Saturday, October 04, 2008

No rights

Speaking of rights, let's talk aborted babies.
It's funny - it seems the aforementioned local student rag is on a "let's-provoke-Rhology" theme these days. Makes for entertaining mornings.

So here's my response, to be (hopefully) posted (they posted my comments on homosexual marriage, so that's promising):

Speaking of ignorance...

-I would imagine most of the people who use a religious basis for believing in the immorality of abortion got the idea from a pastor or priest who lectured on the evils of abortion one Sunday.

It just COULDN'T BE that the Bible actually makes a case against abortion by informing us when life starts - at conception - and then informing us that murder is an evil act. Holder apparently doesn't take that possibility into account, but why should his negligence speak for anyone else?

-“Thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13).

It's "thou shall not murder", BTW. But he goes on to use the word "murder". Fair enough.

-there are no references to abortion at all.

If he means the word "abortion", he's right.
Yet there are numerous references to the personhood of the unborn child, even at a very young age, and references to God's having knit the child together and being His property and His creation. Ps. 139:13-16, Jer. 1:5, and Luke 1:41 for example.)

-“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, ...he shall pay as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22).

From - When the offending man was striking the woman, was he trying to kill the baby? Of course not -- for most of the 9 months of pregnancy he would have no sure sign that a baby was there, and even after that in the heat of a fight is hardly going to have the rational capability to take on such a distinction. And even if he did, chances are he wasn't aiming for the baby anyway. It's like shooting into the woods and accidentally hitting a hunter instead of a deer; no one calls that murder, it's an accident. But barring the interpretation linked just above, an accident never earns the death penalty in the Bible. On the other hand, the woman was quite visible and there was no such excuse. Any struggle that affects the woman to the point of inflicting serious injury could hardly be "accidental."

-When is a fetus considered a person then? The book of Genesis provides the answer: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).

Holden would have us believe that the Bible teaches we should grant that a person has achieved personhood when they are an adult? How can anyone take this seriously?

-it seems that the first breath a person takes allows the soul into the body.

Perhaps Holden can point out to us someone he knows that was formed in this way. In the face of numerous references to God's being the author of life and death, the solid argument that personhood is to be assessed on the basis of BEING, not of ABILITY, and the other Bible psgs I listed above, why try to form an argument on a singular, unique event - that of the creation of the first man?

-Stand out in the open and acknowledge that your opinion is just that, your opinion.

Which is backed up by good arguments (as well as very solid scientific documentation that permits little option than to view the just-conceived baby as just that - a baby.), as opposed to the pro-baby-murder arguments, which are based on preference, convenience, politics, and escapist desires to escape the normal consequences of irresponsible behavior. I doubt Holden will take into account the fact that many future AND present women (both the mothers and the future mothers that have been murdered by abortion) are harmed by this barbaric practice. We can always hope, though.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Even by the "first breath" defintion, Obama still loses on the "Born Alive" bill...just a thought.