The A Word

Somehow the conversation on a recent post has devolved into a discussion about politics and abortion. Abortion seems to be the perfect jumping off point to illustrate what is wrong with fundangelical talk about God, politics, truth, and the Bible.

Leighton rightly pointed out that the Bible actually treats unborn life as qualitatively different than born life. The penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is financial; the penalty for killing a child who is already born is the usual life for life. Somehow, fundangelical readers of the Bible are unable to extrapolate from this point that born life is different than unborn life. Despite their ability to find sins in the most obscure passages, they are singularly incapable of reading this passage critically and following the trajectory of the logic. They ignore what the Bible actually says in favor of a larger definition of "thou shalt not kill," and again they seem incapable of extrapolating pro-life principles for war and capital punishment from Jesus' words about loving an enemy. The problem with abortion comes from a completely different assumption about scripture though.

Genesis says that God breathed into the mass she had formed and created a living soul, and because we must define everything in ways that satisfy us, we've been stuck with a ghost in the machine definition of soul since at least Augustine's ramblings. Paul mentions the three part division of humans in one of his letters, and the passage is one Nazarenes are fond of quoting (I Thess 5:23): "And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus..." I don't pretend to know what a soul is, but I'm pretty sure it's not a ghost creature that leaves our bodies at death. The fact that trauma to the brain causes severe changes in personality should be a clue to fundangelicals that soulishness is somehow tied to physiology. Almost all the characteristics we attribute to the soul (mind, will, emotions, personality, etc.) are communally formed realities. (The very idea that our spirit departs our bodies at death to be with Jesus makes no sense if the things that make us unique individuals reside in the soul. And if they reside in the spirit, what the hell is a soul for? What does it do?) It seems to follow that the thing we call soul is our communally-shaped personality. I'm not downplaying the role of heritage in this scenario, but genes seem to shape us in ways that community does not. Still, I'll allow that some of our characteristics are inherited, but that doesn't advance the argument for a soul in any way that benefits Bible-readers.

If you assume that conception creates a new human being and that this human contains two non-physiological parts—soul and spirit—you're probably going to assume that killing this mass of cells is an offense against God. If you remove the impartation of a soul at conception, you remove most of the philosophical problem. If soulishness is learned and shaped by outside influences, the soul isn't a permanent part of being human. Again, this seems to be indicated by head trauma. And until someone tells me what a spirit does, I'll not address abortion vis-a-vis spirit.

So, the short reading of the problem looks like this: Christians ignore a pretty clear passage in favor of a convoluted interpretation regarding something they simply can't know to assert God's will. Now, if you read Exodus as if it's God's word, you'll have to argue with God about abortion. If you read Exodus as if it is written by people that were simply wrong about this issue in order to maintain your anti-abortion stance, then you open an entire Pandora's box of exegetical difficulties. It seems the simplest way out of this situation is to say that Exodus is right and abortion is okay, but I'm willing to bet that the Church won't arrive at that conclusion anytime soon.

Comments

[Leighton]

"Soul" has changed so much over the centuries that I doubt the Greeks who first used it would recognize it.
Today, it doesn't seem to mean much more than an indicator of when human rights attach.

When "life" gets used in the context of abortion, people don't mean life; they mean soul. Sperm and ova are alive--just look at them under a microscope. But they don't have rights (except in Christian organizations like Quiverfull, where constant pregnancy is mandatory whenever physically possible). The question from the previous thread is, at what point does life begin? This really means, at what point does a human soul arrive?

I don't think souls exist. Nor life, as a coherent metaphysical category that you could use to inform policy decisions. Translated into practical terms, the real question above is, "At what point do we say to pregnant women, 'You must surrender control of your body and continue this pregnancy, no matter your wishes or the consequences'?"

This is why I think framing abortion as an issue of "life" is disingenuous, since the real objects of control, or punishment for evading control, are women, whose welfare only rarely makes the short list of relevant issues to weigh.

I suspect this omission happens for political reasons. Politically prominent conservatives and evangelicals could take steps, really useful steps, to reduce abortion by taking the approach of "Hey, let's make some changes so that all these women having abortions don't feel like it's their only choice." The evangelical base still has some clout left, and they could aim it toward things like guaranteed healthcare for all children, parents and pregnant women. (If you don't have health insurance, as nearly 20% of Americans don't, the last thing you want to be is pregnant. Even a successful pregnancy nearly always guarantees financial ruin.) They could coordinate to increase funding and oversight of adoption agencies--whether public or private funding--to make sure mothers looking to give up their baby after birth are treated fairly and not scammed.

But they don't; abortion is too useful as a wedge issue, a vote magnet and a fundraiser. "Look, the DemocRATS are up to their old tricks! Send me your money and votes." Combine that with lies, fabrications and misrepresentations about the kind of people (read: women) who have abortions, and you have nearly guaranteed party brand loyalty, based on a carefully crafted sense of outrage.

[Jeff]

Greg,
You make a huge leap on your last paragraph. How do you go from believing Exodus places different values on an unborn fetus and a baby to believing it is okaying abortion? If killing a fetus was okay it seems like there would be no penalty what so ever.

[bobstevens]

Noting that you (apparently) agree with the view of abortion that follows from a strict reading of Exodus, but disagree with the view of capital punishment that follows from a strict reading of Exodus... do you feel that a biblical view of abortion needs to be informed by more than just Exodus, as a view of capital punishment should be? Can it be?

[greg]

Jeff,

I didn't say it okays abortion, or at least I didn't mean to. My point was the convoluted hermeneutics of fundangelicals.

Bob,

I think the world would be a better place if we didn't use any of the Tanakh to inform our ethical decisions. Perhaps I should say Christians shouldn't. Observant Jews seem to do a far better job of dealing with the concept of midrash than do literalist Christians.

[Scott]

You are right that better metaphysical thinking is required.

[Dallas Tim]

I think the clear message of Scripture, especially where human creation is concerned, is that God is behind the entire process of human conception, development and fruition. That seems to be a chief reason that the majority of the Evangelical Christian community is against abortion. The Bible is clear that God forms us in the womb as individuals (I'll agree with Bob Stevens earlier comment that exactly when that mass of tissue becomes an "indivudual" is somewhere between conception and birth).

To then randomly (and often simply for convenience) end what God initiated, seems brazen and selfish. If rape is involved, it gets a bit more complicated. If an unborn child is killed by accident, it's also more complicated.

The issue for most Evangelicals comes when the right to terminate a life is demanded because you "can't afford" or "don't want" another child, especially when the Bible clearly states that life is from God and that life is to be cherished and protected. The Church finds the idea of life just being whatever we want to make it, when the Bible says otherwise, very frightening.

If you don't have insurance and don't want more kids, then take steps to make sure you don't get pregnant. The value of life isn't negated by your irresponsibility or selfishness.

Adoption is a great option. Most qualified couples are still on a long waiting list. There are plenty of caring families who would do anything to have even someone else's child.

Politicians and other individuals who think abortion should be protected are probably not really interested in better health care anyway. They just want to appease their constituents and will rubber stamp anything that gets them a vote.

[cheek]

Adoption is a fine option, but lets not pretend that the waiting lists are a result of a shortage of kids in the system. They are the result of adoption laws written to increase legal fees by extending the process unnecessarily and potential parents who will only consider newborn babies as opposed to kids a few years older. There are far too many kids in the system, and even though many get placed in warm homes that love them dearly, that is not by any means the norm.

[cheek]

Another lens for viewing this discussion is to consider whether or not 'choice' is an accurate descriptor. All of these arguments seem to assume that every "choice" a person makes is a free choice. Most of the philosophy of mind I have read, suggests that this is almost certainly not the case. What are the ramifications for the debate if a woman does not in fact choose an abortion, but is literally compelled to do so by biology and circumstance?

[Dallas Tim]

Cheek,

Not sure what you meant by "...compelled to do so by biology and circumstance?"

How would this look?

[Leighton]

Tim,

I think the clear message of Scripture, especially where human creation is concerned, is that God is behind the entire process of human conception, development and fruition.

And yet, the penalty for killing an unborn fetus wanted by both its parents is punishable only by a fine, rather than by death, bringing us right back to where we were before; and "new life" is reached by being born again, not conceived again, not brought to quickening again. (I'm repeating myself because you are.)

And what's the difference between making sure a fertilized egg doesn't develop and doing your best to make sure no egg is fertilized? Isn't that just making life whatever you want it to be? That's certainly what Quiverfull teaches. I seem to recall Onan getting in trouble for not fertilizing his late brother's wife as Jewish custom demanded. God seems to have a stake not just in fetuses (though not nearly as much of a stake as in born children), but in sperm and ova as well.

If you don't have insurance and don't want more kids, then take steps to make sure you don't get pregnant. The value of life isn't negated by your irresponsibility or selfishness.

So, you're saying people without insurance--one out of every five Americans--shouldn't be having sex. (Birth control is great, but it doesn't work 100% of the time.) I mentioned in my other thread why nobody outside the church, or some other authoritarian subcultures, think this is a good, or even a human, idea.

The issue for most Evangelicals comes when the right to terminate a life is demanded because you "can't afford" or "don't want" another child, especially when the Bible clearly states that life is from God and that life is to be cherished and protected.

I'm about to start copying-and-pasting myself. Not being able to simultaneously take care of your family and carry a pregnancy to term is a significantly bigger issue than "mere convenience." Are you seriously going to tell married couples who can barely support the children they have to stop having sex?

Cheek,

Another lens for viewing this discussion is to consider whether or not 'choice' is an accurate descriptor.

I agree, but I think "pro-women get to say what's best in their situation instead of having the state compel them to risk their life and health to bring a fetus to term even if it would mean financial ruin for their families" is a bit cumbersome as a position summary.

[Leighton]

Not sure what you meant by "...compelled to do so by biology and circumstance?"

How would this look?

Portland's former mayor Vera Katz was pregnant when she contracted the measles. She could have carried her child to term, but she probably would have died, and her fetus's chances were worse than hers. Under Oregon law at the time, she couldn't get an abortion without simultaneously having a hysterectomy. So she did.

[cheek]

I'm just referring to the fact that both philosophy of mind and neurological science seem to suggest that most of what we call 'decisions' are determined by those very things. Our minds are made up not by an act of will initiated by our own conscious selves but by instinctive, biological response to our circumstances. In the wild, animals are often incited to kill weaker offspring in times of famine in order to better ensure the survival of the stronger. These killings are not considerred immoral because animals are typically viewed as amoral. If it turns out that a "decision" to have an abortion fits the same model, I'm just curious how that informs the debate.

[Leighton]

Politicians and other individuals who think abortion should be protected are probably not really interested in better health care anyway.

This is probably true for most of them, but unlike pro-life politicians, at least their policy decisions are in line with their campaign stump speeches. Running on "abortion is bad" while not addressing the causes of abortion is a bit more dishonest, particularly for politicians playing the "good Christian" card.

[Leighton]

If it turns out that a "decision" to have an abortion fits the same model, I'm just curious how that informs the debate.

It doesn't have much to say about the legal issue, where the question isn't choice so much as power--whether it'll be women controlling their own bodies, or predominantly male groups of lawmakers.

As far as ethics, I'm not sure what the impact would be. Most pro-choice folks like myself don't think a fetus has an inherent right to life, for the same reason adults don't have the right to compulsory organ donations, so the constraints on women's choices don't seem to get much play. It might make women who need abortions less evil for pro-life folks, though. I don't know.

[Dallas Tim]

Here is Exodus 21:22-25

22"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall (N)pay as the judges decide.

23"But if there is any further injury, (O)then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

24(P)eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

So I someone hurts a woman and causes her yet unborn child to be prematurely birthed, and then the child dies, the offender is to be put to death.

So the penalty for killing an unborn child (whether born dead due to trauma or having died as a result of being born too early) is death to the offender. Seems to support what I said earlier, not the other way around.

As for Onan, the law at the time was for the brother to go in and take his (deceased) brother's wife as his own and carry on the family. Onan didn't seem to want to cooperate and that was a pretty rebellious attitude toward the law God enacted.

Whatever the reason is for your pregnancy, you need to consider that life may result and that you are responsible for that life. God forbid that our culture start being accountable for our actions. Don't go bombing Iraq or water-boarding terrorists but go ahead and kill your own children, no problem.

I'm AM seriously telling you that the idea of "barely affording" anything usually means not being able to make the cable payment or having to eat at home most of the time. People who are responsible will either find a way to support their family or will value life enough to give someone the chance at raising/rearing (which is it?) their unwanted child, instead of killing it.

[Leighton]

Tim,

The Hebrew text of Exodus doesn't support your translation's reading. A literal rendering of yatsa refers to the woman's loss of her offspring. Combined with nearly identical phrasings of Ex 21.22 in the Code of Hammurabi and in the Hittite Laws (I haven't read anyone on the subject who doesn't agree that there was borrowing in one direction or the other), where the incident in question is unambiguously miscarriage, most scholars prefer to render it literally rather than assume there's a poetic metaphor of giving birth prematurely.

Better is NAS--and, remarkably enough, not the NAS quoted at gospelcom, who, in violation of intellectual property agreements, have changed "miscarriage" to "given birth prematurely" in that NAS passage:

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

As in the Code of Hammurabi and the Hittite Laws, this likely means that if the mother is otherwise unharmed, the fine shall stay a fine; if she is injured or killed, the offender will pay with his body or his life.

Whatever the reason is for your pregnancy, you need to consider that life may result and that you are responsible for that life. God forbid that our culture start being accountable for our actions. Don't go bombing Iraq or water-boarding terrorists but go ahead and kill your own children, no problem.

I'm AM seriously telling you that the idea of "barely affording" anything usually means not being able to make the cable payment or having to eat at home most of the time. People who are responsible will either find a way to support their family or will value life enough to give someone the chance at raising/rearing (which is it?) their unwanted child, instead of killing it.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying you don't care whether people are poor or how women get pregnant--the only thing that matters is that God agrees with you that fertilized eggs are important? Your notion of poverty as not being able to pay for cable bills or eat out doesn't speak well of your understanding of the situation of people who aren't part of the middle class. Matt. 23.4 much?

If you care so much about fetuses, you can either keep banging the drum of personal responsibility and close your eyes to the realities of poverty and our screwed-up healthcare and adoption systems, or you can try to help work toward a policy where abortions are less necessary.

Not everyone can afford to be pregnant. I've said that several times and you've ignored it, so let me repeat it a few times: not everyone can afford to be pregnant. Not everyone can afford to be pregnant. Not everyone can afford to be pregnant. Prenatal care costs a hefty chunk of money these days, around $4,000 on average if there are no complications. I've got a master's degree with pretty good earning potential, and I can't afford that on my own with only 9 months' notice. If there are complications, and you're one of that 20% with no insurance, that's your financial future, gone.

60% of women who get abortions have children already. These women do care about their kids--they care about the ones who have already been born, whose welfare they think is more important than the life of one that isn't born. If she can't afford to carry her child to term, what does she do? Give her born kids up for adoption for the sake of the accidental newcomer?

If abortion bothers you so much, what are you going to do about it? Do you adopt kids? Volunteer at a women's shelter? Provide crisis pregnancy counseling and financial assistance? Vote for universal health care? Advocate for debt relief for those in poverty? Or do you just hope and pray that you can vote to ban abortion and rest on your laurels after having successfully declared, "Thou shalt not"?

[Leighton]

Re: rearing vs raising--they're both correct and have been for centuries, though depending on what region you're in, one may be more common than the other. Reren and raisen were both in Middle English. The former came from Old English, the latter was imported from Old Norse.

[Leighton]

...Although I should point out that in my experience, I see "child-rearing" and "raising a child" much more commonly than I do "child-raising" and "rearing a child."

[Dallas Tim]

The argument makes (according to other scholars) much more sense to apply to both the woman and her child, not just the woman. The fact that the writer didn't go into all 8 possible scenarios involving the mother and the child indicate that he was speaking regarding both she and the baby.

We can argue it all day long, but there are Biblical scholars who see that the passage clearly refers to both.

I have heard the "can't afford another kid" argument, but what is the case most of the time is that just being an excuse. People who are determined to be responsible can find a way to manage to do the right thing (regardless of their financial status). Those who aren't can also usually find a way to excuse their irresponsibility. Sure I'd like to see everyone have plenty of money and therefore have less situation for the supposed "need" of abortion, but I also know that many of the procedures have nothing to do with anything other that having to deal with the stress or embarrassment of pregancy and/or another child. If you can't afford it, there are people lined up for miles who are willing to help with the costs and complications of pregnancy so that they can have a child of their own. The idea that there is some woman out there who has no way of taking care of a child is simply disingenious. My parents were both from families where there was little to go around yet there was 7 - 8 kids. How did they manage? My grandparents could have said... "Well, we can't afford anymore..." but they did the right thing and MADE it work. My parents said there were days where there was literally no food in the house but they didm't complain about not getting enough govmn't handouts and just did the best they could.

I know we don't like hearing specific examples of people who seemed to turn the "can't afford 'em" argument on it's head, but when it's your own parents, then it's worth repeating.

Yes, we help with our local crisis pregnancy center. We give of our time and money.

Debt relief will not solve the problem. You can't just throw enough money at most problems and expect them to go away. Our alligence to wealth is a big part of the problem.

I'd like to hear a drunk driver who's just killed someone tell the judge, "Hey, I didn't have any other way to get home and the bar was going to kick me out at 2am. What else was I supposed to do."

Murder is wrong if your rich, and also if your poor. Once we decide that our circumstances can't dictate our morality, we'll be alot closer to the solution than we are now.

[Leighton]

Tim,

Name three Exodus or ANE law specialists who support your convoluted interpretation of Ex 21.22. Those folks who study stuff like this for a living are probably the ones whose judgment we want to give the most weight to. You can find scholars in other areas who've had a little Hebrew and will say just about anything about anything; it doesn't mean they're speaking in their capacity as scholars. It's a lot like how maybe one or two of the scientists who advocate ID are actual biologists, and none of whom have studied evolutionary biology. I agree that this particular discussion is going nowhere, but not because the evidence is split. Your favorite rhetorical tactic of picking out a few random nonspecialists to support your view and then saying "Hey, look, what I believe is just as plausible from an evidentiary standpoint as what everyone else believes" gets deeply and soul-wearingly old as the months and years go by. (Yes, "soul" is a metaphor.)

Good for your parents, and I'm glad, I really am, that they made the choices they did. Let me make abundantly clear, as apparently I haven't, that nobody here is saying that as a rule, poor people should get abortions. Fully half of what "choice" means is that if a woman wants to carry her pregnancy to term, nobody can gainsay that, no matter her circumstances. Not you, not me, not the government, not anyone. But what a few exceptional people do, can't be made into a rule for everyone.

Debt relief will not solve the problem. You can't just throw enough money at most problems and expect them to go away.

It won't solve it, but it would help. And at the risk of pointing out the deeply obvious, "throwing money" at a pregnancy is the difference between getting and not getting treatment.

I'd like to hear a drunk driver who's just killed someone tell the judge, "Hey, I didn't have any other way to get home and the bar was going to kick me out at 2am. What else was I supposed to do."

This is the worst analogy I've heard all month. He can call a freaking taxi, or the local police for a lift if he doesn't have money. It won't involve dozens of hours in the doctor's office and thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses or a complete overhaul of his endocrine system with repercussions years down the road. You have kids; surely you know what being pregnant entails, right?

So here are some questions for you:

1) In light of James 4.17, do you think coercing organ donation by force is a good sort of thing for the government to do, in cases where it would save someone's life without risking the life of the involuntary giver?

2) At what point in pregnancy do you want to say to all women in the world, "Past here you cannot have an abortion, or we will punish you for it?"

3) What criminal charges should be brought against women who have abortions?

[Dallas Tim]

Leighton,

Walter Kaiser.
Michael Fishbane.
Gleason Archer.

They all see problems with seeing the NAS translation of "Yatsa" as only referring to a miscarriage because of other terms used to describe that elswhere in the OT and because the author didn't go into detail regarding all of the possibilities with regard to if mom was dead/injured/fine combined with the child being hurt/dead/fine. The lack of detail seems to indicate that both were covered by the statement. This could be described as somewhat speculatory but so could any other view(s). Combine that section with verses in Psalms that speak of God "forming in the womb" and you get the idea that even the earliest of development is being handled by God and isn't our to terminate for convenience.

Being willing to deal responsibly with the life you created does not make you exceptional. It's just the right thing to do.

Having kids can actually have health benefits for women. Sure, just about anything we do has some degree of risk, but women who kill their children because they don't want to deal with "it" are killing for convenience. That's wrong and any society who denies that fact is in denial. When we kill because it makes it easier to maintain our lifestyle then we've crossed a sad point of selfish barbarism.

Being poor isn't an excuse to rob a liquor store and it shouldn't be for killing either.

As for James 4:17, that opens a whole mess of additional questions. Is it really "good?" What risk factors are there for the donor? Who decides who get the donation? Who does the operation? If they need it back in the future (and who decided that they should have extra organs anyway? Oh yeah... God) can they get it immediately? Those questions can't be dealt with on a large scale so, no, the govn't should not mandate it.

As for #3, I'd say since we're not sure when God sees the fetus as a unique individual, then we play it safe and say... at conception. If a doctor decides that the mother will likely die if she carries to term and delivers, then we can discuss that later. That's hardly ever the case.

As for criminal charges, what do we do with people who kill (murder)now? There's manslaughter (voluntary/involuntary) and other degrees of the crime that are dealt with according to our laws. I would not want to be the final say in the matter, but I'm sure we could define it eventually.

Glad you had a nice holiday. I'll be eating turkey leftovers for several days.

Peace.

[Dallas Tim]

...and by "#3" I, naturally, meant #2.

[Dallas Tim]

See how easily those textual variants occur?

[greg]

Tim,

You're really not going to use metaphors from the psalms literally, are you? Really?

[Leighton]

Tim,

Fair point with the three evangelical and Jewish scholars--though ignoring the extrabiblical literature that either borrowed from Exodus or Exodus borrowed from is bad news in my book.

Thanks for your candor--it's good to know that you advocate the death penalty for women who deliberately seek out abortions. I don't think discussion isn't going any further.