Chicky’s complete comment unedited (not one jot or title changed). Just my clearly marked – if not clearly written – editorial comment inserted.
Matt, just because you do not agree with the content, does not make the comment, “full of hate and vitriol”.
I simply stated the facts.
You should try it some time. The truth might help you as well. I am glad to see you demonstrate the way some christians behave when confronted with information they do not support. You immediately responded with lies, hate and vitriol.
You’re not glad. At least I hope you’re not. Though it appears you are pleased to have an enemy to fight instead of a person to communicate with. I will endeavor to present my viewpoint in your language and argument form so that we can communicate.
First I will point out that the bible is a collected work of over 3000 years’ that culminates in the depiction of the early Christian Church. To say that a nomadic society’s attempt to codify the possible injuries and penalties for them somehow defines current Judeo-Christian morality is not supportable. Even though you don’t understand that the fullness of the Christian ethic as related to the Jews and our shared scripture that we call the Old Testament, the heritage of Christianity is Christ completing the work begun by God’s prophets in the Old Testament. For many things a new rule exists but the attempt of the Old Testament Law to put order on society and to understand our relationship with God is not overturned; just perfected. These are known as the “Covenant” and the “New Covenant.”
As far as for Laura’s response is concerned, it is not I that claims there is biblical support for anti-choice, fetal worship.
If you would provide a citation for an example of the (vitriolic) term “fetal worship” I will attempt to explain it.
Numbers 5 condones the use of abortion, NO MATTER WHAT the reason behind it, and that clearly disputes the notion that the bible is anti-abortion.
Number Chapter 5 is a rather blunt method of psychologically (or could it be supernaturally?) inducing a spontaneous abortion (can that be done?) through guilt. It’s a pretty elaborate ceremony isn’t it? If he’s the father no harm done. If he’s a cuckold and the baby is not miscarried then no one is the wiser and they raise another child. I don’t advocate anything like this and neither does the bible proscribe it for today; see my earlier comments about Old vs. New.
You also wrote referring to Exodus 21:22. I would say this. It says if a man is fighting another (behaving unsocially as opposed to an accident which is a point of law) and a woman is uninjured and miscarries (the Latin says et abortivum) then the husband of the woman is due to recover. Note it doesn’t say he may go and kill one of the offender’s children or go and strike that man’s wife in the abdomen. It says that a wrong occurred and the offender needs to be punished. There clearly isn’t modern respect for the life or legal status of either the mother or the child or slaves for that matter. Note who gets to collect the money from the offender – the husband. Note also that there’s no ‘injury’ if she gets kicked in the stomach and miscarries. Note just above in verses 20 & 21 that a slaveowner can kill his slave if it’s accidental since it’s his money anyway. However if it were truly eye for eye it would insist on killing another child which isn’t good for society is it?
So, you are willing to condone the “death” of a fetus as long as it is not the “principal target”? Or is it OK because the “whore” was being murdered too?
I take it you are here talking about Genesis 38:24. Though this (vitriolic) term technically applies to a particular woman; the Christian ethos is to love and support her. It’s the Old vs New again. Judah was leader, police chief , judge and pastor to a nomadic family. He was following the law of Abraham and even he didn’t actually have her stoned. She petitioned for mercy and got it – later to bear the twins Phares and Zara. Moses later confirmed this rule. See Deuteronomy 22:21 and 23:17. So there is no condoning death of a fetus. This was a then-justified execution of a woman criminal. Jesus did NOT overturn it; instead he turned it on its head. See what he said to the religious police and the adulteress in the beginning of John’s gospel. Jesus left the rule standing but changed the punishment through mercy. This is the New Covenant.
Again, with Hosea, it is about rebellion against god:
“15Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up: he shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels.
16Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”
This is yet another story from the Old Testament describing desolation and death. The ripping up of a child is the most horrible metaphor they could know; that none of your work in this life will benefit you children. It’s also a horrible literal reality, that your wife and children could be ripped apart this way. It’s sort of Ultimate Old Testament Judgment, for God to take you this far and then abandon you. Note also that the crime itself is committed not by Hebrews, but by pagan enemies.
So you have just admitted that a fetus is only “sacred life” in YOUR mind, and that is only true IF it is the woman/whore, that is deliberately aborting.
You still have not produced anything that shows that the bible is against abortion.
Perhaps but I think Laura did. You clearly have not produced anything that says the Bible allows intentional abortion because the baby isn’t a baby.
You and your church are welcome to teach your adherents anything you want about a fetus and abortion, but you do NOT have the right to interfere in the laws of our great nation that govern ALL.
I am a big fan of this great nation; once upon a time I went to war to defend her. Our laws are rules to implement our collective best judgment of justice, free will, prosperity and opportunity. You don’t get that by killing children or the “potentiality” of children. I do indeed have every right to lobby, speak, advocate, exhort, discuss, plead, button hole, berate and convince anyone listening that the Child in utero is one of the “ALL” that we agree has rights needing defended. (Note I do not say kill. There’s enough of that going on.)
My Church gives me plenty of content to discuss and moral credibility to speak to this issue. It is not the actor speaking here. I am speaking. Most significantly my Church is not attacking you or interfering in the laws of the nation in any way. I am acting. I am a citizen and a moral agent influencing and – if we’re successful – improving our nation.
Stop attacking FOCA, or private womens, private decisions. If you are against abortion, you will never be forced to have one.
I will never concede that FOCA – in the form last introduced in Congress or in the various mini insults to law and life that this Congress is spoonfeeding to this Administration to enact on Friday afternoons – is a valid prudent method of providing justice.