The abortion debate has become the fulcrum of healthcare reform, so it's a good time to revisit the foundation of "pro-life" ideas: the Bible. Or is it?
Here's every place the word "abortion" appears in the Bible: [nada]
Here's what Christ said we should do about abortion, compared to the other things he told his followers to do: [nada]
So anti-abortion zealots who say they're Christians have placed their ideas above God's and Christ's.
Now the Bible does mention the one who put his ideas above God's: that's Satan.
Which makes anti-abortion zealots Satan worshipers pretending to be Christians.
PS: Anti-abortion zealots constantly state "life begins at conception." Biblically speaking this is unsupported nonsense.
It's what scientists believed in the 19th century. That's what a pope used at the time as the basis for this claim. But 21st century science has proven that this isn't so.
"Life begins at conception" is code language for "God gives us a soul at the moment of conception."
However, anti-abortion zealots don't like to be honest about what they're saying when they're not among fellow Satan worshipers. But if it isn't code words for ensoulment it's empty language, since your liver is also alive, but it doesn't have its own soul.
And we can't all be ensouled at the moment of conception because not all of us are formed at the moment of conception--particularly monozygotic twins and chimaeras--while other fertilized eggs aren't viable no matter how you slice it--so no loving God would ensoul them either.
Other fetuses are theoretically viable but the mother is unable to give birth to them without medical intervention--otherwise they'll die, often taking the mother with them.
So again a loving God would only ensoul such endangered fetuses in countries with universal health care, or whose mothers are wealthy.
Which means that the only religiously justifiable timing for ensoulment is the moment of viable birth--when the baby takes his first breath unaided--not the moment of conception.
But if you want to be strictly biblical, you'd move the goalpost to one month of age, since the Bible accords no status to infants until they reach that milestone.
You'd think people who are this passionate about the Bible would read it.
1 comment:
Instead of arguing for abortion, your strategy in this article is to condescend to those who look to the bible for guidance on the question of the morality of abortion. The bible says nothing about the morality of downloading mp3 files without paying for them, but there are principles in the bible (don't steal; don't covet) that are helpful. Similarly, there is guidance in the bible by way of principles and examples(don't commit murder; suffer the little children to come unto me; Rachel crying for her children) that tend to suggest we ought at least be careful when we stick a pin in things that might well be precious because they are alive. Personally, I think twice about killing insects even; following your guidance, I take it that's from squeamishness, not a sense of reserve when it comes to the taking of life that I've learned from the bible. The abortion question is so much more complicated than you portray it as here. If there ever was a test of one's moral temper, let's call it, where one stands on abortion surely is it.
Post a Comment