Recently I've been encountering claims that the Bible is "pro-choice," meaning pro-abortion.
I've been asked more than once how to respond to this claim.
Here's how . . .
Jezebel Speaks
The best way to respond to a claim will depend on the specific form the claim takes and the arguments used in favor of it, but we need to start somewhere, so let's use this article from the blog Jezebel.
In case you're not familiar with Jezebel (I wasn't), according to Wikipedia,
Jezebel is a blog aimed at women's interests, under the tagline "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion. Without Airbrushing." It is one of several blogs owned by Gawker Media.
In a piece titled "Conservative Christians Conveniently Ignore All the Pro-Choice Passages in the Bible," blogger Erin Gloria Ryan writes:
Nowadays, you can't swing an IUD around without it smacking a pro-life evangelical Christian right in the bloody fetus protest sign. But did you know that all of these eternal Biblical truths religious conservatives trot out in making their argument that life begins at conception are actually at odds with much more reasonable, pro choice stuff in the Bible? And did you know that until until about 30 years ago, many prominent American evangelicals believed that life didn't begin until birth?
I mean, we've kind of been over this — there are a lot more passages in the Bible that imply (or insist) that the big man upstairs doesn't consider a zygote to be the same sort of being with the same value as, say, a mailman or a trapeze artist than there are passages that mention abortion. Probably because there are zero Bible passages that mention abortion, as in "don't do it."
Zero Bible Passages?
Ryan is correct that there are no passages in Scripture that explicitly say "don't commit abortion."
One reason is that in ancient Israel children were so highly prized that the crime of abortion was basically unthinkable.
As we've mentioned before, children were viewed as a gift from God. They were also an economic asset rather than an economic burden in Israel's ancient, agrarian society. Between these two facts, there was a strong disincentive to want to kill them in the womb.
As a result, it was not until the Christian era, when the Church began to spread in urban, Greco-Roman circles, that the question of abortion arose in a serious way. When it did, the reaction was immediate and consistent.
One of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament--which itself appears to date from the apostolic age--conveys the constant Christian perspective:
Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant.
Of course, this rests on principles that are firmly biblical (e.g., "Thou shalt not kill" and the recognition that a woman who is "with child" is, you know, with child).
So while Ryan is correct that there are no biblical passages that explicitly say "Do not commit abortion," the Bible does contain the principles needed to derive this moral truth.
Zero Passages = Zero Passages
It's worth noting, as Ryan acknowledges, that there are zero passages mentioning abortion at all--at least in the modern sense of a direct, procured abortion. (There are, of course, passages referring to miscarriages or "spontaneous abortions"--to use the term in another, older, less common sense.)
That means that her case also rests on inference, so she could hardly object to Evangelicals or other Christians using inference in their case.
Whether one is pro-life or pro-abortion, one has to use inference.
So what, in the Bible, does she think supports her position?
"When Men Strive Together"
Ryan says that there are "a lot more passages" that support her position, but in her piece she names only one. She also provides a link, and I may critique what she links in a future post, but to keep this one short, I'm going to stick with what she cites. Presumably, that's what she thinks is the strongest passage for her position. She writes:
In fact, in Exodus, God talks about how if an assailant harms a pregnant woman and her pregnancy is ended as a result, the assailant only owes the woman's husband a fine. But if he hurts the woman beyond the miscarriage? Ruh-roh.
"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
So, wait — the Bible specifically says that a woman is much, much, much, much, much more important than a fetus? What sort of crazy talk is this?
Understanding Ryan's Argument
The fact she cites this passage (Exodus 21:22-25) may strike many pro-lifers as odd, because they are used to citing exactly the same passage against abortion.
What's up here? How could two groups with opposite viewpoints appeal to the same verses?
Let's take a moment to see how Ryan (and others) are parsing the passage.
They are taking it like this: If two men are fighting and they hurt a pregnant woman so that she miscarries then her child is dead. This passage does not demand the death penalty for the life of the child, so abortion must not be murder. Instead, the one who hurt the woman must pay what her husband demands as compensation for the loss of the child.
On the other hand, "if any harm follows"--i.e., if the woman herself is hurt--then the law of retaliation applies, and the one who hurt her must be subjected to commensurate harm.
But that's not the only way to take this passage . . .
A Pro-Life Interpretation
Pro-lifers commonly parse the passage differently.
They often do it like this: If two men fight and they hurt a pregnant woman so that she miscarries that does not mean that her child is dead. It means that her child comes out of her body, but it does not tell us what happens to the child. The child may live, the child may die, or the child may live but be wounded somehow.
On this view the one causing the miscarriage has to pay a fine set by the woman's husband for the trauma of the event (physical and emotional, including convalescent time and medical expenses, according to the Jewish Publication Society's Torah Commentary: Exodus), but as long as there is no permanent damage to the woman or the child then the law of retaliation is not applied.
On the other hand, if there is permanent harm to the woman or the child then the law of retaliation applies and the offending party must be given commensurate harm.
Which View is Right?
Different scholars take this passage in different ways, making it difficult to settle the matter simply by appealing to scholarly opinion.
Both pro-lifers and pro-abortion individuals can cite people who take the passage the way that they would want to take it.
That can lead to an impasse.
One way of solving the impasse would be to analyze the original Hebrew and see how much it can be clarified.
That's more of a time investment than most people are up for, particularly in the world of modern, soundbite political discussions, so let me make the following observations . . .
Just What Bible Version Is This?
I have been unable to determine what Bible version Ryan is quoting from.
My Logos Bible Software--which has dozens of translations--does not have the quote the way Ryan gives it.
Various online Bible sites that I checked don't have it.
Googling did not turn up any Bibles giving this translation of the passage.
So I suspect that the passage has been altered to slant it in the direction Ryan wants.
It uses archaic language like "strive together" but it also uses more modern language like "miscarriage."
That doesn't mean that Ryan was the one who altered it. In all likelihood, she simply copied and pasted it from some other source, which had itself been copied and pasted several times, and whoever did the alteration is unknowable.
But it's not from a standard Bible translation that I've been able to identify.
That's significant, because it muddies an important point . . .
"And Her Children Go Out"
There have been a number of translations that used the word "miscarriage" in this verse, but none of them are rendering the Hebrew literally.
What the Hebrew says is vyats'u yladeyah, which means "and her children go out."
In older Bible translations, this is more clear. For example, in the King James Version the passage reads:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Fruit?
"Fruit" is itself not a literal translation. The word in Hebrew is clearly "children." But the King James is closer to the original.
I can understand a more recent Bible translator, in the days before abortion was a political issue, trying to render the Hebrew text in idiomatic, colloquial English by using the (now) familiar term "miscarriage"--without really thinking about whether that meant the death of the child.
That's how the term "miscarriage" got into some English translations to begin with.
Technically speaking, "miscarriage" does not imply the death of the child, but that is how it is commonly perceived since that is its frequent outcome.
But once abortion became a political hot potato, a closer study--and a more accurate rendering of the text--needs to be employed.
Thus the New International Version (a popular version among Evangelicals) has this for the passage:
If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.
That kind of casts the passage in a different light, doesn't it?
What's the Upshot?
I noted that Ryan likely quotes this passage because she thinks that it's the one which best supports her position.
If so, she's on very shaky ground indeed.
This is not the kind of passage one wants to (snarkily) throw at your pro-life interlocutors:
1) They're accustomed to taking it to mean precisely the opposite of what you want it to.
2) They have experts they can cite in their favor.
3) The passage--in fact--refers to "her children" coming out.
That last not only fails to imply that the children are dead, it also states (not just implies) that they are children.
So is Ryan in favor of killing children?
Whatever else one may draw from this passage, the idea that it is okay to kill children is not one of them.
What Now?
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Sorry Ryan et al, there is a passage in the Gospel that clearly defines a baby in the womb of the mother as a baby:
Luke 1 41-45
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
A very good Evangelical (Prot.) site also has an excellent rejoinder to Exodus 21.
The site uses some of the same arguments as Jimmy, and I have found it helpful.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700
-
Quote - “That’s more of a time investment (to analyze the passage)than most people are up for, particularly in the world of modern, soundbite political discussions”. This is the main problem with this type of debate.
Citing scripture may bring a type of credibility but without proper context and meaning it is “abused” to suit the users agenda.
First, the phrase “pro-choice” is a politically-correct progressive/liberal phrase. What they don’t tell you is that they have already made up their minds for abortion.
Second, God has always been “Pro-choice.” After all, he gave us free will.
However, he did give us intellect and free will to choose between right and wrong, good and bad. He also gave us the mandate “I give you life and death; choose life!”
Yes, he IS pro-choice.
And I am making a choice for LIFE. I am pro-life.
Good article and good point Tom; thx to both.
Here’s a shocker: I am pro-choice and I’m Catholic. what do I mean by this? I mean that I am all for a woman’s right to choose when it comes to what color she dies her hair, what clothes she wears, whether or if she wants to work outside the home, how many children she has, whether or if she wants to get married, and what kind of recreational hobbies she wants to pick up. Those are all viable choices for her to make. I’m also all for a woman’s right to choose not to have children, but if she chooses not to have them I expect her to be responsible and exercise self-control by not engaging in activities that cause children to be conceived. Put simply, murder isn’t a choice anyone ought to have the right to make.
“So is Ryan in favor of killing children?
Yes.
Pro choice does not equal pro abortion. I’m pro choice, and I have never known a single person who is pro abortion. No one likes abortion. Abortion means something failed for a woman- birth control, a pregnancy went terribly wrong medically, finances failed, a relationship or marriage failed, etc. Abortion is an invasive surgery, and regardless of how one feels about the right of a woman to legally make choices about her own body or the moral status of an early term fetus (which is 99% of what we are talking about with legal abortion in the US), pretty much every pro choice person prefers that women don’t end up in e situations that lead to abortion in the first place. It is intellectually dishonest to call someone who is pro choice pro abortion. We are very specifically pro choice, as in pro “I do not have a right to use the secular force of the law in a free country to compel you to follow a set of religious beliefs, irregardless of your own conscience.”
I’m pro choice. I have never chosen abortion, and would not in my own life, because I am a practicing Catholic. The one pregnancy I’ve ever had (married, planned) I carried lovingly to term. It is not honest to call someone who is pro choice pro abortion, because they are…not pro abortion. Pro choice is not some sanitary, evasive term; it is used because it is just so accurate as to what the stance means. Pro abortion does not accurately describe the position, becaus pro choicers are pro women who CHOOSE to have their babies, too, which is why they oppose coercive abortion in other parts of the world and the failure of society to help needy women care for their children.
Secondly, the original language of the exodus passage is fairly ambiguous, and could still be interpreted as miscarriage. The NIV is hardly considered a reputable translation among Catholics. When a woman miscarries or has a stillbirth, her “fruit goes out of her”. It hardly seems worth mentioning unless it meant miscarriage. If a woman goes into labor and delivers a live baby, what is the harm? Is the God of the OT mandating penalties for mere emotional distress? That seems out of character, and too minor for much of a mention in that context. And as a woman who has actually had a child, this doesn’t ring biologically true. Do singular acts of violence against women even induce labor and the delivery of healthy premature babies that survive without modern medicine? Systemic domestic violence and the associated long term stress can cause pre term birth, but this passage seems to be referring to singular acts of violence. The kind that would usually cause a miscarriage or stillbirth in a situation with no c sections or modern medicine. The most common effect of violence against a pregnant woman is a placental abrubtion, which without an immediate C is almost always fatal to the fetus. Google assault and preterm birth, and you get systemic spousal abuse, and an example of a woman who nearly lost a child, saved only by…a c section. In nature, this child would have been a casualty. The situation of a woman getting struck and then delivering a healthy, surviving premie newborn in a pre industrial society seem too remote a possibility to have its own mention in scripture.
And saying abortion did not exist among women in ancient Israel is just ridiculous. Women have been finding ways to control and prevent pregnancy for as long as pregnancies have brought about pain, suffering, death, and possible alienation (if mistimed or not married). And human being, fallible creatures that we are, have been having non marital sex since….forever. To suggest that abortion was unknown among a people because their VERY patriarch centered narratives only show women competing to have babies for the very men who are controlling the narration of these very stores is silly. Of course women in ancient Israel knew about and likely occasionally had abortions. Why would they ever advertise it to the men? Women are pretty good at keeping stuff like that ” between the girls.”
I respect your position and this is a great exegesis in many ways, but I think you are missing some glaring holes.
Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine Catholic Bible (NABRE) translation
22 When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. 23But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
For anon. Like you said it usually causes a miscarriage but that doesn’t mean always, and yes it could result in a live premature baby in ancient times. It doesn’t matter that Catholics don’t like niv, all that matters is how they translated the passage. Of course you are wrong, the passage is not “ambiguous”, “the child (not fruit) goes out” reflects birth in the bible not miscarriage, except in numbers 12:12 but context determines there that it’s about a still birth not the phrase “goes out”, and there’s no such context here. And it doesn’t matter that “The situation of a woman getting struck and then delivering a healthy, surviving premie newborn in a pre industrial society seem too remote a possibility to have its own mention in scripture.” because you are missing the fact that if the child dies it’s life for a life, it’s not just about the child surviving but also about the child dying, and that deserves it’s mention in the bible. In ancient Israel children were important for the survival of the household, and what about “Of course, this rests on principles that are firmly biblical (e.g., “Thou shalt not kill” and the recognition that a woman who is “with child” is, you know, with child)”, so yeah abortion didn’t exist among women in ancient Israel except as a crime, did you even read the article. A premature birth would be difficult for a child (google it), even if not deadly, and that’s why there’s a penalty, not for “emotional distress”. A premature baby is not “healthy” if it’s premature, the child can live but that is not “healthy”. How can you be pro choice and not pro abortion when you want people to have access to abortion, you are for that is “pro” abortion, of course if the woman wants it, but still in favor of (pro) abortion.
Thank you. I have always wondered how to answer this passage, since the NAB also uses miscarriage and I presumed the baby died. Now that I know what the Hebrew behind it says, I can argue effectively on this point. I am so grateful to you as you saved me from having to learn Hebrew.
We can’t ignore science in this regard. Science has conclusively determined that life begins at conception…therefore, any attempt to end that life is wrong, especially if we believe that ALL life comes from our Creator…!!!
Well, Fran, science shows a lot of things. It shows that a a unique human DNA is present at conception, but that most of those never end up as established pregnancies, much less babies. It shows that sometimes eggs are blighted ovums, or empty blastocysts, or so genetically deformed that they are incompatible with life. Life only moves forward when you have a genetically viable embryo and a sufficiently nurturing environment. It shows that early embryonic and fetal life has no feeling, or consciousness, or any other attribute we attribute to persons, and looks kind of like a little fish, or a bean with flippers on ultrasound. Then it also shows that as a pregnancy progresses that little bean turns into a child, who begins to awake to consciousness and who starts to engage his environment. Pregnancy typically makes a pretty astounding leap around 18 weeks, which is why doctors wait until then do a scan to confirm that the fetus is fully viable and all systems are operating. Having been a mom, it’s pretty amazing. It is also pretty mysterious. It’s a process.
I also think it is inaccurate to ask “Is the Bible Pro-Choice”. “Pro-Choice” is a late 20th century political phrase, that makes certain modern assumptions about women, their autonomy, and their place in the world, assumptions that were not even on the table in Biblical times. Women in ancient societies (heck, women in modern societies up until very recently) were assumed to be under the authority of men, where not assumed to have any sexual or bodily autonomy, were assumed to be virgins, mothers who had as many children as they could, widows, or !@#$%. “Choice” did not factor into any aspect of women’s lives. So of course “Pro-Choice” would not have even occurred to the writers of scripture.
The more accurate question is “Does the Bible (or philosophical or legal or church tradition) ascribe the same moral value to embryonic life from the moment of conception as it ascribes to a born person? What evidence or personhood does biology show?”
On that question I do not think it does (nor does philosophical tradition, or church tradition until recently, or legal tradition). But I think that answer is obviously very debatable. I’m open minded to change (and, being a Catholic, I do in my personal life live as one with regards to life, regardless of my doubts to the current church teaching. My husband and I practice NFP and welcome new life and I would choose to die for my own unborn child if called upon to do so. But I have difficulty using politics to force that on non-Catholics).
“single person who is pro abortion. No one likes abortion”
There are 1.2 million abortions each year vs. 4 million births, in the US alone. Somebody must be “pro abortion” for this to happen. A child in the womb has better chances to make it to age 5 years in the poorest countries of Sub Saharan Africa, than in the US, where incomes are over 100 times higher… More children are killed in the US every year that people die of malaria in the world. In places like in NYC, there are more abortions than deliveries of babies. Those are facts. Most abortions are done out of pure convenience. Why? Simply because an average young adult on birth control has 10%-40% chance of becoming pregnant within a decade (depending on studies, methods used, etc…). ao birth control method is 100% “effective”. Since sex is for mainly for entertainment now days, what will “progressives” “chose”, if they become pregnant? They will “chose” abortion, of course (as “hard” as this is), and the abortion industry will make a buck. Babies in the womb are now just a disposable, somewhat inconvenient byproduct of sex as a commodity, a $trillion industry.
“But I think that answer is obviously very debatable. “
How is Luke 1: 41-45 i“debatable”? If “consciousness” and “feeling pain” is what defines “personhood”, does that mean someone in a very deep coma, with severe accidental brain injury undergoing therapeutic hypothermia is no longer a “person”?
Brave new world.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L3CaRU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGktYWWA
Generally speaking the Biblical argument either way is tenuous and we are much better off not appealing to Scripture. While the exegesis here is interesting, it really doesn’t carry through the full implications of the text.
The fact that Judaism is generally silent on the issue of abortion is itself problematic. The ancient Israelites knew of and undoubtedly practiced abortion, though the word itself only appears once in the Old Testament and there not in a condemnatory fashion.
We are always better with the Natural Law argument.
What about:
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.”
Psalm 139:13
“You formed my inmost being;you knit me in my mother’s womb.”
Job 31:15
Did not he who made me in the belly make him?
Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?
...
Psalm 22:11
Upon you I was thrust from the womb;
since my mother bore me you are my God.
...
Psalm 71:6
On you I have depended since birth;
from my mother’s womb you are my strength;
my hope in you never wavers.
Ecclesiastes 11:5
Just as you do not know how the life breath
enters the human frame in the mother’s womb,
So you do not know the work of God,
who is working in everything.
...
Isaiah 44:2
Thus says the LORD who made you,
your help, who formed you from the womb:
Do not fear, Jacob, my servant,
Jeshurun,* whom I have chosen
Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the LORD, your redeemer,
who formed you from the womb:
I am the LORD, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
I spread out the earth by myself
Isaiah 49:1
Hear me, coastlands,
listen, distant peoples.
Before birth the LORD called me,
from my mother’s womb he gave me my name
...
Isaiah 49:5
For now the LORD has spoken
who formed me as his servant from the womb,
That Jacob may be brought back to him
and Israel gathered to him;
I am honored in the sight of the LORD,
and my God is now my strength!
Isaiah 66:1
Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth,
and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD.
Or shall I who bring to birth
yet close her womb? says your God.
****Direct passage on killing a baby in the womb****
Jeremiah 20:17
because he did not kill me in the womb!
Then my mother would have been my grave,
her womb confining me forever.
Luke 1: 14-16
And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of [the] Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb, and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.
...
...So clearly those that wrote the Bible knew, instinctively, 101 biology (science is nothing other than the description of God’s creation, after all). In fact, in the Psalms quotes above, pregnancy is used as an allegory of God’s creating the universe (something that should make feminist happy, but alas, it doesn’t).
Well examined. A few additional thoughts common to Cathoics. One, the sola scriptura approach of atheists runs the same risks as when fundamentalists do it. Meaning and info is lost and more readily twisted…as we see here, twisted so much two diametrically opposed beliefs use the same sentence. Second, the clearly wrong “proof” provided by the sex, celebrity and fashion lady isn’t meant for faithful and educated Christians. It’s meant for those who know almost nothing of Christianity except key critical points which they use to reinforce blinding themselves to deeper understanding. They feel contempt for Christians and this is fodder. It also appeals to uneducated Christians, and I mean those under educated on our faith. These people are susceptible to such people as it sounds well thought out. It would take knowledge to dissect the obvious errors which was nicely done here.
Thanks!
To Anon: you claim that pro-choice is not pro-abortion and it is intellectually dishonest to equate the two. Use this logic on any other moral issue and see how it works. “I am not pro-slavery, I merely support the right of the property owner to choose what type of labor he will use on his cotton farm”.
You claim that you can’t impose your religious views on others. But holding abortion to be wrong is not a religious issue, it is a human rights issue. When a church takes a stance against injustice, poverty, human trafficking, violence, etc , no one accuses the church of imposing their religious views on others. Churches have a long tradition of speaking out on human rights issues. People who are PRO ABORTION like to twist this opposition to abortion as the unconstitutional imposition of religion - and you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I find the people who are most susceptible to this arguement (that Pro-lifers are trying to impose a religious view) are folks who are trying to rationalize their support for abortion-rights supporting politicians. Telling yourself that while you personally are pro life, but you are too good a person to impose your religious views on others is a great way to convince yourself that it is OK to support pro-abortion politicians - perhaps including someone who feels it is OK to kill babies who are accidentally born during botched abortions. All of us, myself included, are capable of rationalizing terrible things.
Anon:
I see the approach some other folks have taken in replying to you.
I would like to take a slightly different approach, by having you answer some questions for me, if you will. Here’s why: You have arrived at a different conclusion from me, so I suppose your thoughts must have been different. But I’d like to know how they were different; I’d like to know where you and I diverge. So here are my questions:
1. Do persons have rights intrinsically, because they are persons? Or do they not have rights at all, unless government gives them those rights, and do they cease to have those rights when government takes them away?
2. The Catholic faith tells us that our moral license for using force against other human beings is very limited: One may not point guns or arrow-points at human beings for just any old reason! One must have adequate justification. For example, one cannot go to war for any old reason; it must be a Just War. You cannot shoot a man who happens to walk by your house just because he looks suspicious; but if he kicks down your front door in the middle of the night or otherwise threatens you or your family, you may use force against him…even lethal force. It’s called Justified Self Defense.
So: Not all acts of using force are justified. But some are. What, I ask you, makes the justified ones “just?” What distinguishes a morally-licit use of force against another human being, from a morally-illicit use of force?
3. From whom does the United States government get its authority to govern—which is to say, to use force to achieve its ends? (Since every enforcement act of a government is backed by the threat or use of force, hence the term “enforcement.”)
Obviously the authority (all authority) comes ultimately from God. But most earthly authority comes from God through intermediaries, through a series of delegations or successions. For example, Christ did not personally ordain your bishop; but Christ ordained the apostles and one or more apostles ordained some bishops who ordained some other bishops who ordained…et cetera, et alia…who ordained your bishop. Or, for a more near-to-home example: I got authority to paint my house when I bought it from the previous owner, and I delegate that authority to the house-painters when I pay them to paint my house.
In the case of the United States government, from whom does it immediately get its authority to act (forcibly)? No prophet showed up to institute the U.S. government! And it is not named in the Scriptures, either. So the authority comes from God, but clearly not directly from God. How, then, does the U.S. government obtain its just powers? From whom is the government’s authority delegated?
4. What is the mission statement of the United States government? If it is a tool, what is its purpose, its task? If the government has a highest duty—something it must do or else be derelict—what is that duty? Indeed, what is the first duty of governments in general? Why are governments “established among men” (to quote the Declaration of Independence) to begin with?
5. Is a just-conceived child, at his/her earliest stages of development, not yet having hands and feet, a living human being? Or is it a sort of partially-assembled machine, which won’t really be a human being until some later point in its assembly?
If you could give me your thoughts with respect to those five questions, I think I’d understand your perspective better.
Thanks!
Tom ATK,
great verses. I love the reminder that my God knit me in my mother’s womb. No matter how inconvenient I’ve ever been to anyone, no matter how much I’ve screwed this world up (just today even!), my Father has given me nothing but love. How much that fills me with love for him and this world that he has given to me as a gift!
Thanks, Tom!
@ R.C.
“5. Is a just-conceived child, at his/her earliest stages of development, not yet having hands and feet, a living human being? Or is it a sort of partially-assembled machine, which won’t really be a human being until some later point in its assembly?”
## AFAICS, what is conceived is not a child, because it is not yet a specific human being; and it is not a human being. It is alive; & it is not in any sense a machine. Something can be a human child only if it is a human being; which presupposes that it has been ensouled. IIRC, ensoulment depends on the nature of the receiving matter. The matter of the conceptus allows, not for a human soul, but for an animal soul. Ensoulment as human is, perhaps, not a fresh creative act, but the awakening of latent powers that constitute he conceptus as human once ensoulment as human occurs. Obviously the soul, which is purely spiritual, cannot undergo material alteration; there is no matter in it to alter. On this theory, ensoulment is a two-stage act. Equally obviously, any theory of ensoulment has also to square with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, & has to avoid the pitfalls in the debate over the theories of traducianism & creationism, both of which concern the way in which the newly-procreated participate in the Fall.
If there is human life in a sperm from conception - what becomes of all the spermatazoa that do not implant in the lining of the uterus ? There are millions of them. If the life of a sperm is *specifically* a human life from conception, even before its implantation in the lining some days later, that is a lot of human lives that do not implant. I find that too problematic to be able to believe that God works like that. I think it makes much more sense in every way to distinguish between the life of the conceived organism, & the specifically human life of the implanted conceptus, AKA the human foetus. That would still allow for a ban on aborting the conceptus during the period before implantation & some hours after conception; because it can be regarded as human, not biologically (which it would not be), but by anticipation. Denying the humanity of the conceptus does not logically require denying that what is conceived is intended (by God) to be human in due course.
P.S:
“That would still allow for a ban on aborting the conceptus during the period before implantation & some hours after conception; because it can be regarded as human, not biologically (which it would not be), but by anticipation.”
An analogy with this can be found in the adoration of the yet-to-be-consecrated Eucharist Gifts in the 1962 Mass: they are treated as what they will soon be: the adoration is anticipatory.
We can also view the matter eschatologically: the present fact of the conception is that what is conceived is not yet human. But it is to be preserved from harm, because its conception is a present guarantee of its future human status. That it has been conceived, is a reason to hope for its humanisation-after-implantation & its birth; & a reason to look after it in the meantime. This is not exactly a POV encouraging to abortion. It’s a reason to be universally pro-life, from conception to death.
Douay-Rheims is considered the best translation by many Catholics. And Exodus 21:22 is…“If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself…”
So let’s not compare what the NIV or whatever new age version has to say about the passages. I think Douay-Rheims is pretty clear.
I do have a question. I’ve been taught that we should NOT take the old testament too literally, because “Jesus changed everything”. As a result we no longer take an eye for an eye, etc. So why are we so hung up on the wording of Exodus? How would Jesus react to the abortion? And I think his reaction is very clear as well.
We’ve all been warned about people twisting and shaping the Word of God to fit their agenda. This is a perfect example. Our best defense is to read, study and understand the Bible.
May the Lord bless each and everyone of us with wisdom,
John
“Anon” excuses abortion when “a pregnancy went terribly wrong medically”. We had a baby with serious defects. Most significantly his lungs did not form properly, and he would not be able to breathe after being born. If he lived that long he would live to die in our arms. I was twice asked if we were, of course, going to terminate the pregnancy. I did not force them to explain what possible benefit there would be to this. He was going to die, yes, but not by my hand. There was nothing to do to help him, but I wasn’t going to make it worse.
Anon, why is killing the baby the solution to a birth defect? Is it to get out of any nasty inconveniences? I think my teens are pretty inconvenient at times too. Is it okay with you if I just terminate them if I can’t cope any more?
Chris,
I’m so sorry to hear about your baby but am glad to hear of your faithfulness.
A friend at my former parish had a large family.Two of her babies died shortly after birth from the same condition.Both times, her dr. advised abortion, both times she refused & she made the choice to use the same OB/Gyn dr. so that she & her family could be a pro-life witness to him.I’m pretty sure I would have dumped that dr. early on, but I’m amazed at her strength & courage.
I like your web site and blog posts a lot, they are very inspiring and informative. Thank you for providing such quality post.
Just wanted to say that reading the Bible is so very important for me. Finding time to spend in the Word of God is probable the best use of my time. I also like the Audio Bible and listen to that when I am driving. Found that to be a great time saver.
Problem is that people really don’t seem to have enough time to read or listen to the Bible as much as they would like to in today’s hectic pace.
However, I try to put time aside everyday to read my Bible, If I don’t then I just feel that my day is not complete and I’m not fulfilled. Some people are dedicated to working out, playing golf, and many other things they do all the time.
For me it’s reading my Bible and I would advise the same for everyone. It’s a source of joy and inspiration as well as comfort and encouragement.
God Bless you in your ministry
David Morgan
http://scourby.com
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.