Monday, November 5, 2007

More Abortion

A lot happening in the blogosphere lately concerning abortion:
  • On October 29, Joe Carter at EO (point 5) takes note of the 50 millionth abortion in the US happened this year. I previously ran some of the numbers.
  • Point 19 (from the same post), has some interesting speculation on what an abortion museum might look like. One might hope our ancestors will be so enlightened. The pessimist/cynic ("I prefer the term, artificial person" - err, I mean realist) in me says we might not for some time. If we get a Democratic president in '08, it could be another twenty years before the Supreme Court could swing back around. And what would it take to get a definition of life amendment to the Constitution? And why are there no anti-death Democratic presidential candidates?
  • Point 31 - Begins the talk on the science of abortion.
  • Lot of points for Joe!
  • Then on Nov 4, some dude named Garry Wills mumbled about how abortion is not a theological issue. Wills thinks it is rational question. He's wrong, read Exodus 21:22-23. But I like the rational approach, so I will address that.
  • On Nov 5, Albert Mohler and Carl Olson jumped on Wills. But they didn't address the science of the matter.
Am I the only one surprised that pro-death people, characterized by their lofty rationalism, believe in miracles? And pro-life people, largely made of those "dim", "deluded" religious types want to follow the science?

What is the miracle proposed by the pro-choice crowd?


What do you do when the science says that an embryo is a human being? You can use the term, "clump of cells", but someone might ask, "Whose cells are those?" - certainly not the mother's or the father's. Others may cry, "Why not weep over lost hair or skin?" But your hair and skin are adult, differentiated cells. And they are not all of you, the "clump of cells" killed in an abortion are 100% of some new human being.

Simple solution, declare that rights follow from personhood. What is personhood? There's no scientific measure, so it's up to philosophers. And none of them can really agree, but the trend seems to be towards whatever gives enough flexibility for abortions to continue.


nedbrek said...

I'll follow up to myself. How is the guy in this
wrong? How is the court not logically inconsistant?

If an unborn baby is not a person, how is it that fathers, who are held responsible after the "miracle" of birth, are not permitted to request death?

If a women can kill her baby because she is not ready, why can't a man do the same?

braverdave said...

Good follow up, Ned.

I don't think he (the father in the CNN article) is wrong in his logic but I don't agree with abortion. Life is cheap enough as it is in this world. If people are going to have sex they should be prepared for the consequences.

Re: your original post ... I am always surprised when pro-lifers who like to cite Biblical passages in their argument are unaware of Exodus 21:22-23. What's your take on the passage?

nedbrek said...

Some translations use "miscarriage" for the first part. Here is a good exegesis of the Hebrew.

The only pro-choice interpretation a quick Googling turns up is here.

The second uses English translations, and an appeal to Jewish authorities.

I find the first analysis to be a lot more compelling.

braverdave said...

Hey Ned, that Stand to Reason site you linked to is excellent. Thanks for the tip. Another essay on there caught my eye and I will post a link to it on the super giant thread.

Thanks again and I have a gift for you in return. Here is one of my favourite research tools;

Unbound Bible