL Jesus cited because he and the apostles were all Jews and this was their Bible. So it is not something that we can casually diregard.

Liberals want government to protect people from rapacious interests both foreign and domestic and to provide a floor below which members of society will not be allowed to fall. Conservatives only want government to fight wars and to police people's genitals. This is a very different approach to government.

Regards,

PT

Dear David--

Thank you for expanding on your earlier post. I apologize if I took your words in a manner that you did not intend. No one likes having ideas attributed to him that he does not believe more than me, so I have no wish to caricature you. Thank you for staying with the conversation.

I think people should be held accountable for their actions too, but what you seem to be presuming is the personhood of the fetus, which is something that you need to prove rather than assert. If the fetus is a person in the sense in which every other member of the community is a person, then as a helpless voiceless person, these adults, who made its existence happen, are in fact responsible. But if it is not a person, then one has to answer the question of how it is that the couple can be held morally responsible.

I have offered my perspective that personhood begins with an online cortex. I see this as consistent with an understanding of the end of life, in which persons who may still be respirating are in fact dead in the cortex, and are thus presumed by the community to be persons no longer in the usual sense. As a pastor, I have been with many families who have turned off the respirators of loved ones in such a state. When the cortex does not exist or has ceased to exist, personhood is not present, so the family in good conscience can turn the machine off.

What I would like to hear from you is the point at which you understand personhood to begin, and why. For it is only in the answer to that question , that the moral legitimation that is essential for your argument against abortion to be true, can be found.

You are also correct to question my use of rights language. Such language is not grounded, as you point out, in Scripture and is in fact more the language of John Locke and the Liberal tradition that Jesus Christ. I know that full well and have made the point a hundred times myself. I can only say in my defense that I write about 5-6000 words a day and actually once in awhile make a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. (It's a weak excuse I know, but that's all I've got!)

What I was trying to say was simply that the community has no reason to punish someone who is obviously a person, namely the pregnant woman, by granting advantage to that which is not a person, namely the fetus, to the pregnant woman's disadvantage. As in my argument with you, if it is a person, then the community may have something to say, but if it is not, the woman should be left alone.

Regards,

PT

PT

I have very little facility with the biological issues pertinent to 'personhood' and 'life' (I am a philosopher-in-training, and have not made the opportunity to read widely about these issues). But I agree with you that it is the answer to these questions that are most pertinent to the issue of abortion. To these questions, I have no ready answer. From my uninformed standpoint, I see the issue to be vastly more complex than the majority of people perceive it to be, and so any argument I might advance against abortion (or for abortion for that matter) is merely conditional: if certain conditions (i.e., personhood, responsibility) hold in a situation, such-and-such ought to follow. At this point, all I can do is point out some of the theoretical issues that trip up giving easy answers to tough questions. (I have expanded on the precise difficulty to which you point in my link to this post at caughtbetween.blogspot.com/2005/06/biblical-case-for-protecting-women-who.html#comments if you are interested.) So, sorry to disappoint, but it's here where my contribution to the discussion ends.

PT,

I think I essentially agree with your position. But I think it's important to point out a few things. First, the passage you cited from Exodus makes clear that God values unborn life; that life is simply not a fully formed person yet, and is thereofre not protected by the same rights as a fully formed person. Nonetheless, while abortion might not be murder, as anti-abortion zealots claim, it is still not a good thing in itself. Bill Clinton got it right when he called for policies that would make abortion safe, legal, and rare. I have grappled with this issue for a long time and still am not quite comfortable with it. My sense is that abortion should remain legal, but we need to provide thorough, comprehensive sex education so that people know how to avoid unwanted preganancies, and we need to provide better support (prenatal care, adoption services, etc.) to make it more feasible for women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. The glaring hypocrisy of the Christian right anti-abortion movement is not in their opposition to abortion, but in their simultaneous opposition to meaningful sex education. We Christians who take the position that abortion should remain legal need to acknowledge, however, that abortion still snuffs out a life, and that life is, at least, a potential person. Abortion is not a good thing, and we should do what we can to reduce the need for abortion.

Hi folks

I'm new to this conversation - but it seems to me to be refreshingly thoughtful and respectful. People trying to seek the truth about a difficult issue.

My only contribution at this point is to note that the full 'Christian tradition' is not well represented thus far. Jewish tradition, yes as well as later Roman Catholic tradition (Augustine, Aquinas et al) and later Protestant opinions. But when one speaks of " until the church goes back to its historic position ..." then we must go back to the first millenium. As Orthodox Christians we place great weight in the 'historic position' and believe that the Church would be guided by the Spirit to speak to the issues of the day, authoritatively, not through just the Roman pope, but the concensus of the Spirit in the whole church through the Ecumenical Councils.

And so when we read of the penitential penances prescribed by the Church councils (Quinisext, Ancyra, St. Basil) for abortion they are essentially the same as for murder - for the mother who takes the life of the unborn child as well as those who 'give medicines' to induce abortion. (This stuff is not new.)

The purposes of the canons were two fold - to make sure that the orthodox faithful of the Churches (both eastern and western) had guidance on those issues that were not explicitly referenced in scripture, as well as to clarify that the spiritual purpose of the canon - to deal with penitents who were to recognize that their actions (abortion) were grievously sinful but who wanted to be restored to full communion with Christ and the Church. Hence they were excluded from Holy Communion and were to do penance for a long time (real long in those days) so that they would realize how serious there sin was and seek forgiveness for the salvation of their soul.

As a pastor, the tears of penitent mothers who killed their children while they were in their own wombs, speak most clearly to the commission of the sin of abortion - one of the greatest burdens I've ever seen someone have to bear. The conviction of their consciences speak more clearly to this issue than any other argument and the Truth cuts through the rationalizations and theological/emotional constructs and justifications. This may be because the unborn child is utterly dependent and 'in communion' with his or her mother, who subsequently turns on her child and destroys him or her while so utterly defenseless.

The need is for pastoral and personal care - for poor mothers, for unwed mothers, for pregnant mothers and for those who have killed their children and know it in their hearts.

Alrighty, I am a liberal democrate in just about everything but this. Here on my thoughts about abortion.

We, as human beings, can NOT determine at what point life is considered life inside the womb. We maybe able to determine this in the future, but right now the theological foundations for either side of this arguement are vague at best. A lot of does depend on the translation that you read as a few people pointed out above. Without the theological or scientific foundations, we cannot determine if life begins at conception or later on in pregnancy when the fetus is more mature. As with law, ignorance is not a justification for sin, and I believe in the better safe than sorry cliche. I can't tell you for sure whether or not abortion is a sin, and neither can anyone else on this planet(Pope included, papal infalibility is BS). Because of that I would say we shouldn't delve into abortion because that is messing around with what is potentially life, and, being catholic, I believe that God is the only one who should be able to decide when a life should end. If abortion is indeed a sin in God's eyes it would be a major one. Hell worthy even if one doesn't repent. I would prefer to not take that chance, and nor should anyone else really. That's why I don't believe in abortion.

For those of you versed in US Law can you confirm this for me. When a pregnant woman is murdered is the murderer charged with the death of both the woman and the fetus no matter at what developmental point the fetus is, or does the fetus have to be a certain age in gestation for two murder counts to be charged?

I wrote a big article on this subject, but when I tried to copy and past it here it all ended up in one big paragraph, so I'll just post the link:

http://democracyisgood.forclark.com/story/2005/1/28/234758/829

The jist of it is that the Bible actually has a lot to say about abortion, but it's not the sort of thing you'll hear about on the 700 club. The authors of the Bible not only had nothing against abortion, they actually performed them, and both King Solomon and Job have long monologues talking about how they might have been better off to have been aborted.

To answer craychek - murder is under state laws and the way the fetus is viewed varies widely. There was recently a man in Texas who received life in prison for helping his minor girl-friend induce a miscarriage through trauma (she was throwing herself belly-first upon a pile of rubble and he was punching her in the belly). He's in jail for life, she's not penalized in the least.

There is a lot of different views here on abortion - and I think that is a good thing. Families talk about important differences, and the family of God should be no different.

The Bible states very clearly that death is called for in cases of rape and incest - it doesn't mention abortion because the mother is the one being killed. In our compassion for these cases, we all argue that the woman not be condemned.

Honestly, now, how much different is a pregnancy from rape and one from consensual sex? How different is it for the fetus? For the woman? For the man?

You can make two blanket stances that make the decisions easy - either it's okay all the time or never. However, you will never approach the real problems of the women facing this decision until you set aside the blanket statements and offer to meet the moral problem wherever it is. Teach, counsel, and offer to help the woman all you want - but you have no right to prevent her from seeking safe and legal medical care.

I hear a lot of people say, "It's easy, just do this and this and this." Fine, how much have YOU done? All I get is a lot of silence.

Part of the problem or part of the solution? If things aren't better because of your action, it only leaves one other place.

XT

PT -- Thanks for your response. For the record, I take a much more nuanced approach to reproductive choice than my Roman Catholic Church does. While I don't feel that it is a moral option, I nevertheless support the legality of reproductive choice for two reasons: 1) Roman Catholic morality should not be forced on a secular democratic society; and 2) I don't think that criminalizing abortion would actually reduce the number of abortions in any significant way, but I think that the risks involved in abortion would increase if it were criminalized, causing injury or death to both the woman and the fetus.

But this view is not popular among Roman Catholics, and most would disagree with me.

For the record, though, the Roman Catholic Church has never allowed abortion. While it has not always banned it because it views abortion as murder, it has always banned it. Originally, abortion was viewed as a form of sexual immorality. As you mentioned, it has been viewed as murder since the 19th century, when the Roman Catholic Church decided that both life and personhood begin at conception. Personally, I am not at all assured of that; it is not consistent with almost two thousand years of Roman Catholic tradition, and it seems inconsistent with common sense to believe that a a zygote at the stage of pre-implantation, an embryo after plantation, or even a fetus prior to certain stages of development, could possibly be considered a human person. I am particularly incredulous regarding the pre-implantation zygote -- am I really to believe that these cells are to be considered a human person? But as I said, my views are not popular among Roman Catholics.

I do look forward to working more with the Christian Alliance for Progress. Although I do not entirely agree with the issue position on reproductive choice (although I do agree with most of it), I agree entirely with the rest of what CAFP is working for, and I look forward to helping advance those causes. Thanks again for your response.

God Bless,
Nathan

PT, well, my view of the law isn't too extreme, it's just that I don't have the time to quote the entire Westminster Catechism on the matter. :) In fact, the law is very important for Christians, but not in the juridical way that you're quoting Exodus. (Again, that's a sound bite, I suppose and not very detailed regarding what I really mean...) We Presbyterians (and many Reformed Christians) divide the law into the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the juridical law and we interact with those aspects in different ways..

You write, "Liberals want government to protect people from rapacious interests both foreign and domestic and to provide a floor below which members of society will not be allowed to fall. Conservatives only want government to fight wars and to police people's genitals. This is a very different approach to government."

I know you're being facetious about conservatism, but I'd agree that it certainly seems that those are their only concerns. My point was that isn't what they're *supposed* to be concerned with, based on the ideas of real conservatism.

I can't recall offhand where I read this (Spong?) but perhaps some of the ancient Christian anti-abortion sentiment is not necessarily because it's wrong _per se_, more that they were against it because it was something the Romans did (actually I believe the Romans mostly exposed and abandoned unwanted offspring, virtually all of them female) and the early Xtians wished to differentiate themselves from the pagan empire. Same as, e. g., Israelite males were circumcised to set _themselves_ apart from the rest of the world. Anyone out there who can expand on that?

Good thoughtful piece imho, PT. Only thing I would have worded differently is I would have said Women who WANT or SEEK an abortion. Seems to me if you say Need some self-righteous partiarchal swine or other is gonna pop up and say PROVE she needs it.

I'm afraid Rambo said it all: It's NEVER over.

Be strong.

I do not believe Christianity should turn its back on any woman who has lost a child - under any conditions.

Having said that, I don't see any justification for the church coming close to condoning Abortion on Demand. Abortion for rape/incest/health reasons is understandable. Where the child is the product of consent, I see no reason for abortion. Of course, this does not make me an authority, it just lays out my viewpoint :)

I asked one of my friends what their position on abortion is. He raised the point that while the woman is the one who carries the child, it takes both sperm and egg to make that fetus. Even if we are going to take the interpretation that Exodus is saying that the compensation for a stillbirth induced by trauma is a check *to the father*, doesn't that suggest that in the modern context the father, in a consenting sexual situation, should have some say? Of course, outside of a marriage, this issue becomes very muddled very quickly, which is why God's intention was for sex to remain between a couple.

I do not know the statistics on what reasons abortions are performed. I cannot believe that the majority are for the callous reasons that Conservativism would have us believe. Yet I can believe that there are young women out there with tyrant fathers who would have an abortion in order to hide it from his wrath. I agree with earlier statements that the way to reduce the number of abortions would be to improve the living conditions for single mothers.

I have read arguments citing the biological facts of procreation. I have heard the arguments back and forth as to when life supposedly begins. I personally believe that as soon as there is a heartbeat, that is where any argument should stop. When the fetus begins the process of make itself self reliant, a process that lasts for decades in some cases (depending on the individual), that is the point when I believe it is definitely alive. And yet I don't like sounding like anytime before then is open season.

Just as I do not believe that it is man's place to play God by judging the world, I don't think it is man's place to play God by ending any life ("And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." I'm not trying to prooftext here, that just sums up my personal feelings...similar to Paul, "this is Lincoln speaking, not God").

Jesus for Abortion?

For a guy who had a special place in his heart for the little gals and guys, that proposition seems a little wacky. People can say they are "christian" and be pro-choice. I can also say I am a vegetarian and eat fish/eggs/ham/whatever. People will justify just about anything. It just goes to show that with a blog like this, christianity seems to have become a bankrupt religion if people can use it to justify murder.

Anyone for Scientology?

Very interesting discussion. I found the original essay by PT quite compelling. It also fits with my intuitive sense of what Jesus was trying to get across to his audiences. He was not a purveyor of conventional wisdom. He was a radical. He summed up the Law and the Prophets with "love God and your neighbor as yourself." These were sufficient to live by, and that left a lot of leeway for freedom of conscience -- including the freedom to make mistakes and to learn by them. What really mattered was the condition of the heart; he emphasized this again and again and again. And that is something that, ultimately, is known only to God.

He also emphasized that our business is to focus on the condition of our own hearts and souls and relationship with God, and refrain from concerning ourselves with whether someone else may or may not be sinning -- by OUR standards. It is interesting to me that so much of the input here is coming from males, for whom the issue of abortion is essentially moot -- it concerns ONLY someone else. It's very easy to moralize about a situation with which one will never personally be faced. And it reveals a lot of underlying motivation to control the woman.

How does a woman's decision to have an abortion have any real impact on anyone else -- other than, perhaps, the father? And please, spare me the crocodile tears on behalf of the embryo/fetus. If we really cared so much about the value of human life, all the folks screaming against abortion would be screaming against the slaughter we are perpetrating in Iraq. Far too much of the anti-abortion rhetoric sounds punitive to my ears. Having to get an abortion is punishment enough; our job is to provide compassionate understanding to the woman who makes that decision.

In fact, what this issue resembles to me more than anything else is idolatry. Same with the Schaivo scenario. A worship of live tissue. Trying to out-God God. If Nature had been allowed to take its course in her case, she would have died 15 years ago. As PT has noted, God seems to have no compunctions about tossing life away. Out of seven pregnancies, I had three live births, three miscarriages and a stillbirth.

And it is a given, after all, that all living things die sooner or later. God spreads life around flagrantly and death just as flagrantly. At the age of 70, I know I won't have too many more years -- so while I'm here I'm enjoying it; and when my time comes to leave, I expect I'll be more curious than scared.

As a society, we have sick attitudes toward both death and sex. We are far too fearful and too obsessive about both. When it comes to sex, we are far too concerned with what other people are doing in their bedrooms. It's simply none of our business, as long as we are talking about consenting adults -- and often, even when we are talking about people who are not quite yet adults.

We need to educate our young about the care of their bodies and their responsibilities when they become sexually active, and be available if they need us for help and advice. We can inform them of our own moral code. But we also need to learn when to let them go; they need a degree of privacy to learn things for themselves. All of this together teaches them responsibility.

Also, there seems to be an assumption on the part of many writing here that all women considering abortion are -- or should be -- doing so from a Christian mindset and should be making a decision based on Christian dogma. But suppose she is a woman who is not a Christian and doesn't give a flying fig about Christian dogma or values or whatever? Maybe her beliefs are entirely different. Why should she be bound to laws based on someone else's faith? This is a freedom-of-conscience issue.

And incidentally, during the Inquisition, the Church did not hesitate to burn pregnant "witches" at the stake.

It is a very human tendency to want to nail things down very specifically into sets of rules in black and white. This is okay; that is not okay; and so forth. But pay attention to the patterns of responses that Jesus gives when people try to pin him down about what is or is not allowed or forbidden. Again and again, he directs them toward distinctly unconventional wisdom and freedom and the responsibility that comes with freedom.

He is indirectly pointing out our tendency to want to control -- especially other people's behavior. Remember the story that ends, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath"? I have extrapolated from that statement that "the Law was made for man, and not man for the Law." In that case, the argument was that people had been 'working on the Sabbath' when they gleaned from a field because they were hungry. If you are confronted with a choice of breaking a law or breaking a person -- break the law. The law doesn't bleed.

When it comes to the Biblical arguments pro and con, I have to dismiss arguments drawn from the Hebrew Bible because we so clearly and arbitrarily discriminate between which laws we still consider valid and which laws we dismiss as obsolete. Read Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the content (hundreds of laws), is interesting historically, but there is relatively little we feel compelled to obey today.

Add to that the fact that there are a variety of ways to read and understand the Bible. Some of us believe God dictated it, word for word, and that it is to be understood literally. Others of us understand that it was written, for the most part, by inspired humans, and a whole lot of it is to be understood metaphorically.

Then there are the various translations, and the scholarly arguments over which of several possible meanings of a word is most likely the correct one, and so forth. The obsessive are more and more driven to determine the one 'perfect' meaning. All of which is due to our discomfort with uncertainty -- or, in other words, our discomfort with what Faith really is. No, we want certainty! We want the certainty that we are RIGHT, and anyone who disagrees with us is -- WRONG. That is not the path of Faith.

The bottom line is, to me, that a woman should have the right to decide what to do if she becomes pregnant. Not the government. The more we let government dictate to us, the more we let it intrude into our private lives, the less liberty we have. And the less liberty we have, the less freedom we have to practice our religion, or anything else.
The Bible calls drunkenness a sin, but in America, drinking is legal. Prohibition didn't work, remember? The Bible calls gluttony a sin, but you can find an all-you-can-eat buffet just about anywhere. The Bible calls adultery a sin, but adultery is not illegal in any state anymore.
Why? If it's the job of government to legislate against sin, why start with something as scripturally fuzzy as abortion? Why not start with the 'big sins' that are spelled out clearly?
I think it's clear that abortion is just another hot-button issue that the conservative right uses to control their constituency and stay in power.

Thoughts of a vaguely moderate Christian:

I am excited and energized by the prospect of taking the Christian conversation away from the radical right and returning it to its proper place. But, as a moderate-to-right-leaning American, I must tell you why I find it difficult to support your platform. Perhaps I can help you to understand why people like me will most likely oppose at least part of what you are trying to do. Please--take this in the spirit in which it is intended: I sincerely want to be helpful, and I'm hoping that my thoughts may give you some insight into the mind of "the enemy" (if you will).

I fully support your commitment to peace and service. I am an anti-war activist in nearly every case. I fought hard against the Afghanistan invasion and the Iraq invasion. I was horrified when Bill Clinton invaded Bosnia, and when he bombed the aspirin factory in the Sudan. And I prayed to God every day to give Jimmy Carter (the greatest President of my time) the wisdom and help he needed to find a peaceful solution during the Iran hostage crisis. So I'm with you there. Caring for the Earth--I'm there as well. I am a proud and active tree-hugger, and consider it my duty to protect God's gifts for future generations.

Now the gripes.

To me, the "health care for all" thing sounds political and frankly, like none of your business. Vote how you like, but you should really decide if you're trying to take back Christianity or take over the government. We don't need two groups trying to break down the separation of church and state. We really don't. It's bad enough that one group is doing it. I don't know if it's really the church's business to be involved in health care policy in the first place. Might it not be more effective to simply provide for the sick and the suffering and advocate for Christ and leave the politics to the politicians? Same on the "economic justice" thing. That one really sets off my bullshit detector. Render unto Caesar and all that. Christians shouldn't be worrying about such things. "Take no thought for the morrow" and so forth...

There are two issues that I believe may very well prove fatal to your cause--at least when it comes to winning over moderates: abortion and gay marriage. Here's why:

Abortion

The heart of the issue is and will always be whether or not abortion is murder. I believe that life begins at conception, and that a developing fetus deserves not only the protection of its mother, but of the law. You will not be able to convince me otherwise, as this is not my personal belief but an article of faith that I have accepted, and I live by it. It will never be possible for me to support the ending of a human life--not through war, not through euthanasia, not through the death penalty, and not through abortion. Please don't waste your time trying to convince people like me to be more "open-minded" or "tolerant". We see any compromise on this issue as a complete failure in our duty as Christians to stand up for the rights of the helpless. It would not require a more open mind for me to accept that abortion was OK--it would require a complete and total hardening of my heart. My support for human beings at all stages of life is complete and unconditional. Do I believe abortion should be illegal? Yes. In 99.9% of cases. I would be willing to live with legalized abortion in the most extreme cases, but they would need to be very extreme indeed. Please understand: to people like me, abortion is the cruelest, most savage form of child abuse.

Just to answer the inevitable question: I believe partial birth abortion is a barbaric practice that should have no place in a civilized society. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

Gay marriage

Some of my best friends are gay (seriously). And I love them as I love all of my friends. And if they want to go down to the local courthouse and be legally married, I will be there with flowers in my hand and bells on my shoes. But if anyone ever allowed them to be married in my church, I would quit the church and never look back. Gay marriage in no way threatens the sanctity of marriage--as long as it's not sanctioned by the church. I would suggest you educate the public on the difference and don't try to break down the barriers. If the church ever tries to marry my gay friends (thus tacitly endorsing sodomy) I will be first in line to condemn it, and you will have alienated another Christian. I sincerely believe that the primary reason John Kerry lost the last election is because of the gay marriage issue (and the incredibly poor timing of those who thought that it was important to press the issue during the campaign when it was certain to cause Kerry's defeat). Americans need to understand that a legal marriage is not a threat to marriage in any way. They also need to feel comfortable that if they put their trust in the church, the church will not betray them by turning the church into a social club. It's a religion, and the religion (no matter what any of us thinks about it) has certain laws we must all live by. It's the church's job to maintain those laws (including the ones relating to sodomy, celibacy, adultery, etc.) Hey--it ain't my religion. I just try to live by it.

Please don't attempt to use the "forgiveness, lack of judgement, and tolerance" argument to make your case. It just simply won't wash. I'm only telling you the truth as I know it. I'm giving you an inside look at the mind of much of America. Some of us like having rules. And some of us are certain that the Ten Commandments are not ours to interpret (just as we believe the Constitution is not there to adapt, but rather to serve as a guide). One of the sayings I live by is, "If the medicine tastes bad, it's surely good for you"--an old Confucian saying.

I know hearing this stuff is probably maddening to many of you. I can't help it. I'm not here to argue--I'm just here to give you some insight. Perhaps it will help. Perhaps. I too am disgusted by the hateful and intolerant rantings of the far right. I am also sickened by the far left. To me, the far left and the far right are two sides of the same closed mind.

I am a Christian. I try to live by what I personally believe Christ taught. I hope you will understand that I must draw the line at the place where I believe Christ would have me draw it. I try to leave myself out of that decision.

Three books for those interested to read:

_Abortion_In_America:_The_Origins_and_Evolution_of_National_Policy_1800-1900_
James C. Mohr, Oxford University Press

Abortion in America was NOT always illegal, only in the latter 1800's was it made so, and the reason had little to do with religion (aside from the sexism of the male-only legislatures and the male, university educated doctors who were competing with "granny doctors").
Also covers 2 Colonial era cases where prosecutors trying to get women for abortions had their cases thrown out.

_Reincarnation_In_Christianity_
Geddes Macgregor

Consider John 9:1-2 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

How could the man have sinned, unless it was in a previous life?

Or Matthew 16:15-16 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Again, they presume reincarnation.

A quick taste is at www.reincarnation.ws,
I have not looked at this site in detail, but there is some material there about the perversion of Christianity to suit various Roman rulers.

_Where_Reincarnation_and_Biology_Intersect_
Ian Stevenson
(or any of the other books by Ian Stevenson)
Professor Stevenson has collected over 2,600
cases of past-life memories, from all over the
world. This collection of cases includes birthmarks related to the persons previous life.

my comments re: abortion:
I no longer believe in a God who is too stupid to childproof the playpen. The real God is clever, and subtle, and loving, and full of grace, and as Jesus told his disciples, "Forgive[s] seventy times seven, then start[s] counting over."

Do not misinterpret this as "anything is OK".
But in the context of abortion vs. having a child,
not proceeding with a pregnancy at any given time
is just a choice.

Another thing - when does the soul inhabit the fetus or infant? Best I can figure, it is at first breath. You are welcome to disagree, but I will point out that making a restrictive law about this is engaging in forced conversion, something Jesus never said.

My mother was only 14 when she conceived me. This was back in 1959. She had the option to abort me. She chose not to, even though she had an understanding of how this would affect her life forever. And it turned out to be an extremely difficult road for her. Nonetheless ... if she had it to do over again ... she would not have changed anything at all.

With this opening, one might immediately think I am against abortion.

I'm not.

Before I came out of the womb and breathed my first breath ... I was nothing more than a possibility. For the good. For the bad. For the both. And it's always neither totally good or bad ... but "both."

Had I not been born in that physical body my mother's own body was beginning to form ... I would have been born at another time ... in some other physicality.

I fully believe we are first and most completely --- spiritual beings. Existence that exists with or without physical manifestation. If the christian truly believes that we are entities that live before and beyond our physical existence (i.e. God knew us "before"...meaning we had an existence "before"... and we shall live after the body dies...meaning still "exist") ... then they must consider the full realm of that belief. We are not our physical containment. Never have been. Never will be. We enter the body at a given time and live out a purpose ... or we do not. There is a season and purpose for all existence.

My ears turn deaf when I hear someone screaming against abortion...yet wave an american flag and encourage the killing of the already born life (via war, death sentence, holding back science from needed methods of cures, keeping food and healthcare from those in need ... etc). It is hypocrisy in its most poisonous form. It is ... ironically decreeing one must be born to be denied .... to the point of needless death anyway.

Let us indeed consider the possibilities of the unborn. But let us first consider the already born. How we deal with what already exists sets the path for those existences yet to come.

hello to PT and other contributors,

first thought: I've just signed on to CAP and consider it a trial...based, as you would guess, on the abortion issue and CAP's ultimate action in that area

I am Roman Catholic and will take a wait and see approach

as an earlier poster commented "Alrighty, I am a liberal democrate in just about everything but this." --craychek

I even use the word "alrighty" fairly often myself :)

and to Xpatriated Texan at July 1, 2005 03:39 AM
"There was recently a man in Texas who received life in prison for helping his minor girl-friend induce a miscarriage through trauma (she was throwing herself belly-first upon a pile of rubble and he was punching her in the belly). He's in jail for life, she's not penalized in the least."

that's amazing...ROFLOL...I confess, I took this part of the post as (morbid) comic relief (!!) proving, yet again, that home-made sin is pretty bad funny-stuff ...now decorum suggests that I shouldn't include this reference in my post; just can't help myself; ahem. my bad.

but back to the serious nature of this topic: I take exception to one small part of LJSs post:

"And please, spare me the crocodile tears on behalf of the embryo/fetus. If we really cared so much about the value of human life, all the folks screaming against abortion would be screaming against the slaughter we are perpetrating in Iraq."

the only reason I don't qualify for this group as LJS has defined it is because I ain't screaming. I'm constantly talking about getting the heck our of Iraq and I'm constantly talking about the hypocrisy and bad (imo) morals of an administration that governs in this way...but I ain't "screaming"...I am 100% bleeding heart liberal and jolly proud of it!! and I still have serious questions about easy-access abortion...

and yes. I do cry real tears for the dead unborn...

and eastpoint's post (June 30, 2005 10:23 PM): "The need is for pastoral and personal care - for poor mothers, for unwed mothers, for pregnant mothers and for those who have killed their children and know it in their hearts."
is a very real concern from my point of view

as to the issue of personhood...I have no authoritative ideas to add to this subject...but I do agree that the entire argument turns on this point...

for what it is worth, I would distinguish (in PTs post of June 30, 2005 08:20 PM) between end of life issues and beginning of life issues; [not euthanasia per se (DO NOT misunderstand me)]

but the life support of extraordinary means for a clinically brain-dead person...that is an entirely different case from the a fetus, of any hours/week or months of age

one is the impulse and dignity toward the end of life and the other is the impulse and respect toward new life...and I am pro-life.

finally my 25 cents worth (inflation, ya know) ;)
is that community and conversation is primary. essential, really. we should all keep talking, respectfully yet forcefully, because the answers are treasures and are buried in our community life.

warmest regards to all,
MaggieGirl

Stepping out of the box, one can see that the abortion issue is deliberately perpetuated as just one more divisive tool, like "war" on drugs, poverty, AIDS, terrorism, etc. etc. Those world rulers who would keep us separated and thereby weakened will use any tool they can think of to weaken those whom they would dominate. United people are difficult to dominate;-separated people are easily dominated.

The abortion issue is an endless political football because very few on this planet know when the soul enters a fetus to become a "person". Is an unborn fetus a "person"? Impassioned anti-abortionists are encouraged to think so. Or does it depend on when the soul is PERMANENTLY ensconced in the flesh? Some are aware that that may not happen until several days after a full term birth. Some believe that the soul comes and goes in and out of the fetus before birth to "supervise" as the fetus builds toward a full term baby. Others believe that the soul arranges conception and enters the fleshly form at that time permanently. Probably all these scenarios are correct in different cases. The truth has been carefully hidden from mankind over the centuries.

From a metaphysical perspective the soul is indestructible, while the physical form (fetus) is merely the "ashes" of which we are made and which return to the earth when the soul departs at "death". The two are separate entities, the immortal soul dwelling only briefly in mortal flesh, repeatedly, for various experiences and for its own education. We have been misled into thinking we are our bodies, while those are merely temporary vehicles for the soul.

When the early Roman Church edited the Bible at Constantinople (324 AD) they declared anathema the concept of reincarnation (which Jesus certainly knew) for the planned purpose of disempowering the common man. The resulting idea that a person has only "one life" (ever) is probably the greatest disservice (lie) ever forced on mankind. It helped to build a huge slave race and possibly prevented many suicides at a time when life was extremely hopeless for many, but much physical manpower was needed by the rulership. ("Be a good slave and you will be rewarded after you die.")

Understanding reincarnation and the immortality of the soul as natural law allows a freed-up view of abortion and allows the conscience of each person to choose answers for himself. And then be responsible for those answers.

Fundamentalists (of ALL religions) are, "in the box" by nature of their limited understanding (and sometimes limited education). That "box" was carefully created by political and religious leaders --- for profit, power and control.

The only way to re-empower the indivudual is to show him how to "step OUT of the box". It's just a matter of choosing a different view, a different state of mind a new perspective. ("Repent" means to change one's thinking.)

Peace and Light to all beings. Namaskar

Just a couple of comments:

If one has an ectopic pregenancy, according to Zealot and those whose beliefs are similar, both child and mother should die rataher than terminate the pregnancy. Is that correct?

If one is raped by a father, brother, etc. that woman must carry that child to term. Also, God planned this child? Is that correct?

If a woman is impregnated by a man who has HIV she must carry that child to term and God planned THAT child? Am I correct?

I wonder how this person knows the mind of God.

llpbgzqn http://tzxwaxzf.com usyhpmwp sgwisgrz guioiqsh [URL=http://mqnbkfds.com]pucbugce[/URL]

gonzbwcb http://kgpjnncy.com bjvrmjkp wcfqwdet [URL=http://fdwaflhf.com]dogzryks[/URL] shvrajen

[URL=http://kqiqbtbt.com]xybbmtkt[/URL] vwkyljvr http://vrjkcohz.com nttqqyei somaclyk dotbtvwd

basxmqtl http://wtivwkmr.com erwallxw anrvovxj [URL=http://cvqshbtb.com]qiraqoom[/URL] yalfmjux

When citing laws of any type one goes first to the earliest mention of it's type. When no early citing is available, one goes to logic and extrapolation.

Scenario; with