15th September 2010

“I find it very strange that those against abortion cite the Bible to support their views. By His own words, is He not a baby killer? He totally destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He thus killed men, women and children as well as babies and women in various stages of pregnancy, and thus their yet unborn offspring. Or were the deaths of non-adults to be treated as Divine collateral damage, and ergo of no theological or moral significance?”

Robert M. Dunn

12 Responses to “15th September 2010”

  1. CaptainZero Says:

    People who take the ten commandments seriously apparently believe there is an implied ending to the 5th (or 6th, if you’re Catholic or Lutheran) commandment. The approved language is:

    Thou shalt not murder (unless you are God).

    The fact that this is half way down the list demonstrates that God was a por rule maker. Seriously God. “Be nice to mom and dad” comes before “don’t kill people”? Maybe He should have added the preamble “Here’s a few things I want you to do in no particular order:”

    And the first four are about your petty insecurity? Would it have been too much to mention rape? Or were you thinking about that hot tart Mary you were planning on knocking up and didn’t want to be a hypocrite?

  2. Devout Atheist Says:

    Captain’s on a roll. awesome. I prefer the story of the loving god killing the first born males in the passover plagues. God is a loving god. Let my people go,……you all die.

  3. GreatEighthSin Says:

    Nah, my personal favorite is Noah. Wiping out every living thing. Didn’t matter if it was babies, puppies, kitties, was young, old, or pregnant. God declared his children “evil”, and sought to wipe them out with little regards to the actions of their future offspring.

    Great story to tell the kiddos while tucking them in at night.

    Oh, if you think being an abortionist is murder, try telling “no” to a pregnant woman and have her run off and overdosing on drugs to try to miscarry and kill the child, only to end up killing herself in the process. Who’s the murderer, then?

  4. Long Time Lurker Says:

    I always wondered where the 11th commandment was? Thou Shalt Not Abuse Children.

  5. Margaret Says:

    “And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
    Exodus 21:22-25

    This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a “life for a life,” then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don’t have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence — it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.
    What has been so clearly demonstrated by the passage in Exodus – the fact that God does not consider a fetus a human person – can also be seen in a variety of other Bible verses. In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above – anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother’s crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder. Period.

  6. The Heretic Says:

    Tell a woman that wants the child that the fetus is not a baby. Good luck with that. But, the woman that doesn’t want the baby – to her it is a few unfortunate cells? I suppose it is a difference in perception. Now understand, I am not for making abortion illegal. But, I think that some of the late term procedures are atrocities against humanity. (Assuming no lives are at stake.) Using the bible to condemn or condone this atrocity is just rubbish. There should some common sense applied – and time limits pursued – in this matter. 3 months? 4 months? After that, you are keeping it or adopting it out. (Again – unless there are extenuating circumstances – may they be infrequent.) I would also like to note – the man should have no say whatsoever in the fetus/child unless married to the woman carrying it – and even then – limited.

  7. Margaret Says:

    I was pre-emptively entering the Bible verses that allow consideration of abortion before the religious trolls got on here putting in their favored verses that say something else. They always want to say the Bible condones their point of view, but they never consider the other verses. Wanted to put them out there.
    Considering Heretic’s point, I guess I would say the fetus has the value the woman carrying it says it does. In one room, medical professionals are working feverishly to try to prevent a miscarriage, and in the next room, a pregnancy of equal duration is being terminated. Someone could look at that and call it hypocrisy. I only see respect for the mother’s situation or choices. I would also agree that abortion should never occur after viability, meaning the child could be born and live free from the mother, unless the pregnancy MUST be ended to save her life. In that case, perhaps an emergency C-section for the premature infant, and an extensive stay in the neonatal intensive care unit. Even then, survival is not assured. Viability is the dividing line for me. Prior to viability, the fetus cannot live without the mother’s body, and to force that on her seems cruel.
    Heretic, do you believe women should be punished for sex? I hear so many of the anti-choice crowd seem to object to abortion because of the sexual origin of pregnancy. If women became pregnant by sneezing 4 times in a row, I don’t believe we would have all this controversy. The father’s DNA does not make the situation any easier, either. Contraception is one of the best inventions of humanity, to avoid some of these hard choices, but even that is not 100%.
    I object to the absolute worship of the fetus that so many anti-choice activists/protesters have.
    I have put much thought into this, because I work in the medical field. The only conclusion I can come to is an unwanted pregnancy places to woman and her fetus in an adversarial position. The woman can either submit to the fetus, or eliminate it. The big question is, whose side does one take, the mother, or the fetus? I take the mother’s, up to the point of viability. Only after viability, in my mind, does the fetus’s right supersede the mother’s right over her own body.
    Lastly, yes, a fetus is a human, as is a prisoner on death row. If a burgler climbs into my window at 2 am, I have a 38 pistol to dispatch him, and I would not feel guilty over it. The question is, when is the ending of a human life allowed? I say, self-defense (and in a way, abortion IS self-defense), abortion PRIOR to viability, (or to save the life of the mother), and execution of death row prisoners. Another situation is killing for war, but the debate on the justification for war killing is a completely different arena than the abortion question, so I ignore it, for now.

  8. Atheist MC Says:

    The abortion debate is a valid one which as a society we need to address. The debate can be informed by science and reason, taking into account the cognitive state of a foetus at any particular stage, viability and natural attrition rates, maternal health and circumstances. Religion on the other hand has nothing of value to add, as it has nothing to add to any moral discussion.

  9. teddy Says:

    YAY for atheist MC

  10. tech Says:

    Well that’s a Crock MC. What does MC stand for anyway Mr. Confused.?

  11. Atheist MC Says:

    Confused? No I don’t thinks so. I have at least the clarity of mind not to mistake religious dogma for rational ethics.

  12. GreatEighthSin Says:

    Tech, I find that you have had nothing of value to add lately. You have been doing nothing but try to clamor obscenities at a wall. In other words, you’ve done nothing but insist on smug name calling. A practice which only the desperate and fearful try to reclaim some form of power.

    Either join the discussions, or die out trying.