When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exo 21:22-25)"In this passage," they say, "you can see that the only concern here is for harm to the woman. No harm to the woman? No penalty. Harm to the child? Irrelevant." I think this reasoning is 1) patently false and 2) the text actually supports the pro-life view.
Consider. The premise is a pregnant woman is hit by some men, intentionally or not, causing the child to be released. That's the subject. That's the prime condition. The rest of the text is about what should happen. Without any disagreement, the text says "if no harm" then the judge determines a penalty and "if harm" then the penalty is "life for life," etc. We're all clear on this. The question, then, is harm to whom?
Pro-abortionists say it's the woman. I think the text and evident reason makes that nonsense. The subject is not the woman. The subject is not even the "abortion" -- the termination of the pregnancy. The subject is the result of that termination. If the point was "don't harm a woman," there were already sufficient laws on the books to cover that. "Terminated pregnancy" would not be a factor. The only possible subject here is the baby that comes out as a result of the hit.
Look at it this way. If the text was saying, "If you hit a pregnant woman and her child comes out and the woman dies, it is the death penalty," it would be perfectly redundant. If you hit a pregnant woman and her child did not come out and she died, the penalty would be the same. If you hit a woman who was not pregnant and she died, the penalty would be the same. This cannot be the point of the text. There is no question on the laws of what to do to someone who harms another (especially a woman). The question being addressed here is "What about the unborn?"
In this scenario, then, if the baby presents prematurely from the action and is born healthy, there is a payment for the perpetrator. If the baby is harmed, there is the same rules applied to human life -- "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." If the baby dies, it is the death penalty. If the baby loses an eye, so shall the perpetrator. And so on. The "life for life" clause is the standard human ruling (Gen 9:6) -- capital punishment for murder. That is the standard pro-life position; a child in the womb is a human life deserving of all the care and protection of any other human life. The Bible concurs. Modern society does not. You decide which is right -- God or the pro-abortion folks.
And Science
In reading the text above, I was looking at the research from science as well. From Princeton University, "The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote." The references argue (from science, not religion) that the first stage of the human being is the fertilized egg. Each zygote carries a unique set of DNA which is not identical to either the mother or the father. By six weeks this being has its own heartbeat, not it's mother's heartbeat. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) agrees that human development is a "continuous process that begins when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm and ends at death." "As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell." The question is not "Is that a human life?" at the point of conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg. The only question they can offer is "Is it a person?" So they create the "non-person human being," a division which the ACOG says "is arbitrary at best." The American College of Pediatricians "values all human lives equally from the moment of conception (fertilization) until natural death. Consistent with its mission to 'enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being,' the College, therefore, opposes active measures that would prematurely end the life of any child at any stage of development from conception to natural death."
That is, the argument that this is purely a religious objection is false.
24 comments:
I hope you are aware that the American College of Pediatricians is not an educational organization, but a socially conservative advocacy group not formed in 2002 to war against abortion. And it is not made up entirely of pediatricians. So, given the agenda, they're arguments are suspect tautologies.
And as for the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (your link is tainted): their Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women reports:
ABSTRACT: Safe, legal abortion is a necessary component of women’s health care. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the availability of high-quality reproductive health services for all women and is committed to improving access to abortion. Access to abortion is threatened by state and federal government restrictions, limitations on public funding for abortion services and training, stigma, violence against abortion providers, and a dearth of abortion providers. Legislative restrictions fundamentally interfere with the patient-provider relationship and decrease access to abortion for all women, and particularly for low-income women and those living long distances from health care providers. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists calls for advocacy to oppose and overturn restrictions, improve access, and mainstream abortion as an integral component of women’s health care.
Stan, I do not object to how you read scripture. I have my own very different theological understanding of what scripture is. I'm happy to agree to differ.
But when you write, " I think the text and evident reason makes that nonsense" you've disqualified your views from determining US law. Your practice of reading ignores reason as the majority have understood since the Enlightenment and your judgment is tied to faith commitments and not the deliberations of civil society: which is the only legal foundation of our society.
Sorry, hate that may seem like piling on, and it's not so much for posting as for your reflection, should you choose.
But it seems contradictory for someone of your Christian style of faith to so relativize life here on earth... ["I am a firm believer that we are only visitors here, strangers in a strange land, just passing through. The momentary feelings, comforts, pleasures, even pains are just that -- momentary."]
And seemingly relativizing the value of the physical.. ["I simply meant that God's plans for our good are not merely emotional or comfortable or certainly not physical -- not simply earthly. I meant that His plans for our good transcend the current, actually trivial version of 'good.'"]
... to then absolutize the physicality of the zygote and embryo and fetus as a human person.
Surely what is adopted as children of God is not the body as is.
Surely what is adopted as children of God are our selves, defined as the whole of our emotions, will, cognitions, distinct personalities, and perfected bodies.
Does your zygote have a will? With no brain, not spine, no connected nervous system as yet, does your embryo have cognitions?
If a baby is born without a brain, is it a human life like ours? Can it be adopted as a human child of God? Is it already a human child of God, being untainted innocence? If so, in what way is it a human child of God?
I think you make a couple of good points here.
1. That human life is a line not a point. It begins at conception and ends at death. To arbitrarily isolate one stage of human life as expendable or not human is a problem. Further, we have many voices who are quite adamant that we can know when human life does not begin, yet those same voices argue that we can’t know when life does begin.
2. Given that, how do we decide what is “fully” human? Clearly a 3 year old is not as “full” as a 10 year old. Clearly someone born without limbs or sense receptors isn’t as “full” as someone born with those things.
It seems like the logical end of trying to make “fully human” or “person” the standard is the arbitraryness of it. If we can define a human at one stage of development as “not a person” or “not fully human”, isn’t it logical to think that it’s possible to choose additional stages of development where someone loses “personhood or full humanity”?
It's funny, Feodor. I wrote this piece a couple of weeks ago and scheduled it out to today. I figured, however, given the conversations of late, that you'd certainly take exception to it.
Let me see if I can understand your argument. The American College of Pediatricians (which does include pediatricians even if not all pediatricians) should not be allowed to enter this discussion because they are not an educational organization? They have a position (pro-life) and, therefore, have nothing of value to contribute to the facts or discussion? People or organizations with preconceived ideas on a subject or another should not be heard on those subjects? Like me and my preconceptions or you and yours?
Don't tell me what's wrong with the organization or speaker. Tell me what's wrong with the statements and facts. You did this with the ACP and you did it when you disqualified me from "determining US law" (which was a surprise to me because I haven't made any effort to determine US law) because my reasoning disagrees with yours. Dismiss the speaker without demonstrating the error of the reasoning and then call it unreasonable. It is a standard logical fallacy -- dismiss the argument because you don't like the arguer (ad hominem).
As for the second comment, I have a hard time taking it seriously at all. "If a baby is born without a brain, is it a human life like ours?" How can I respond to such nonsense? No, it's not. It's dead. However, I can't tell from the rest of it whether you're being intentionally obtuse or perhaps I just wasn't clear enough. Comments on "relativizing life" here seem to be one dimensional and intentionally aimed at refusing to understand what I am saying. It is so far from what I've said and intended that I don't know where to begin.
Craig, aren't they trying to do that with "euthanasia" arguments?
I’ve heard this complaint about the American College of Pediatricians before. My problem is that the people who point this out aren’t actually pediatricians or doctors of any type. It’s a fact worth noting, but it doesn’t disqualify their conclusions.
It’s similar to the folx, that rip on Obianuju Ekeocha before they realize that her background makes her pretty qualified to speak on the topics she speaks on.
Of course those arguments are being made relative to Euthanasia and in other areas of the debate.
Too often (and not just "them" -- Christians, too) the approach is, "I don't like the argument, so I'll shoot the messenger." (I've seen it in Christians when, for instance, you quote C.S. Lewis, for instance, and they don't like his theology. "But ... what about what he said?" One regular reader here stopped reading because I quoted Lewis once.)
The ACP represents anti-women-freedom. Not pediatric science. They are posing. An operative lie, in other words. Such motivations destroy credibility. I do feel that those who lie to gain credibility should not really be taken worthy of listening to. As a collection of people of faith in revealed but not demonstrable truth, I'll listen to them as I do my own faith and yours.
This is not ad hominem. It is refusing to not peek behind the curtain to see the manipulation of levers and gears. In other words, I am using critical reason.
____
My bad, I assume too much good faith reception from you. Is a baby born with anencephaly a human being, adopted as a child of God?
Your pushing the limits of friendly discussion, Feodor.
"The ACP represents anti-women-freedom. Not pediatric science."
You know this because ...? I offered the reasoning behind their argument (the science) and you dismiss the argument because in your view the ACP is "anti-women-freedom" (where you get to define "anti-women" and "anti-freedom")? That is the classic ad hominem. Have I assumed too much good faith from you?
What makes you think I get to determine who is or is not adopted as a child of God? I know John said that as many as received Him were given the power to be called the sons of God, but who that encompasses individually is not up to me. Can such a child be a child of God? I don't see why not. Can such a child be a person deserving protection? I don't think you would say they could.
It always astounds me that the go-to stance is that abortion is only a women's health issue, and if you oppose abortion, you oppose women's health. Abortion is no longer about women's health, but about women's desires. You no longer need an actual medical reason to have an abortion these days. Interfere with your goals? Abort. He lied when he said he'd be there? Abort. You simply can't be bothered to care for another person? Abort.
As for ACOG, they are obviously practicing cognitive dissonance. To them, human life is a continuous line from conception to death, unless the mother just doesn't want it, then it's not life.
You want to argue that abortion is about women's health, then limit it to women's health. Abortion has been legal to save a woman's life for a very long time. And we're not opposed to that. It is the extension of that allowance to desire that we oppose. We are pro-life. Will carrying this baby kill the mother? Then yes, abort, otherwise, it is a life deserving of protection.
Cognitive dissonance isn't limited to ACOG. Consider the schizophrenic federal law, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Called Laci and Conner's Law after Laci Peterson and her unborn baby, Conner, who both were killed by her husband, Scott Peterson, this law made it a federal offense to cause the death or bodily injury of "a child" who is "in utero at the time the conduct takes place." That is, federal law defines an unborn baby as "a child" and it is murder to end that child's life. I call the bill schizophrenic because it goes on to except abortion. "You can't kill a baby in the womb ... unless, of course, you want to." Nonetheless, the law defines"child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Remove that and you will need to rescind this law and the legal protection it offers.
Stan, would you mind just briefly bullet pointing the science this advocacy group details that indicates the first stage of being-hood is fertilization?
Another request. Please tell me that you were unaware that your “science” link to “Princeton University” on which you based an authoritative quote - "The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote“ - is just a student group at Princeton. That the quote is just their claim, below which they’ve cut and pasted sentences from material from the 70s to the 90s.
Tell me you were unaware of these things when you cited “Princeton University.”
I can understand if you weren’t. I’ve been working just from a phone throughout and have not put things the best way possible. In which case you should be a bit more fair with your nitpicking my prose
If, however, you were aware, then perhaps we’ve also gained insight on how conservatives put their trust in ACP, and are so ready to lift and snip a bit of phrase from ACOG, a liberal advocacy group using science to promote healthy provision of abortion.
Feodor, it looks like we have a complete failure in communication. Your idea appears to be "If the source has an opinion, we are not allowed to consider their arguments or evidence." I don't see it that way. Look, I consider what you have to say rather than taking into account the fact that your predisposition is to disagree with my view. So "Princeton University" would be a fine source ... unless it is a segment of the university that doesn't agree with your predisposition. Then it's unreliable. ACP canont be trusted because they advocate life and you don't. You even assured me that my source (ACOG) was "tainted" ... because it disagrees with your position. (Perhaps, more precisely, because it was quoted by a group that disagrees with your position.)
Feodor, there is no source without bias. Just doesn't exist. Not me. Not you. Not them. Rejecting an argument outright because you don't like the source is not addressing the arguments or the facts and is the singularly most common logical fallacy available. But since I cannot meet your demand for a source without an opinion (and, by the way, neither can you from your side), I will give up this discussion and let you muddle through yourself.
(As for the argument, science says that human life begins at fertilization and continues until death. Both the ACOG and the ACP say that a "person" demarcation in that life is arbitrary and unclear. Since I'm pro-life, I fall in favor of, you know, human life.)
David,
I've been looking at why women have abortions, and the state with the most complete records is FL. According to the numbers I've seen .733% od women abort for reasons of rape, incest, mental, or physical health. 6.28% abort for reasons of fetal abnormality. That leaves 92.3% of abortions that are preformed for other reasons. To me it sounds like if less that 1% of abortions are performed for reasons that could charitably fall under the umbrella of "women's health", that means that women's health care is pretty darn effective.
Some other reasons why women report for having abortions.
6% cite parental pressure
14% cite partner pressure
25% cite a desire to keep their sexual activity a secret
In addition, te following reasons are given.
Can't afford a child
Child would interfere with their life
They don't want to be a single parent
IN every one of those instances (the exception being keeping sexual activity secret), abortion is not the only solution. In none of those cases is abortion about "women's health"
Women's health, rape and incest are all smoke screens when it comes to the pubic policy aspect of this.
I think it's safe to say that virtually every pro-life supporter would agree that a legal exemption could be made for the less than 1$ of abortions that legitimately endanger the physical health or life of the mother or baby. Personally, i could accept those exceptions if the number was a high as 10%.
I could be wrong, but if we could eliminate abortion for convenience and just focus on the actual health issues, this would be a different conversation. But as long as "because I don't want a kid" is presented as a "women's health" issue, it makes it hard to take seriously.
Stan,
I'd suggest that not only is the "person demarcation arbitrary and unclear", it's undefined and it's intentional.
I know, I only referenced ACOG because it was an item in the post. The ACOG says one thing according to science and then says another according to bias.
I imagine that a if woman on her way to getting an abortion is killed along with her unborn child, there would be two counts of murder, not just one. It seems completely crazy and unreasonable to me that the unborn can simultaneously be a human person and not a human person. It's almost as bad as Schrodinger's Cat. But this is just another example of reality is whatever you want it to be.
Princeton University would be a fine source. But you seem to admit to being intentionally lying.
You wouldn't have been lying if you introduced it like this: "a student club at Princeton University have collected a smattering of sentences from published material that say human life begins at when the sperm touches that cell wall of the ovum." But of course, that really doesn't help your cause as much as lying about it being a statement from Princeton University.
Then you have the further lie in your link for The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Because it isn't ACOG. It's ACP claiming something about ACOG. And claiming something that ACOG clears does not support.
This kind of dodge, diversion, and outright lies are what have become regular as clockwork for conservatives when the jig is up on their refusal to abide by principles of reason. They lose all principles. Witness the support of Trump over all other Republicans despite his reprehensible moral behavior.
Marshall has become so that he lies with every post and comment. He's completely lost it.
Craig now does it when he's not evading any real response.
And now you. Just when I was crowing to them how much more honest and self-possessed your seemed to be compared to their self-corruption.
And then you go and lie? And defend the lie with diversions and dodges and prevarications? Damn, Stan. It took less than a week for you to show your readiness to corrupt your morals.
I admit to no such thing and saying I did makes you out to be a liar. You reject the link because it doesn't correspond with your ideas. The only way I can include a link like that is if I say, "Here's a link that agrees with me but is, as everyone knows, full of bunk like me and my views." You're simply being ridiculous, Feodor. You don't offer the same disclaimers with your "sources," and you're the guy who claims we can't even know the truth. The ACP source correctly quoted the ACOG source and specified the dates. The ACOG has decided that all that stuff they said back then was false and now they're more accurate. This kind of dodge, diversion, and outright lies is what I expect from your side of the conversation. Worse, you assume (wrongly) that I'm just like all of them because of your deep preconceptions and bias.
I have posted this comment of yours so that those who wish to can consider your side and mine. You've offered no discussion of the issues and simply questioned the sources. You've dodged questions (like "Do you believe in objective truth?") and offered no support for your opposition. I've said nothing at all about your character and you've decided to lump me in with all the rest you don't like, accuse me of things that aren't true, and insult my morals. There are no lies in there, Feodor, but this comment has crossed the line from friendly to unfriendly. I think you know it. I think you intended it. And I according to the rules of my blog I won't be posting more comments like this. It's a shame. You started out conversational and ended up confrontational. Sorry you lasted such a short time.
Actually, David, the argument is that if she was on her way to the abortion clinic, it would only be one homicide. If she was on the way to the obstetrician, it would be two.
(I was amused when I read about Schrodinger's Cat. Schrodinger did it to make fun of those who were arguing nonsense.)
But what if the courts don't know she was on her way to an abortion?
They do like to point to Schrodinger's Cat, but I've always thought it more of a joke theory than a true posit of reality. But, we humans are keen to misunderstand things like that. It's one reason trolls are so prevalent these days. I meant it as not serious, but you all took it as serious.
It's a shame that it is so difficult to find someone that can kindly disagree. And present a rational counter with evidence rather than ignoring presented evidence and calling it lies or pride to believe that evidence. No meticulous rebuttal of presented information, just, you're wrong and dishonest and should accept my truths without question. It's one reason why I struggle with evangelism. If we don't have the same basis for reality, I don't know how to talk to you. Saying one side is rational and the other is irrational without explaining how isn't constructive discourse.
And Sharia law, really? Do you even have any Muslim readers? That right there is simply name calling without any basis.
I think the nature of communication online, increases the level of conversational dissonance. Early on, I was confronted by my tendency to respond to people based on my perceptions of the group they were in. I see this frequently and try to point it out when appropriate. I can’t imagine people saying the things that have been said to me, if we were face to face.
Feodor, I have read your plethora of comments after the last of our exchanges with the hopes that you would step back and consider changing your approach. I don't suggest you change your opinions. My sole objection to posting any of your comments anymore is right there in the "Leave your comment" box where it says, "Let's keep it friendly, though, okay?" You seem completely incapable of doing that anymore. Which seems odd because you started out so well. It seems as if we crossed a threshold that set you off so that everything is out of kilter, beyond comprehension, outside of normal human communication. You try to come across like a college educated adult but act like a teenager who hates everyone. You even assume that because you can't keep it friendly, I believe I've lost the argument.
I can't correct your thinking. I can't make you be better at dialog. I can't even, apparently, meet your odd and unknown requirements for conversation or logic. But I can enforce the predetermined rules on my own blog for those who comment, and you've decided to ignore them. Nay, it -- one rule. Only one. And that one is beyond you. I'm sorry that you've eliminated this as a forum to express your opinions, but it is you who have done it.
I thought of this thread when I came across some questions raised by a liberal woman on social media who I gather has ties to Planned Parenthood.
"If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts? Is that also when you can’t deport the mother because she’s carrying a US citizen? Can I insure a 6 week fetus and collect if I miscarry? Just figuring if we’re going here we should go all in."
What sort of responses would you give her?
Smokescreen. Rabbit trail. Red herring.
I think it's interesting that the standard thinking today is mothers and babies without fathers. (There is no "child support" when it's a husband and wife.) Yes, fathers should be assisting in the pregnancy from the start. If you can find an insurance company that will give you life insurance on a baby of 6 weeks, why not? And from what I can see the U.S. government is ready to split up mother and child any time if you really want to go there.
Bottom line, I find it difficult to answer questions asked so that they can't be answered and questions that do not allow responses. For instance, "Are you admitting that this is a baby?"
Post a Comment