Abortion and the Bible
The Bible has something for everyone. If you want to believe abortion is not a sin the Bible can help you.
In various passage the Bible explains what happens when a man hits a woman and kills her fetus. The penalty is never the same as that when someone kills someone else. The Bible did not see the fetus as a human being.
The link above discussed the issue because religious people in 2019 pressured the Alabama legislature to pass a law that would imprison doctors who performed abortions. The law was passed and signed by the Alabama Governor. Then a Federal Judge overturned it--the law never went into effect. Not only was the law absurd as a practical matter, it was not, as claimed, Biblical.
Using the Bible to claim abortion is murder, or even a sin, it a doubtful exercise. One phrase often used is "I knew you in the womb." The phrase did not refer to fetuses in general but to one person being addressed.
In the field of critical Bible study, I don't know of a scholar who claims the Bible condemns abortion. I'm sure there are some somewhere but they don't appear in the material I happen to read.
The current primary season for Democrats has seen some healthy Bible push back. The now withdrawn candidate, Pete Buttigieg, was attacked a few times with Bible verses. He is a gay man. He responded with his own Bible verses.
If history predicts the future, we can expect using the Bible against gay people will stop and abortion and some other group or "sin" will be signaled out to be demonized.
Not related; Science news today; There is evidence the entire earth was once a water world without any land mass. Continental drift produced dry land.
ReplyDeleteThis negates the claim that there wasn't / isn't enough water to cover the whole planet. The national geological survey said pretty much the same years ago, with a more smooth earth, and pre-continental drift, but was ignored and not considered a possibility. No ocean trenches, no mountain ranges. With slight drift, low laying land mass would have been habitable for early land habitation.
I've read that too. Some three million years ago it had not been bombarded with meteors nor had pressure pushed up the mountains and was mostly covered with water. I used to say there was not enough water to cover the earth and I was incorrect about three million years ago. You did not mention Noah's flood. Humans have only been here 200,000-300,000 years, not three million. It's obvious the mountains were here before humans. There was not a flood that covered the mountains as claimed in the Bible.
DeleteHey; Don't get all religious on us. I said nothing about Noah. The National Geological survey is current. Continental drift is an ongoing event.
DeleteJon, why do you keep knawing on the scripture and abortion bone? you tell us that scripture is just a pack of nonsense stuffed under one cover. and then you tell us that scripture should be taken seriously when it touches on abortion. as I pointed out in a previous post, there are passages in scripture suggesting that ancient writers thought the human life began with an infant's first "breath". whether this assertion was to be understood literally or as simply some mytho-poetic saying, I don't know. and I doubt that you, Jon, know either. for my part I have no claim to scripture scholarship. and I think that Jon is in the same boat. to repeat, I think that there is no particular reason to take Scripture as a guide in the instance of abortion. like the seven day creation story. rather, and this is a strong rather, we should discuss abortion philosophically, ie. with common sense and reason, not with the sayings of what you, Jon, call ancient goat herders. and a final thought, it's too bad that so many Protestants embraced Scriptural literalism. arguably it has done a lot of damage, giving us, among other things, atheism.
DeleteUnknown "Jon, why do you keep knawing on the scripture and abortion bone?"
DeleteYou know the answer to that as well as I do. I gather you are a Catholic. Even if you are not you know full well that the huge bureaucracy of that denomination condemns abortion. They use religion to justify this anti women crusade. The only source of their religious justification is the Bible. So, I refer to the Bible as well.
So long as the Catholic and Protestant anti abortion crusaders try to put their religious views into our laws I will be talking about the Bible.
we'll see what Matt has to say but for me the Catholic take on the abortion "thing" rests largely on common sense, reason and philosophical realism. Scripture, of course, is part of it, but only a part. Protestant views, admittedly, rest more on their reading of Scripture, a reading which reflects the mixed testimony of the Bible. which is to say that the Scriptural witness is, on balance, pro-life. for my part, I go with reason, philosophical realism. and I think that Protestants are moving in that direction as well.
DeleteThe Catholic take on abortion is that is intrinsically evil. The same goes for artificial contraception and masturbation.
DeleteMurdering people is against the Ten Commandments. From the moment of conception until natural death, the taking of a human life by murder is condemned. Killing during a just war is not murder. Capital punishment is not murder but there is Catholic teaching which states that capital punishment is not necessary in most of the civilized world in this day and age. The convict can serve a life sentence.
The Church relies on Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Each has to support the other.
Besides the clear moral and theological objections to abortion, it is just plain common sense.
The Church's position is in line with Jesus Christ, naturally. Christ is not anti-woman. Quite the contrary, Christ is pure love and wants the best for all of His creation. Even so, some people suffer. Out of the infinite number of ways He could have put creation in motion, He chose a mortal existence which includes pain, suffering and death. I believe Jon thinks he knows better so he opines and demands that God create a pain-free world with no suffering. Sorry, but that is not the hand we humans were dealt.
Unknown, March 3, 2020 @ 9:42AM: “we should discuss abortion philosophically, ie. with common sense and reason”
ReplyDeleteHow would you suggest we discuss abortion philosophically with common sense and reason. Would you initially approach the topic axiologically, epistemologically, or metaphysically?
epistemology certainly (what can be observed/known) and metaphysically (just as you would).
Deleteoops. and most assuredly, ethically.
DeleteUnknown March 3, 2020 @ 6:09: “most assuredly, ethically” Let’s get down to brass tacks. Is there an ethical equivalence between a women having an 8 week old fetus suctioned from her uterus by an abortion doctor and the same woman hiring someone to throw her 8 year old son in a wood chipper? Is there an ethical equivalence between a woman using medication to abort an 8 week old fetus and the same women poisoning her 8 year old son to death? Furthermore, to your 6:03PM, what if any is the ontological difference between an 8 week old fetus and an 8 year old child? Your thoughts Unknown.
DeleteArby, to answer your question: they are both the same in substance/essence: i.e. they are both human beings, intrinsically some specifc entity. accidentally, of course, they are much different (size, location, level of knowedge, etc.) yet they have a common humanity which perdures through time. just like I am the same being that I was at eight. actually, you don't need to have a Ph.d in philosophy to get that point: a little common sense will do. it seems to me that you have what I call a Heraclitian world view, as in you don't step into the same river twice. there are no essences/substances, just a lot of flux which dishes up a lot of fleeting images/accidental characteristics that we choose to call a river or a human. it's called nominalism. and a question for you: if this is merely a world of flux, then the human mind is also in a state of flux. how then can the mind, bring order to a haphazard world?
DeleteUnknown March 4, 2020@9:08 AM: “it seems to me that you have what I call a Heraclitian world view” I must admit I haven’t had a philosophy course in about 50 years but I’m ok with your appraisal. I was taught that philosophy is an activity not so much a particular world view or body of knowledge so I will extend the discussion. To me the essence vs existence bifurcation always seemed wanting. Nor am I a fan of seeing the world as an interplay of opposite values. It seems Christianity seeks to divide the world into opposites; good/evil, true/false, right/wrong, black/white, love/hate and on and on. If only life were that simple. We all have experienced a “grey area”, an exception to a rule, an anomaly, a surprise outcome, a deviation from a norm. Many times our “truths” are the products of bigotry and we hide out in our own self-deception and dishonesty where we rarely find the courage to question our closest held convictions. The destruction of an eight week old fetus and the murder of an eight year old child are both a loss of human potential. But to me the cutting of the umbilical cord of a thriving newborn adds value to a human life exceeding that of its existence as a fetus. This proposition could be used to support an anti-abortion position but since it implies diminishing the value of the unborn verses the born maybe not so much. A woman is more than an incubator. The locus of control over her capacity to reproduce the species lies not in some holy book or the decisions of old men in some governing body, but with the woman herself. Remember that hallmark of political conservatism, individual liberty? Well then boys empower her with the means to solve her reproductive dilemmas as she sees fit. It is unethical in my view to prohibit contraception, deny the option to abort an unwanted pregnancy, and then force a woman to carry a fetus to term under penalty of prison. That is perverse. That is enslavement. If you really want to limit abortion you need some balance. Add to your strategy removing the package of men that shirk their parental responsibility. My, my how the worm would turn. Now that’s normative ethics, fair and balanced.
DeleteArdy B--Excellent essay.
DeleteArby, Jon , not surprisingly, thinks that your "essay" is excellent. not surprisingly I think otherwise. too me it is a jumble of assertions, some true, some maybe true and some, well, off the wall. first, no one that I know of has claimed that ethical decision making is simple: it is complex by any standard. but neither is it a gray mush which, in the end, it boils down to any "ethical" human action one that boils down to whatever is in your raw self-interest or that assuages your conscience. (BTW, grey: are you a Brit?) as to the hallmark of political conservatism. what you describe is libertarianism, something quite different from classical conservatism. (read Edmund Burke) as to enslavement: a loaded feminist slogan that seems to overlook the fact that pregnancy (altho' often difficult) is nature's way of propagating the species. like it or not, that's the way it is. as to existence and essence: essence is what it is, existence is that it is. two quite different things. get a Phil 101 textbook and read all about it. finally, I know that there is little to be gained by wasting time responding to your essays. you are obviously a dyed in the wool feminist, not someone likely to change her (assumption on my part) mind come hell or highwater. so why do I do it: just for the helluva it. and perhaps to show others who may stop by that the arguments presented on this blog can be challenged. have a good evening.
DeleteUnknown "pregnancy is nature's way of propagating the species. that's the way it is."
DeleteMore Catholic propaganda. Matt has used that to justify why women cannot be priests. Women cannot be priests because they are different from men, they can have babies. This thing about "propagating the species" eventually winds its way into prohibition of abortion.
Instead of dancing around the issue, how about telling us what rights a pregnant woman will have when abortion is against the law. I've asked you to do that several times now. Arby raised the issue.
The rights of the fetus are in competition with the rights of the pregnant women. This is a lock. There is no escape. Tell us what rights the pregnant woman retains when the fetus has the same rights to protection by law enforcement as either you or I?
Unknown March 4, 2020 @ 7:31 PM: Thank you for your critique. At least now I know I’ve been classified a Heraclitean feminist libertarian. I confessed my limited training and knowledge of textbook philosophy. After some thought I realized I would not be able to speak in philosophical jargon about the ethical complexity of abortion so instead I put it all out there the only way I knew how. My hope was you would do the same about your perspective on the topic. Maybe you did and I couldn’t clearly discern it. I have learned over the course of my life that simply understanding the meanings of words will not apprise me of the facts. Anyway, time to move on. Best wishes.
DeleteUnknown--Ardy B brought up his background of some time ago in academic philosophy. I wish you would do the same. You enjoy putting commenters in categories, you've put me in several and now put Ardy B in one. You like to drop in words and terms allegedly from philosophy. But I have suspected from day one your background is philosophy is self taught and not from a demanding academic background. Am I correct? If I am incorrect, please reveal what academic training you have in philosophy. Thank you.
DeleteI put people in categories because their thoughts (as expressed on this site) tell me that they belong there. as to my background, I have logged in a large number of philosophy courses in an academic setting. moreover I have continued to study the subject by reading and listening to courses provided by various colleges via the internet. if you want to think of that as self-taught, make the most of it. I will continue to present my views: you can take or leave it. and incidentally, you are up to your old sophistic tricks: specifically, calling out others for doing precisely what you commonly do yourself. in this instance accusing others of putting people in categories, something that you do all the time. hypocrisy?
DeleteUnknown "I have logged...philosophy courses in an academic setting."
DeleteOK, I'll take you word for it. Your inability to recognize or acknowledge the ethical problems of women in a no-abortion world just puzzles me. You refuse to address it. We had a philosophy major in among our children. When he and his fellow majors talked about all manner of issues they approached them in a much different way than you do. They would have said, "Well, here is the ethical problem from one point of view and here is the ethical problem from a different point of view." You don't do that. And, as I mentioned before, you quoted from a book that was about propaganda and referred to it a legitimate source for a philosophical discussion.
Ardy B And while Unknown is at it, he could spell out exactly the rights of pregnant women in a world that outlawed abortion. I've been asking for this for years.
ReplyDeleteTry again. maybe you want me to speculate as to what would happen legally if Roe were overturned. probably would go back to the states. some would outlaw completely. some would outlaw with exceptions. some would go beyond Roe (up to birth and beyond). overall the message would tell the world that abortion is not a good thing and on a national basis there would no longer be an absolute right to abortion. abortion clinics (those that survived) would be licensed and regulated. again to emphasize, this is all speculation. which at this point my speculation is a good as yours. sleep tight tonite.
ReplyDelete