Sunday, December 24, 2017

Evolutionist: “Jesus had nothing to say about … abortion”

And So This Is Christmas

On this 2017 Christmas holiday an evolutionist has proclaimed that the man whose birthday is celebrated today did not come out against abortion. She wrote:

Jesus had nothing to say about … abortion … He did have quite a lot to say about the poor and the vulnerable, and maybe that’s a good place to start.

Readers shouldn’t need a lengthy explanation of the problem here. Theologians refer to this as imposing an idea onto Scripture rather than reading it out of Scripture. To say that Jesus said nothing about abortion but—in the very next breath—admit that He did instruct us to protect the vulnerable, does not make sense.

It would be like saying Jesus said nothing about stabbing people in the back, though he did admonish us not to murder, but that’s different.

Or again, it would be like saying Jesus said nothing about being nice to people, though he did tell us to do to others as we would have them do to us. But that’s different.

No, it isn’t different.

The problem here is that babies are, if anything, “vulnerable.” One need not stretch definitions to see the problem. One does not need an imagination here to get it.

Babies. Are. Vulnerable.

It is not that this writer made a minor slip here. This assertion is nothing short of absurd.

In fact, the claim is so silly and ridiculous, I would not normally bring it to the attention of readers. If you showed me this quote, I would assume it is from some phony troll or chatroom.

But it isn’t, and this is where the problem becomes more important. The quote is from a newspaper article. And it is not from just any old newspaper. It is from, err, the top newspaper in the world—The New York Times.

Nor is the article deeply buried somewhere. It is prominently displayed above the fold, top right on the website.

Nor is the author someone who accidently slipped a piece into The Gray Lady. In fact, the piece was written by, err, Contributing Op-Ed writer Margaret Renkl.

Renkl’s point is that followers of Jesus need to get with the program, and drop the whole pro life thing. After all, Jesus had nothing to say about abortion.

Right?

The argument isn’t even wrong, and yet there it is. Complete absurdity parading as words of wisdom, as if in some Hans Christian Andersen story.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

35 comments:

  1. The argument about abortion comes down to whether or not an early term fetus has the same right to life as a post birth human does. Where the pro-lifers fall into the hipocrysy trap is when they are asked what penaltly should be imposed on women who have an abortion if abortion were made illegal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is true that Jesus says nothing specifically about abortion. Whether or not it is relevant depends on whether he considered an early term fetus to be fully “human”. The practice of abortion long predates Jesus, so it’s not as if it wasn’t an issue in his day. Whether or not he thought that his admonishion against killing covered early term abortion, I don’t know. And neither do you. But what I do know is that God does not appear to have a problem with killing off a significant portion of fetuses before birth.

      But are you willing to answer my question about what penalty or charge a woman who has an abortion should receive?

      Delete
    2. WS:

      And neither do you.

      Evolutionist ever since Darwin have used this mode of argument: Make an untenable claim and then shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic, who now must disprove the claim.

      You say abortion "long predates Jesus," so it wouldn't have been a foreign concept. You could have said the same thing about any number of other minority groups / forms of murder, which Jesus did not specifically call out.

      Renkl's type of argument could, and surely has, been used to sanction the persecution and murder of all sorts of people groups. Apply a little creative interpretation to a holy book, or law, and all kinds of things can be justified.

      This is bigotry, plain and simple, of the worst kind, and another example of the fruit of evolutionary thinking.


      Where the pro-lifers fall into the hipocrysy trap is when they are asked what penaltly should be imposed on women who have an abortion if abortion were made illegal.

      Abortion is complicated because several people are involved, and because it currently is legal. Given the steady stream of evolutionary justifications, and long time that it has been legal, opinions undoubtedly will vary about how the law should be changed.

      But, in any case, a person's rights are not determined by cultural trends or subjective opinions.

      Delete
    3. But what I do know is that God does not appear to have a problem with killing off a significant portion of fetuses before birth.

      So when they die naturally it is God's fault? Really? You are more pathetic than we thought.

      But are you willing to answer my question about what penalty or charge a woman who has an abortion should receive?

      Manslaughter at the very least- the same for the doctor.

      Delete
    4. Abortion is complicated because several people are involved, and because it currently is legal.”

      Yet when it was illegal, I don’t recall any woman having an abortion being charged with first degree murder. If you think that an early term fetus has the same right to life as you or I, then you must expect that these women should be charged with first degree murder. After all, it is the charge that is laid against anyone who plans and kills someone with premeditation, regardless of the age of the victim.

      Delete
    5. Joke: “Manslaughter at the very least- the same for the doctor.“

      Why manslaughter? We always charge people who kill, or arrange to have killed, another human, with first degree murder. Why should pregnant women be any different?

      Delete
    6. LoL! I see wee willie still doesn't understand English.

      AT THE VERY LEAST- again thanks for proving that you are pathetic

      Delete
    7. Joke: if you arrange with someon to kill your neighbours newborn, and it is carried out, what are you charged with?

      Delete
    8. Oh my- wee doubles-down on its stupidity.

      What does "at the very last" mean to you, wee wee?

      If someone says "Manslaughter at the very least- the same for the doctor." that means that manslaughter is the least of the charges that can be leveled against the perp. First and second degree murder, being greater charges, would be included in my statement.

      Proving all that goes with first degree murder is not possible in all cases.

      Delete
    9. It never ceases to amaze me how the line between theism/atheism is the same line between so many issues. Creation/evolution – pro life/pro abortion – skeptic/AGW alarmist – conservatism/progressivism. In general, these issues form a pattern if not a hard fast rule.

      Is sex an entertainment issue or a moral issue? If it’s moral then life, a consequence of sex, is also moral. How does one legislate morality? Doctors who practice immorally can lose their license. Patients who pursue irrational procedures can have their sanity placed in doubt. If anyone should suggest that abortions do no harm to the women then it could easily be refuted with scientific research. Psychological and physical effects are known with new research making a connection to breast cancer. So if sex is a moral issue then it’s morally incumbent on society to denounce it both through policy and attitude.

      If sex is an entertainment issue then all bets are off. This premise refutes the idea of objective morality and if that’s the case then aborting a child can’t be called immoral since morality is now relative. Society decides what is and is not moral so killing a child is perfectly acceptable so long as public opinion approves. Of course, explain this [sex is entertainment] to your wife and you may get another perspective. Let your wife/spouse try this excuse with you and feel your own moral outrage.

      The answer to your question William, is very much the same as how we as a society treat other mental illness involving self-harm. Along with how we treat any doctor who aids in suicide or perverse surgeries. No surgeon would amputate the arm of a person with BIID without justification beyond the desire of the patient. Ironically, we treat gender disorders differently which I believe goes right back to my original observation of a line between theism/atheism. If sex is entertainment then surgical alterations to enhance sexual experiences is socially moral, if sex is a morality issue then sexual reassignment is beyond silly, it’s immoral.

      Delete
    10. Joke: “First and second degree murder, being greater charges, would be included in my statement.

      Proving all that goes with first degree murder is not possible in all cases.


      Really? When abortion is made illegal, A woman has to make a conscious plan to kill her baby. Must find out how to contact the back alley abortionist, must contact him/her and arrange a time and place to kill the fetus, and must hand over cash, probably in advance, before the abortion is carried out. There is no prosecutor in North America who wouldn’t jump all over this with charges of first degree murder if the victim were a breathing human being. And, to make this even more fun, in many states she would be eligible for the death penalty.

      Of course, this only applies if you insist that an early term fetus has the same right to life as you and I.

      Delete
    11. Yes, really. But than again you aren't in law enforcement and are an ignorant jerk. There are plenty of cases of murder that have been settled for lesser charges due to the fact they couldn't prove first degree.

      And seeing that being a human is a process that requires a beginning, that beginning is as much a human as at any other time in that process.

      But then again you are just too ignorant to understand any of that.

      Delete
    12. The hormonal imbalance defense will be used as readily as temporary insanity in order to spare women getting an abortion from first degree murder.

      Delete
    13. William,

      "But what I do know is that God does not appear to have a problem with killing off a significant portion of fetuses before birth."

      Death is a consequence of our fallen state. Yes, early term fetuses die, but that does not equate with God killing them.

      If you want to argue whether or not an early term fetus has the same rights a you, you must first decide if the fetus is human. If you wish to argue the fetus is not human you must then define what constitutes being human and defend that definition logically.

      The human fetus is, in fact, human by its very nature and existence. In what way would you say it is not human and as such not entitled to the protection given other humans?

      Delete
    14. Joke: “The hormonal imbalance defense will be used as readily as temporary insanity in order to spare women getting an abortion from first degree murder.“

      Are you sure that you want to stick with the ‘pregnant women are insane’ defence? Do you really have that low a respect for women?

      Delete
    15. Nic, I am not trying to argue that the fetus is not human. What I am arguing is that those who oppose early term abortions based on the claim that they have the same right to life as you or I are being hipocrytical if they don’t also support first degree murder charges for women who have abortions. An abortion is a clear case of the premeditated and planned taking of a human life. A decision made by the pregnant woman. In every other case of premeditated killing, first degree murder charges are laid. Why would the same charges apply to a woman who has an abortion?

      Delete
    16. An abortion is a clear case of the premeditated and planned taking of a human life.

      Thankfully you are not a judge. And thankfully you don't get to make that decision

      A decision made by the pregnant woman.

      Dealing with hormonal imbalances that effect her emotions and her body in ways that aren't normal.

      Delete
    17. The hormonal imbalance defense ...

      Are you sure that you want to stick with the ‘pregnant women are insane’ defence?

      No, I will stick with the "pregnant women have hormonal imbalance" defense. Are you sure you know how to read because it doesn't look like it.

      Delete
    18. William,

      "are being hipocrytical if they don’t also support first degree murder charges for women who have abortions."

      You make a sound and definitely logical observation, it is indeed hypocritical to label abortion murder and not pursue murder charges against hose who facilitate and participate in the murder. But it is equally illogical and hypocritical to pass laws which allow murder to be seen as acceptable simply because the victim is an unborn child. That is the vital aspect of this debate which must be addressed.

      On a happier note, have a great New Year my friend. :)

      Delete
    19. Hi Nic, I hope you and your family have a happy new year as well.

      I think we both agree that making abortion illegal will not make it go away. It will just make it go back underground, at great risk to the women involved.

      I prefer to address it from the other end. Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Comprehensive and non judgemental sex education from an early age. Unrestricted access to birth control. In countries where this has been done unwanted pregnancies and abortion rates have significantly decreased. I guess the question that has to be asked is what is more important, banning legal abortions to make our consciousness feel better, or do something that will actually reduce abortion rates.

      Delete
    20. Women should be smart enough to make their own choices. They know if they have unprotected sex they have a good chance of becoming pregnant.

      OTOH men have to be held more accountable too. That is one thing that is lacking. Men should have to ante up a big % of their worth or do some time in prison for getting a girl pregnant and not wanting the kid. Or chemical castration if they don't want prison time.

      Delete
    21. Joke, you are not in favour of murder charges for women who have abortions, but want chemical castration for men who don’t want the kid. It makes me very glad that nobody takes you seriously.

      Delete
    22. Oh my, you definitely have reading comprehension issues. It makes me very glad that you are a nobody and no one listens to you.

      What I said was that first degree murder charges would be hard to prove and provided the reason. Also the man has a CHOICE between heavy fines, prison or chemical castration.

      Grow up, willie.

      Delete
    23. I see that the season of love has passed by Joe’s house again.

      Delete
    24. I see the season of reason and reading comprehension has passed wee willie

      Delete
    25. Happy New Year Joe. I hope you never change.

      Delete
    26. Back at you, Willie. But I hope you change so perhaps we can actually have an honest discussion on technical issues. I won't be holding my breath, though.

      Delete
  2. Thanks Cornelius, nicely reasoned. You have exposed the modern tendency of inserting ones personal preferences into the mouth of Jesus and into the Bible.

    "While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text."

    ReplyDelete
  3. WS: "...God does not appear to have a problem with killing off a significant portion of fetuses before birth."

    That's typical thinking of materialist / atheist / darwinist (aka m.a.d.) folks. The refusal to acknowledge an absolute morality standard leads to confused reasoning where miscarriages and abortions are viewed as identical.

    Maybe a refresher course of Logic 101 would help!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't disagree with CH's reasoning on Jesus likely opposing abortion based on other statements and his character in general. Even though he did not speak about abortion explicitly there is an argument that he was implicitly opposed.

    And most Christian organizations and churches by and large do oppose abortion for similar reasons. Where they differ though is whether abortion should be allowed in special circumstances - such as incest, rape, potential death of the mother etc.

    Cornelius - in the line of what you've already provided, what support for or against these special circumstances would you say can be inferred from the New Testament?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CaroleTim: That sounds like a tough one. I'm not sure about that.

      Delete
  5. Actually from the very beginning first christians (almost from MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, John ,PAUL, PETER etc. mouths)were antiabortion. In that time abortion was as normal as breathing. Outside Rome city wall were places where people dump garbage and dead fetuses. All new converted christians where making a oath to give up lies, theft,crime etc. AND ABORTIONS. Many were shock because to give up theft was something understandable for them but to give up abortion was something meaningless. Actually women guilty of the sin were given penances that excluded them from communion for the rest of their lives.
    Why first christians were so die-hard anti-abortion if Jesus presumably "said in atheist bible" (New York Time)that is ok?

    ReplyDelete