Abortion II

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

In a word, inked. No.

And that's because you've piled in together things like "the consequences of the crime" with man's system of punishment.

This is commonly seen in mediocre parenting, for example. People ramble on using terms like "natural consequence' when they really mean" what I'll do to you." The "natural consequence" of not finishing your math homework is not knowing the contents. If the consequence extends to "not going on the field trip" or "being grounded for the weekend" we've moved on from "consequence" (that which naturally follows) to "punishment" (which is imposed). The same is true for our system of crime and punishment. The "natural consequence" of the sin of murder is separation from God. The societal system is functional, and it's concerned with the safety of society, rather than the sin of murder. On that basis, it's majority rule, more or less. But one would hope any system pertaining to ethics would have an opinion on it.

I don't really see much Biblical support for your position on the Law and the Prophets, either. Certainly "God's economy" and the rules thereof are fairly culturally limited constructs, and not canonical. A case might be made for Jesus abandoning the Law of his Fathers for the law of His Father in Matthew 22 (36-40) but if you're going to cherry pick out of the proscriptions of the Old Testament, you'd better have a decent rationale for ranking them.

[katya]

Nice post, sis.

Inked, I don't understand how any of that implies that we humans have either the right or the responsibility to judge others. In fact I can think of a couple well known scriptural references that say the opposite. Furthermore, no one decides to kill an unborn child because they deserve it. The difference between abortion and capital punishment is that with the latter killings are done in the name of justice, revenge, self-riteousness and hatred. I think making the judgement that another person deserves to die for their sin, calling them more sinful than you, is incredibly arrogant.

[inked]

Amazing how you don't deal with the argument but with your perceptions.

SACA,

I would love to take a long time and walk you through the errors in your conceptualization of Law (Torah) and Prophets, but I will give you a sampling.

Genesis 1 & 2 having been read, see Cain and Abel in chapter 4, then

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (the Noahide Covenant)

Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.

Leviticus 17:4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:

Numbers 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye [are]: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

Deuteronomy 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance, and [so] blood be upon thee.

Isaiah 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts [are] thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction [are] in their paths.

Jeremiah 7:6 [If] ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:

Jeremiah 7:9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;

Matthew 5:21-43 Sermon on the Mount (old law versus new law)

Matthew 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

But if you care to really research this further, I suggest this site which has excellent research capabilities and multiple translations:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm

When you have done, we can discuss more in depth what is actually in Scripture rather than your idea of what is in it from a joint resource capable of Hebrew and Greek resources to aid our understanding!

katya,
You seemed to have totally missed the point. The argument was that the unborn human -from zygote to birth- DOES NOT DESERVE DEATH but deserves life. Please read what I actually wrote.

One is not judging another's sins when deserved punishment is applied; one is judging their actions in this world. The next world is entirely their personal problem with God who indeed judges them by His standards. The application of appropriate penalties for specific actions is not revenge, self-righteousness, or hatred but justice. You seem to have emotional words for concepts that are not what you intend to argue.

If you wish to argue that the application of any penalty/punishment/consequence is judgment, I heartily agree. That quality of discrimination in the application of justice is judgment (Want to guess where the title judge derives?). So I am not sure we understand one another by our words. Care to elucidate?

[katya]

Originally Posted by inked

katya,
You seemed to have totally missed the point. The argument was that the unborn human -from zygote to birth- DOES NOT DESERVE DEATH but deserves life. Please read what I actually wrote.

I did read it. If I'm misunderstanding you please correct me. The agree that the unborn human does not deserve death. I also think, though, that (according to scripture and my understanding of Christianity) I have no right to judge whether any criminal deserves death either. I leave that to God. And, in my own personal opinion (regardless of scripture) I think everyone deserves happiness.

One is not judging another's sins when deserved punishment is applied; one is judging their actions in this world.

I don't understand the difference. You're still judging them, saying that what they did is wrong, assuming that you are correct. Can you please explain better?

The next world is entirely their personal problem with God who indeed judges them by His standards. The application of appropriate penalties for specific actions is not revenge, self-righteousness, or hatred but justice. You seem to have emotional words for concepts that are not what you intend to argue.

Putting someone to death is sometimes motivated by revenge, hatred, etc, mostly concerning those hurt by the criminal. An impartial judge might just look at is as "justice". But what is justice? Why should we punish someone who does wrong? If it's so they stop doing wrong or to improve society, that sounds more like "discipline". Justice, as I understand it, is a very close relation to revenge. A person does wrong, they need to suffer for it, etc.

[inked]

Originally Posted by katya

I did read it. If I'm misunderstanding you please correct me. The agree that the unborn human does not deserve death. I also think, though, that (according to scripture and my understanding of Christianity) I have no right to judge whether any criminal deserves death either. I leave that to God. And, in my own personal opinion (regardless of scripture) I think everyone deserves happiness.

1. We agree that the unborn human does not DESERVE death.
2. I think that we would agree that you personally or me personally and alone DO NOT have the right to judge whether any criminal deserves death. That sort of solely individualistic determination is properly considered vengeance (the harmed or their family exact some penalty for the action done and may issue in an excess or overkill; this is what the lex talionis -and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth- was designed to limit (see here: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/LEXTAL.HTM). However, it is the function of law to codify such responses for the entire society, acting communitarianly rather than individualistically). Societies are groups of people who have similar understandings and limits. Thus you have different understandings of the nature of the relations between individuals and the state as exemplified in, say, socialism versus communism versus libertarianism. These political assumptions govern the determination and application of laws within those societies, but underlying even those laws are fundamental assumptions about the nature of humanity and its relations: the relations of the individuals to their Creator, the individuals to one another, the individuals to the community, the community to their Creator.

A) There is a Creator and individuals and communities are responsible to Him.
B) There is no Creator and individuals and communities have not responsibilities other than to their own.

A results in very different consequences than B. You can probably think of the historic examples and contemporary ones, as well.

I don't understand the difference. You're still judging them, saying that what they did is wrong, assuming that you are correct. Can you please explain better?

You seem to be confusing a moral judgment with a legal judgment. They may overlap and often do, particularly in societies where responsibility before God is acknowledged as the basis for relational rules and enforcements. BUT it is not true that law and morality are the same thing. Law may very well be the minimum tolerated rather than moral.

You and I do in fact judge all the time about what is right or wrong. There is an excellent discussion of this in CS Lewis' MERE CHRISTIANITY. See the Chapter "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe" for the whole.

However, in our particular case in this discussion, you are appealing to a standard outside of ourselves as individuals (I'm not sure you are aware of this appeal, but you state it baldly - "assuming that you are correct".) Here you have some standard of "correctness" which may decide the issue between us because it is outside of us and not emotionally involved. This is the way law functions in regard to actions generally. Society says to the criminal "There is the standard. You have violated it. This is the consequence." Now, this action has gradation. Ignoring a stop sign may
i) luck out with no problem;
ii) be seen and result in a warning or a ticket from the police;
iii) result in an auto accident/pedestrian fright without injuries;
iv) result in an auto accident/pedestrian with injuries;
v) result in an auto accidentpedestrian with death(s);
vi) result in an auto accident iii- v because you are inebriated and driving;
vii) result in an auto accident with the deaths of others than you AND you.

Hence we have terms for accident up to vehicular homicide. And the law covers the deliberate us of a vehicle to injure or kill another person.

There are various penalties associated with the levels of this gradation determined by law. A jury decides (when required) which level of infraction and what appropriate consequence/punishment is applied, if you are alive to receive it.

But observe, the issue at law is different from making a moral judgment. The jury members may think it morally wrong to drink and drive but that doesn't matter if you are sober and run the stop sign and get a ticket. If you are blind drunk and run over a pedestrian resulting in her death, they may regard driving drunk as morally wrong but they are going to make the judgment in law and not morality. If you deliberately run over your mother to get the insurance money to buy a fabulous lifestyle, they may regard your crime as more heinous and deserving of the death penalty and still hold that drunk driving is morally wrong. They may also hold that murder is morally wrong but the judgment is in law.

It also happens that a law can be held to be morally wrong. See here for a discussion in that regard:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/Rigali-...-Statement.pdf

Putting someone to death is sometimes motivated by revenge, hatred, etc, mostly concerning those hurt by the criminal. An impartial judge might just look at is as "justice".

Application may err, but abusum non tollerit usum - the abuse does not abolish the use.

But what is justice?

12 dictionary results for: justice
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
jus·tice /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Pronunciation Key Pronunciation[juhs-tis]
–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9. (initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
—Idioms
10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
11. do justice,
a. to act or treat justly or fairly.
b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME < OF < L jūstitia, equiv. to jūst(us) just1 + -itia -ice]

That is another long discussion, ain't it?

Why should we punish someone who does wrong?

Because they DESERVE it by their action.

If it's so they stop doing wrong or to improve society, that sounds more like "discipline". Justice, as I understand it, is a very close relation to revenge. A person does wrong, they need to suffer for it, etc.

The action carries its penalty. It is so such that the society can function and its members be reasonably safe in their persons and goods.

Judgment is a consequence of the action. It may result in the person stopping doing wrong or it may not. It may discipline the person with the result that they no longer engage in the action(s). The discipline may have no effect on the perpetrator's future actions. It may or may not improve society (but this is ambiguous, do you mean society is safer or do you mean that exercising appropriate restraints is good for society in general or do you mean that society improves itself in some fashion by exercising judgment?)

I think your penultimate sentence a very telling sentence. "Justice, as I understand it, is a very close relation to revenge."

We may need to have that long discussion on justice for I do not understand it at all as "a very close relation to revenge."

Hope this helps.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

Because they DESERVE it by their action.

"Deserve death, I daresay he does, many that live disserve death, and many die that deserve life, can you give it to them? Do not be too swift to deal out death in punishment, even the wise cannot see all ends."

[inked]

SACA, I quite agree with Gandalf that one must exercise care in the matter, and excessive care in so great a matter. However, I do recall Gandalf doing death to quite a few, not least a Balrog and at the cost of his then existence.

But we are discussing the philosophical point of desert. Application can wait until we clear the air about justice. Then we can talk about mercy!

[Jon S.]

It is a fact - look it up - that 1 out of every 5 pregnancies ends in a spontaneous miscarriage. If you accept evolution, that's no biggie, it's simply how nature operates. If, on the other hand, you believe God is in control, that makes God the #1 abortionist on the planet.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

"Deserve death, I daresay he does, many that live disserve death, and many die that deserve life, can you give it to them? Do not be too swift to deal out death in punishment, even the wise cannot see all ends."

Quite a good argument against abortion, eh? And Jon S. - the miscarriages we can do nothing about - but it is our responsibility to do rightly the things that we CAN do something about.

[Valandil]

Much of this thread has dwelt on Capital Punishment. I have participated in that myself. We really should direct further discussion on that topic to its proper thread though (I believe we have one) and leave this thread to the discussion of abortion. I grant that many of us like to make comparisons between the two - but please remember the focus of each particular thread when making such comparisons.

Thank you.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Quite a good argument against abortion, eh? And Jon S. - the miscarriages we can do nothing about - but it is our responsibility to do rightly the things that we CAN do something about.

Not for me, because I see it neither as punishment nor as murder.

This stuff can stretch in such long linkages...like the custody battles over IVF supplies. I'm not comfortable with surrogacy, for example, because I don't believe the egg and sperm donors are the parents, and the mother is an incubator. 9 months of blood going in counts for something...and outranks sperm, totally.

Originally Posted by Valandil

Much of this thread has dwelt on Capital Punishment. I have participated in that myself. We really should direct further discussion on that topic to its proper thread though (I believe we have one) and leave this thread to the discussion of abortion. I grant that many of us like to make comparisons between the two - but please remember the focus of each particular thread when making such comparisons.

Thank you.

Glad you could stop by.

[Jon S.]

The facts are as follows:

(1) The Bible never - NEVER - uses the word "abortion" (or any Hebrew or Greek equivalents).

(2) Where the Bible does discuss miscarriage caused by tortious conduct, it makes it clear that is not homicide:

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:22-25

Only thing I'll add is that if you want to argue the meaning of this Biblical excerpt with me, fine, but we'll do it in Hebrew, not English so as not to perpetuate the deliberate mistranslation of this verse by typical Christian sources.

(3) Abortion is not a good thing, in my view, but neither is it taking a human life. As Yogi Berra put it (in another context), "Potential is just another word for 'you ain't done it yet.' "

[inked]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...&t=KJV#conc/22

and the Hebrew is on!!!!!

By the way, JS, what deliberate mistranslations are you referring to, please?

[katya]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Quite a good argument against abortion, eh?

What Sis said. And what I was trying to say before. In general, no one gets abortions because they think the evil fetus deserves punishment. It's nothing to do with justice or anything like that. It's a totally different motivation. I think you (any person) needs to decide for themselves what is a good motivation for killing. Some say there is no good motivation. Some say the fact that the unborn child isn't a real sort of human yet etc. is a good motivation. For others, war, capital punishment, revenge, self-defense, money (a mercenary!), etc etc is a good motivation.

[inked]

The problem, katya, is that the innocent zygote/embryo/fetus DESERVES life and protection. He/She has done nothing DESERVING of death.

Now justify killing the innocent.

[Jonathan]

A cow is innocent. Cows are killed every day.

Cows are not human though. But is fetus an actual person? Many would say so, many would not.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by inked

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...&t=KJV#conc/22

and the Hebrew is on!!!!!

By the way, JS, what deliberate mistranslations are you referring to, please?

Deliberate may be too strong for a generalization. Here's an example.

King James version (this is what you cited; nice on the Hebrew, BTW):

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]."

More accurate (JPS):

"When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may extract from him, the payment to be based on reckoning."

As for arguing the differences in implication between the two verses, I'll leave that now to others. Arguing over abortion, particularly with fanantics on either side, is too draining to continue for long.

See y'all next in the Tolkien subforums!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No. Obviously, we as taxpayers have to pay for their upkeep. However, this amounts to a hell of a lot less than the dignity of a human life.

Of course, money spent to preserve the dignity of one human life is money not spent to preserve the dignity of another.

My point is that we are always choosing one life over another, we just don't always realize it.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Deliberate may be too strong for a generalization. Here's an example.

King James version (this is what you cited; nice on the Hebrew, BTW):

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]."

More accurate (JPS):

"When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may extract from him, the payment to be based on reckoning."

As for arguing the differences in implication between the two verses, I'll leave that now to others. Arguing over abortion, particularly with fanantics on either side, is too draining to continue for long.

See y'all next in the Tolkien subforums!

Well "her fruit departs from her" could refer to the process of pregnancy loss prior to viability (roughly 24 weeks). Technically, miscarriage is a colloquial term for spontaneous abortion in the first twenty weeks of pregnancy or a fetal weight of <500 grams. Previable birth in a nonindustrialized society could extend up to 36 weeks gestation, though survivability increases with each week of gestation after 24 weeks. I think the expression "her fruit departs from her" is more accurate in Hebrew than miscarriage because there is a general cultural restriction of the word miscarriage to early pregnancy loss in the first trimester. So, in this instance, the JPS is more restrictive to Westerners with the concepts of trimester latent. The original Hebrew would include the consequences of miscarriage, previable birth, and preterm birth in which the offspring does not survive. Of course, the Hebrew is directed at accidental pregnancy interruption in this verse, not intentional abortion.

For a view on that check out blueletterbible.com and "rip open pregnant women". Neither the prophets nor the LORD were very restrained about the heinousness of that.

[Jon S.]

EDIT: Upon further thought, I think my earlier reaction that arguing abortion over the internet with strangers is not a worthwhile endeavor is probably the best answer.