Abortion debate (Split from Obama Thread)

[kinch]

Okay, this is random but I am bored:

Many years ago, in High School, I was elected the minority leader of the school senate while home sick. This was Republican at the time, maybe 1992.

So we all had to submit bills for our mock senate. I did a few. One was about abortion.

I proposed that abortion should be legal based on hunting season. If the fetus was less developed than a squirrel during that season, kill it. More developed than a deer in season? It must live.

I managed to piss off everybody on both sides.

Edit: just because remembering childhood is fun, I remember another of my bills was requiring people after age 65 to have to retake their driver's tests every three years or something, or lose their Golden Buckeye card (if that still exists). That one passed.

Edit #2: Old people screwing up driving kills more people per year than terrorists.

 

[jwinslow]

Whether abortion is wrong and whether abortion is efficient are two separate things, in my opinion, but the latter does not justify the former.

I would observe that those who get abortions are also suffering consequences. To be sure, there are people who use abortion as something of a "soulless birth control" but I don't think those numbers are particularly high. In any event, I would think most people struggle quite a bit with the choice they're making. Being in favor of not prohibiting that one has that choice does not render the actual making of the choice by any one inconsequential to that individual.

Oh the choice is very difficult, even if you believe that it isn't anything more than an extension of mom's body until it leaves. I was probably trivializing that struggle with my response, and I apologize for that.

This seems to me sort of an after the fact sort of consideration. You're arguing that people should not make the initial choice to have sex because of the severe consequences that may result.

That's the problem. It's an after the fact consideration instead of it being treated and feared as the biggest consequence.

But, I have a hard time believing that an absolute prohibition on abortion would greatly reduce the incidence of people having sex for pleasure.

Of course not, because sex is really fun and enticing. Furthermore, abortions would still take place, but now they'd be done in secret, with questionable places to receive such services that may be dangerous or at best against the law. That's not better, but then there is no "better" option here.

And, in your "consequences" paradigm, I think it's important to remember, we're not talking about someone going to prison for 5 years, or something of that nature. We're talking about the consequence of having a baby to raise. That's no small task. And.. my guess is, what would result from an abortion free nation is the orphan industry becoming big money. The incidence of unwanted, and consequently unloved, children would be on the rise. And... then what?

It's a gigantic, life-changing responsibility, which is why sex isn't something to be done lightly, no matter how much society wants life and love to be a happiness buffet.

As for your hypothetical, given the sad state of social services, I'm sure it wouldn't be pretty either. But the solution to the problem with that demographic is not to eradicate them. I know you're not suggesting that, I'm simply saying that approach is inhumane whether the termination takes place during pregnancy or after birth. It may be the lesser of two evils for the rest of society, especially the parents themselves, but it still involves the termination of a life.

For me, that's something I think the anti-abortion crowd needs to address - I understand the idea that one shouldn't kill their own baby, it sounds cruel and heartless, etc.. But.. what do anti-abortion people intend to do with the unwanted children? It certainly isn't going to be cost free, I might add.

I think our adoption system, and approach to that realm, needs an overhaul, though that's unlikely. I agree that it's a difficult situation but the solution to that is to stop creating the fetuses. That's unlikely as well but the inevitability of the problem doesn't justify their departure in my opinion.

 

[Buckerooni]

I would observe that those who get abortions are also suffering consequences. To be sure, there are people who use abortion as something of a "soulless birth control" but I don't think those numbers are particularly high. In any event, I would think most people struggle quite a bit with the choice they're making. Being in favor of not prohibiting that one has that choice does not render the actual making of the choice by any one inconsequential to that individual.


This seems to me sort of an after the fact sort of consideration. You're arguing that people should not make the initial choice to have sex because of the severe consequences that may result. But, I have a hard time believing that an absolute prohibition on abortion would greatly reduce the incidence of people having sex for pleasure. And, in your "consequences" paradigm, I think it's important to remember, we're not talking about someone going to prison for 5 years, or something of that nature. We're talking about the consequence of having a baby to raise. That's no small task. And.. my guess is, what would result from an abortion free nation is the orphan industry becoming big money. The incidence of unwanted, and consequently unloved, children would be on the rise. And... then what?

I agree there would some rise in unwanted children. But I think mostly there would be a huge rise in illegal (and more often unsafe) abortions and going-outside-the-country for abortions (for those who can afford it).

For me, that's something I think the anti-abortion crowd needs to address - I understand the idea that one shouldn't kill their own baby, it sounds cruel and heartless, etc.. But.. what do anti-abortion people intend to do with the unwanted children? It certainly isn't going to be cost free, I might add.

Have done foster parenting, so I have seen what happens to unwanted children. On the one hand, I don't wish any of the kids I've had in my home had never been born (I adopted two of them). On the other hand, when I hear about some of the birth-parents expecting another child, I do find myself hoping there will be a miscarriage or, yes, abortion. It's hard to bear the thought of another kid being born into some of the circumstances you learn about -- in fact, it's so sickening that "don't even let it get past the first trimester" starts to sound like a preferable alternative.

Not sure where I'm going with this, but also wanted to add: Someone commented a few pages back that some US couples are forced to go outside the US to adopt. There are many thousands of US kids waiting for adoption, every day of the year. No one is forced to go outside the US. They might prefer to go outside the US because they are looking for a particular age-range, or race, or gender, or who knows what . . . and that's OK. No one should adopt a kid they don't think they can love. But they aren't forced.

 

[buckeyegrad]

As you well know, what Jews forbade and what appears in Scripture do not always agree, as in this case. So, please spare the lectures aimed at someone whose commentary has been absolutely accurate.

Max, I don't even understand this as a rebuttal. It is completely nonsensical to your previous statements and my counter.

You made the assertion that abortion was practiced on a widespread scale during Jesus' time. While I think "widespread" is hyperbole; I fully admit that it was practiced among the gentile nations. However, from what we know from history, that is factually incorrect among the Jews, who were his audience in the Gospels. Again, as I assume you know, he had very little contact with gentiles.

You are trying to make an argument out of silence in that the lack of addressing the issue suggests that Jesus condoned the practice. Yet, as with almost all arguments from silence, it is an incredibly problematic and suggests it is you who is trying to eisegete the texts. For you to show your argument as being true you have to adequately answer the following questions:

1. Would the question of abortion be a concern for the Gospel writers? The four gospels are very brief accounts of Jesus' teachings, ministry, and death and resurrection. Thus, we are missing a lot of what Jesus did and taught. John's Gospel even acknowledges this. So, considering the gospels are not complete biographies, we have to ask what are their purpose and would abortion be worth discussing?

2. Knowing the Jewish application of Torah as it relates to abortion--(i.e. it was forbidden except it the case of saving the mother's life) it would be Jesus who would be out-of-step. This certainly does occur in other areas of application of Torah (e.g. picking grain on the Sabbath to eat it) and that is mentioned in the Gospels. Thus, if disagreements are mentioned in other areas, why is it not mentioned in regards to abortion? Here silence seems to suggest agreement rather than disagreement.

3. We also know that abortion was considered a sin in the very early years of Christianity. The earliest Christian writing we have outside of the New Testament (i.e. the Didache, which dates to c. 100 CE) actually does mention abortion as a sin. So, if this early Christian document sees it as wrong, which is in agreement with the Jewish teachings of that time, how does that occur if Jesus condoned it? Again, how does Jesus end up out-of-step with both the Jewish teachings of his time and the teaching of his followers a mere generation after the apostles?

Your "absolutely accurate" commentary is incredibly flawed in light of these realities.

 

[MaxBuck]

Max, I don't even understand this as a rebuttal. It is completely nonsensical to your previous statements and my counter.

You made the assertion that abortion was practiced on a widespread scale during Jesus' time. While I think "widespread" is hyperbole; I fully admit that it was practiced among the gentile nations. However, from what we know from history, that is factually incorrect among the Jews, who were his audience in the Gospels. Again, as I assume you know, he had very little contact with gentiles.

You are trying to make an argument out of silence in that the lack of addressing the issue suggests that Jesus condoned the practice. Yet, as with almost all arguments from silence, it is an incredibly problematic and suggests it is you who is trying to eisegete the texts. For you to show your argument as being true you have to adequately answer the following questions:

1. Would the question of abortion be a concern for the Gospel writers? The four gospels are very brief accounts of Jesus' teachings, ministry, and death and resurrection. Thus, we are missing a lot of what Jesus did and taught. John's Gospel even acknowledges this. So, considering the gospels are not complete biographies, we have to ask what are their purpose and would abortion be worth discussing?

2. Knowing the Jewish application of Torah as it relates to abortion--(i.e. it was forbidden except it the case of saving the mother's life) it would be Jesus who would be out-of-step. This certainly does occur in other areas of application of Torah (e.g. picking grain on the Sabbath to eat it) and that is mentioned in the Gospels. Thus, if disagreements are mentioned in other areas, why is it not mentioned in regards to abortion? Here silence seems to suggest agreement rather than disagreement.

3. We also know that abortion was considered a sin in the very early years of Christianity. The earliest Christian writing we have outside of the New Testament (i.e. the Didache, which dates to c. 100 CE) actually does mention abortion as a sin. So, if this early Christian document sees it as wrong, which is in agreement with the Jewish teachings of that time, how does that occur if Jesus condoned it? Again, how does Jesus end up out-of-step with both the Jewish teachings of his time and the teaching of his followers a mere generation after the apostles?

Your "absolutely accurate" commentary is incredibly flawed in light of these realities.

No, it isn't. "Trying to make an argument out of silence?" Jesus said NOT ONE WORD about abortion. That's precisely what I said, and you cannot deny the truth of that comment. The wall of text you've constructed attempts to provide a tortured explanation of why that makes no difference to your point of view, but a tortured explanation it is indeed. I do not regard the Didache as scriptural, just as I do not regard as scriptural the Apocrypha nor the Book of Mormon.

As for the Jewish position on abortion - the position is a nuanced one, and open to discussion and interpretation (unlike the "baby murderers!!!" screeds from the Christian Right that refuses to listen to any discussion that fails to call all abortion "murder"). Example discussion can be found at http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html.

Once again: the Gospels are absolutely silent on the subject. If one believes Jesus Christ to be God incarnate, which Christian theology demands, then one must conclude that, since He spoke nothing about the common practice of abortion (and it was common among Jews as it was among Christians), it must not have been a huge priority to Him.

None of my commentary should be read as a desire to see abortion practiced in a widespread manner. My belief, like that of most pro-choice people, is that it should be rarely used, but that it should be readily available and safely practiced.

 

[buckeyegrad]

No, it isn't. "Trying to make an argument out of silence?" Jesus said NOT ONE WORD about abortion. That's precisely what I said, and you cannot deny the truth of that comment. The wall of text you've constructed attempts to provide a tortured explanation of why that makes no difference to your point of view, but a tortured explanation it is indeed. I do not regard the Didache as scriptural, just as I do not regard as scriptural the Apocrypha nor the Book of Mormon.

As for the Jewish position on abortion - the position is a nuanced one, and open to discussion and interpretation (unlike the "baby murderers!!!" screeds from the Christian Right that refuses to listen to any discussion that fails to call all abortion "murder"). Example discussion can be found at http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html.

Once again: the Gospels are absolutely silent on the subject. If one believes Jesus Christ to be God incarnate, which Christian theology demands, then one must conclude that, since He spoke nothing about the common practice of abortion (and it was common among Jews as it was among Christians), it must not have been a huge priority to Him.

None of my commentary should be read as a desire to see abortion practiced in a widespread manner. My belief, like that of most pro-choice people, is that it should be rarely used, but that it should be readily available and safely practiced.

So, you have decided to eisegete Scripture to support your position and automatically dismiss what shows to be your extremely poor interpretation as "tortured explanation". (You know, Jesus is not recorded in the Gospels as directly addressing ethic genocide either, so I guess we have to believe he condoned that as well, right?) To dismiss my challenges suggests you either don't understand Biblical hermeneutics and liturgical exegesis or you have simply chosen to ignore it. The reality is Jesus' silence in the Gospels--something I never disputed--actually suggests his condemnation, not his condoning, because he would have been in line with Jewish teachings as well as those Christians who taught against it a generation after his apostles. It is only worth mentioning if he taught something contrary. And if he taught something different, then tell me where the opposition to abortion as found in the Didache (which I never said was Scripture) came from? I guess from those gentiles who did practice it?

As for your Jewish source, you have to do better than a random google search. If you follow the footnotes in that article, you will see that those rabbis arguing that it is "muddied" are from the 20th century. Go back to the ancient Jewish writings and you will see that it is clear that their understanding of Torah at that time was to forbid abortion except to save the life of a mother.

And again, it was not common among Jews of the first century. I'm not saying it never occurred, because people of all generations sin; but unless you can show contrary evidence to everything I have read on it, please stop making that false assertion.

 

[jwinslow]

. If one believes Jesus Christ to be God incarnate, which Christian theology demands, then one must conclude that, since He spoke nothing about the common practice of abortion (and it was common among Jews as it was among Christians), it must not have been a huge priority to Him.

relishing in the silence of specific behavior not explicitly rebuked by Jesus might allow to justify a long list of questionable choices. Of course you have to ignore a lot of overall teachings, as well as trivialize His declarations about the Word and Him, but hey, it's against the flow so naturally you're fond of it, even if the schtick misrepresents scripture :(

 

[MaxBuck]

(You know, Jesus is not recorded in the Gospels as directly addressing ethic genocide either, so I guess we have to believe he condoned that as well, right?)

The reality is I have not once suggested that Jesus "condoned" abortion. Only that he was silent on the practice.

Jesus' silence in the Gospels--something I never disputed--actually suggests his condemnation

"Silence suggests condemnation?" That's an odd one, and suggests that all manner of things we do every day are "condemned" on the same basis. And to say you never disputed Jesus's silence on the matter: why then did you argue with my initial post, in which that was the only thing I asserted?

As for your Jewish source, you have to do better than a random google search. If you follow the footnotes in that article, you will see that those rabbis arguing that it is "muddied" are from the 20th century. Go back to the ancient Jewish writings and you will see that it is clear that their understanding of Torah at that time was to forbid abortion except to save the life of a mother.

Go back to the ancient Jewish writings that agree with your position, I assume you mean. Because Jewish writings on the subject, even those preceding the time of Christ, do not all present a single, unequivocal proscription.

Jewish law in Biblical times did not regard abortion as "killing" until the fetus had assumed "complete form." Before that time there was a monetary penalty applied to an assailant of a pregnant woman who aborted if such occurred before the complete form criterion, and death penalty if after. And Jewish law has fairly consistently viewed viable fetuses differently from non-viable ones.

 

[Best Buckeye]

I always said that if a squirrel fetus was developed I can eat it, not so with a baby.

 

[jwinslow]

The reality is I have not once suggested that Jesus "condoned" abortion. Only that he was silent on the practice.

So thus what ? It was permissible ? Not a big deal ? Or nothing specific beyond the overall lessons found elsewhwre scripture ?

 

[buckeyegrad]

The reality is I have not once suggested that Jesus "condoned" abortion. Only that he was silent on the practice.

What do you think condoning something means? To condone does not mean support; but rather to excuse, ignore, or permit without opposition. Isn't that what you are implying?

"Silence suggests condemnation?" That's an odd one, and suggests that all manner of things we do every day are "condemned" on the same basis. And to say you never disputed Jesus's silence on the matter: why then did you argue with my initial post, in which that was the only thing I asserted?

If I have to choose one or the other, then yes. I hate all arguments from silence; but since you are making one, I believe it is very clear that condemnation is more likely. Silence from the Gospel writers suggests agreement with the teachings of his day and that which his disciples, one generation removed, taught.

And you also argued in your initial post that multitudes of people had abortions at the time of Jesus, which is not true among the Jews; and you implied in rather harsh language that Christians who oppose abortion were ignorantly wrong to think Jesus was against it.

Go back to the ancient Jewish writings that agree with your position, I assume you mean. Because Jewish writings on the subject, even those preceding the time of Christ, do not all present a single, unequivocal proscription.

Jewish law in Biblical times did not regard abortion as "killing" until the fetus had assumed "complete form." Before that time there was a monetary penalty applied to an assailant of a pregnant woman who aborted if such occurred before the complete form criterion, and death penalty if after. And Jewish law has fairly consistently viewed viable fetuses differently from non-viable ones.

If you can show me Talmudic or pre-Talmudic writings that suggest abortion was permitted for reasons other than to save the life of the mother, please provide them.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Max,

I don't know if you would be interested, but I strongly encourage you to read Michael Gorman's historical work on this issue. His book is short, around 100 pages, but it provides an excellent primer on understanding how abortion was viewed by pagans, Jews, and early Christians in the period between the third century BCE and the fifth century CE.

 

[MaxBuck]

Max,

I don't know if you would be interested, but I strongly encourage you to read Michael Gorman's historical work on this issue. His book is short, around 100 pages, but it provides an excellent primer on understanding how abortion was viewed by pagans, Jews, and early Christians in the period between the third century BCE and the fifth century CE.

Michael Gorman (born 6 March 1941, Witney, Oxfordshire)[1] is a British-born librarian, library scholar and editor/writer on library issues noted for his traditional views.

(Wikipedia)

Yes, I'm quite certain he's arrived at conclusions consistent with your own.

I am not basing my opinions on anything other than readings of modern Jewish scholars who themselves have read Talmud, Torah and Septuagint, along with secular texts from early societies, to arrive at their conclusions. Those conclusions vary, but it's clear early Jews viewed viable fetuses and nonviable fetuses differently, at least from a legal perspective. Anyone who claims there to have been unanimity of opinion in the Jewish community on the matter is ignorant of the long tradition of rabbinical debate and disagreement; the Jews fail to agree on much of anything!

All this being said, I believe Jesus left a clear record of what human actions He found to be desirable, what actions He found distasteful, and was silent on those issues for which secular law was sufficient to provide direction and to adequately provide for society's governance. But that belief isn't based on anything other than logic and the tradition of my Episcopal Church; you may disagree as you will.

grad, I do not claim to be as well-read on religious matters as you; I'm certainly not, not by a long shot, and I'm not going to put long hours now into learning Hebrew so I can read early Jewish law texts for myself. But anyone enters one's scholarship with certain prejudices born of one's background and environment, and one's scholarly conclusions are inevitably colored by that background. I don't wish to change your mind on the morality of abortion nor its fundamental acceptability. I simply wish that those who oppose the legality of abortion were more honest about where that opposition arises from.

 

[buckeyegrad]

(Wikipedia)

Yes, I'm quite certain he's arrived at conclusions consistent with your own.

I am not basing my opinions on anything other than readings of modern Jewish scholars who themselves have read Talmud, Torah and Septuagint, along with secular texts from early societies, to arrive at their conclusions. Those conclusions vary, but it's clear early Jews viewed viable fetuses and nonviable fetuses differently, at least from a legal perspective. Anyone who claims there to have been unanimity of opinion in the Jewish community on the matter is ignorant of the long tradition of rabbinical debate and disagreement; the Jews fail to agree on much of anything!

You have the wrong Michael Gorman. You want Michael J. Gorman, who has a PhD in New Testament Studies from Princeton Divinity and who was a student of Bruce Metzger (many scholars consider Metzger the foremost authority on the New Testament in the English speaking world over the last 50 years).

Here is the book I am referring to:

He also has a good one on the question of abortion in the modern church. If you read that, you'll find in the last chapter that he is actually quite liberal on most social issues (e.g. anti-capital punishment and pro-gun control), but he is against abortion due to its grounding in Christian teachings from the very beginning, which itself is borrowed from the Jewish opinion on the matter.

Regarding the historic Jewish opinion on abortion: the muddy areas where there was debate was on issues related to accidental (i.e. pregnant woman harmed during a physical attack) and therapeutic (i.e. save the life of the mother) abortions. When it came to elective abortions, it was uniform (in the sense that we do not have evidence of a contrary opinion) that it was a sin and almost always considered murder.

 

[Muck]

Regarding the historic Jewish opinion on abortion: the muddy areas where there was debate was on issues related to accidental (i.e. pregnant woman harmed during a physical attack) and therapeutic (i.e. save the life of the mother) abortions. When it came to elective abortions, it was uniform (in the sense that we do not have evidence of a contrary opinion) that it was a sin and almost always considered murder.

The period sources don't support that statement. The punishment for causing a miscarriage by striking a woman (Exodus 21:22) is not consistent with that of murder, while the punishment if the mother dies (Exodus 21:23) is. The exception is if a gentile is the one responsible, then he shall be put to death (the Torah is pretty hard on gentiles).

Period scholars generally agreed that 21:23 was referring to the death of the mother. There was a later split due to the translation in the Septuagint but that was not consistent with pre-Greek sources.

Similarly the Talmudic passage (Sanhedrin 57b) that covers the issue of abortion to save the mother clearly states that is only allowed until the head or 'greater portion' of the body is exposed. At that point you may not kill the child to save the mother as the child is now nefesh (a living person).

It is also stated in the Talmud that pregnancy does not begin until the fortieth day (Yevamot 69b). Prior to that point 'the semen is...a mere fluid' (this is often translated as "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day").

There are a couple of other sources that are consistent with the same theme, that prior to birth the fetus is not considered a separate living being.