Hello, Religion Group members.

[Kind of Blue]

I was invited and it's a pleasure to cross-post this OP here.

God Is So Not Pro-Life

Most of us probably know this but I find the following useful in bolstering my counter-arguments IRL about "what God says."

Scriptural truths

Ten biblical episodes and prophecies provide an unequivocal expression of God's attitude toward human life, especially the ontological status of "unborn children" and their pregnant mothers-to-be. Brief summaries:

• A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).
• The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).
• God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).
• Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12).
• King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16).
• Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18).
• For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44: 7-8).
• God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).
• For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).

And good Lord! Jesus on the end times...

"Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).

That's all he had to say!
https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/25602-abortion-rights

Likewise, throughout the history of the early church into the middle-ages, there is little to no mention of abortion as a topic of great alarm – from the days of the Old Testament until modern history. Hence, there is no case to be made for a definitive Christian stance throughout history on the spiritual or moral aspects of abortion. Arguably, three of the most prominent authorities on Christian doctrine and teachings historically would be the Apostle Paul, St. Augustine in the 5th century and St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, and compared to Christian leaders today, these figures are mostly silent on the topic. Traditionally the Church was “tolerant” on abortion before the third trimester, from the time of the early church until the late 19th century.

St. Augustine is considered a Christian doctrinal authority in all respects, helping to shape the Christian religion and finer points of doctrine and practices. His statements and teaching on abortion can be summarized in this quote: “The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.” He was simply reiterating the traditional Jewish view…that the destruction of a fetus could be considered homicide only at a relatively late stage of fetal development.

St. Thomas Aquinas held a similar view in not calling abortion homicide until around the third trimester. Aquinas did not believe in life at conception, but rather “ensoulment.” He offered no defense for abortion, but also did not give the matter much importance in comparison to his other writings.

Abortion was very prevalent in many of the places Paul visited – we know this from other historical texts, and as he mentions in his letters, these cities were brimming with prostitution and illicit sexual activity. In fact, Paul never had a problem speaking out on any topic he believed followers of Christ should pay attention to!

There are 3,000 verses in the Bible that are concerned with social justice, taking care of the poor, the stranger, attitudes of kindness and compassion. It is dominant in the Old Testament and the New Testament and there is no ambiguity.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-truth-about-christianity-and-abortion_b_58f52ed7e4b048372700dab5

[Major Nikon]

1. The whole "pro-life" thing is nothing more than a false moral construct

It started with the RCC which has a policy against all forms of family planning. It's not about "life", it's about controlling sexuality, which the RCC does through guilt and other nefarious methods. Protestants just picked up the baton so the RCC doesn't have a monopoly on self-righteousness.

[Kind of Blue]

5. Thanks for that. I'm assuming the RCC is the Roman Catholic Church.

If so, the history of American RCC on abortion startled me

For most mid-century American Catholics, opposing abortion followed the same logic as supporting social programs for the poor and creating a living wage for workers. Catholic social teachings, outlined in documents such as the 19th-century encyclical Rerum novarum, argued that all life should be preserved, from conception until death, and that the state has an obligation to support this cause. “They believed in expanded pre-natal health insurance, and in insurance that would also provide benefits for women who gave birth to children with disabilities,” Williams said. They wanted a streamlined adoption process, aid for poor women, and federally funded childcare. Though Catholics wanted abortion outlawed, they also wanted the state to support poor women and families."

More here The Progressive Roots of the Pro-Life Movement https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/daniel-williams-defenders-unborn/435369/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. "The sanctity of life" has fck-all to do with it.

I'll give the Pope a little credit for at least being consistent; he also opposes the death penalty and supports anti-poverty initiatives. But the evangelicals are generally in favor of the death penalty and have no interest in doing anything to help babies once they're born, or their mothers. Too poor to support a child? Sucks to be you, you gotta have it anyhow and you and the baby are on your own.

The reason the most recent legislation out of Alabama and other states was made so extreme was to make sure it would be challenged in court so the Supreme Court would (they hope) reverse Roe v. Wade. But previous legislation, however restrictive, has always included exceptions for rape, incest and the life or health of the woman. These exceptions were to make the bills politically palatable enough that they would be passed. But if you want to mess with an evangelical pro-lifer's head, ask them why those exceptions are OK if abortion is murder. The only possible answers can be either that not all abortions are murder or that some kinds of murder are OK. If all unborn embryos/fetuses are equally innocent, why is abortion not murder, or else an OK kind of murder, in some situations or not in others?

They're on a slippery slope and they know it; if abortion could be made illegal in all cases the laws would be completely untenable, so they have to be satisfied with making it illegal in as many cases as possible. But the reason clearly isn't because of the so-called sanctity of life (otherwise they'd insist all abortion is wrong); it's to control women's sexuality and limit their agency.

[Kind of Blue]

6. Good questions and the ones I'm hoping we don't

squirm from IRL and push our leaders to meet head-on by not just addressing women's rights, but firmly include the christo-fascist foundation of this ban.

[MineralMan]

3. Thanks for sharing that here.

Your first list of biblical references could be very useful, I think.

[Kind of Blue]

8. Yeah, they are a godsend... lol

For me, it's worked to change or open a mind every now and then.

[Girard442]

4. You're assuming the Religious Right read their Bibles for guidance.

Don’t even assume they read it at all.

[MineralMan]

7. They claim to. Really, though, they

just listen to their preachers, who read whatever supports their prejudices.

You can find anything in the Bible. Or nothing.

[Voltaire2]

10. Sorry but many can quote whole sections

verbatim. If you think the religious right is just ignorant you are fooling yourself.

[Girard442]

11. There's a big, big difference between parroting cherry-picked verses...

...and reading the whole and comprehending.

[Voltaire2]

13. They comprehend it their way.

And their comprehension is just as valid as yours.

[Girard442]

15. If you say so.

Matthew 6:6

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy
closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

[trotsky]

22. Well it's a damn good thing you've figured out exactly what the bible means.

When can you start explaining to every other Christian on the planet why they're wrong?

[guillaumeb]

24. And we see many such cherry picked arguments here.

Generally from the non-theists.

Ironic.

[Kind of Blue]

12. Yours is a mistaken assumption.

My experience is they read their Bibles especially for guidance. I don't assume that they're completely stupid because they interpret the Bible differently.

[Voltaire2]

9. There are no "scriptural truths". All of the texts

are subject to interpretation and can be interpreted to support any belief on any subject.

[Kind of Blue]

14. Agreed but that's not the point of the OP.

The point is this Christian God is proven in many instances not to give a damn about pregnant women and unborn children. And here's some of the undeniable instances on the "Scriptural truths" list.

[demosincebirth]

16. I don't read the old testament often - just glance through it ocasionly. Too much killing and wars.

To me, that's not a loving and merciful God. The New testament shows what a loving and merciful God through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[Kind of Blue]

18. Agreed, demosincebirth.

I love these words.

"There are 3,000 verses in the Bible that are concerned with social justice, taking care of the poor, the stranger, attitudes of kindness and compassion. It is dominant in the Old Testament and the New Testament and there is no ambiguity."

[safeinOhio]

17. For every written truth...

there is a written loop-hole.

[Kind of Blue]

19. So true, safeinOhio.

And political fundamentalists have used them to their advantage adding meanings not there nor intended.

[safeinOhio]

20. Always point out the Red Letter Bible

and ask about the words of Jesus. All of their loop-holes come from the OT and Paul. As Christians, John, Mathew, Luke and Mark should be their focus and the words of Jesus quoted by them.

[Kind of Blue]

25. Exactly but I prefer

The Essential Jesus by John Dominic Crossan, biblical scholar and a former Roman Catholic priest. The book gets right to the point(s) and so much easier to hold

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. If God wants a say in our legislative process...

...he can drag his ass to the ballots like the rest of us. Otherwise he should shut the fuck up and stay out of our business.

[Kind of Blue]

26. LOL... I hear you, Act_of_Reparation.

[trotsky]

23. It'd be nice if all Christians could agree on one interpretation of the bible, yes.

Why do you suppose that still hasn't happened after 2000 years?

How confident are you that you have interpreted it 100% correctly this time?

[Kind of Blue]

27. Why don't you address the OP?

[uriel1972]

28. I think their point is...

That there are those who will say it is all "METAPHOR" and can be safely ignored.

However, they never seem to say what ripping the unborn child out of it's mother's womb and killing the rest of the family, except the virgin girls whom they will enslave in marriage is a metaphor for. It's all pretty ghastly either way.

[Kind of Blue]

31. Thanks, uriel1972. Safely ignored metaphors are

pretty ghastly. Too many of us here have had to bear the costs of these biblical metaphors used to weaponize the Constitution to protect only conservative Christians.

[trotsky]

33. Who decides what's metaphor and what isn't?

How do you know they're right?

[Kind of Blue]

35. See Post 34. n/t

[trotsky]

37. So everyone decides for themselves, right?

Then stop saying other Christians are wrong.

[uriel1972]

38. Too true...

All these people say the Bible is true*, but when pressed have tended to cherry-pick and selectively quote. Then we get the literalists who will say that some of it is metaphor and poetry, but that these are clearly signposted.

I have read the Bible from go to woe ( and so much woe) at least twice and have my own opinions on what was probably meant. Probably, being the important point.

The Bible was written for various audiences at various times then put together to establish a theocracy. We don't have the same understanding and assumptions, or even the knowledge of the peoples of the past who were the various audiences, so how can we say with any confidence what it was supposed to have meant.




*for a certain value of "True"

[trotsky]

39. "so how can we say with any confidence what it was supposed to have meant"

Nail on the head. We can't - yet there is no shortage of liberal believers who, while they may accept that statement on face value, are all too willing to turn around and condemn the "religious right" for not being Christians at all. I'm not sure if they recognize the contradiction.

[Act_of_Reparation]

40. Bingo.

Ancient books are not arcane treatises on 21st century political ideals.

[trotsky]

29. In the OP, you claim to have a definitive interpretation of what the bible says.

You also claim to know what your god wants.

I find both of those things unnerving, even if your intentions are good.

[Kind of Blue]

30. The point of the OP is that the Christian nationalist

abortion ban efforts in this country now has no scriptural or historical support that the procedure was a top priority. That's just a fact, not an interpretation. You can look up every one of the cited references from Exodus to Hosea to understand context but the point is this religious-political doctrine of sanctity of life at all cost - regardless of rape, incest or the life of the mother - has never been practiced as the extreme right wants to establish.

I cannot agree that the astronomical number of deaths and the destruction of the unborn, women, pregnant women and even animals "caused" by even the whim of a jealous god or wrathful god as just an interpretation.

As to claims of knowing what my "god wants," I don't know what you're talking about.

I find your mischaracterization of the OP unnerving because even if you think my intentions are good, I'm not sure of yours because it seems to be another iteration of tone and language policing with not much else to offer in this battle.

[trotsky]

32. "no scriptural or historical support"

Actually it's got quite a bit of both.

But you get to classify your beliefs as "fact," and theirs as fiction. Just as they do to yours, oddly enough.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" is their basis for saying that the government shouldn't be involved in charity/healthcare/etc. You realize they really do have biblical backing for most of their beliefs, right? You certainly don't agree with their interpretation, but can you really declare them WRONG? Do you allow for the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong?

[Kind of Blue]

34. "Actually it's got quite a bit of both."

None that you've cared to cite.

"You certainly don't agree with their interpretation, but can you really declare them WRONG? Do you allow for the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong?"

I think you're missing the point that it's not about interpretation. Interpretation for religious freedom was settled in the First Amendment.

We can agree to disagree. Thanks for your input.

[trotsky]

36. You want a cite? Fine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

Like British Israelites, Christian Identity (CI) adherents believe in Two House Theology, which makes a distinction between the Tribe of Judah and the Ten Lost Tribes.[39] However the major difference between British Israelism and CI is that British Israelites have always maintained that Jews are descended from the tribe of Judah.[40] In contrast, while also maintaining a Two House distinction, Christian Identity proponents believe that the true lineal descendants of Judah are not contemporary Jews, but are instead White Europeans whose ancestors settled mainly in Scotland, Germany, and other European nations, alongside the House of Israel. In short, Christian Identity adherents believe that instead of modern-day Jews, the true descendents of the Houses of Israel and Judah are the modern-day Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Nordic, and kindred peoples.[39][41] Some CI scholars teach the belief that many contemporary Jews are the descendants of Cain, citing Genesis 3:15, John 8:44 and 1 John 3:12 in support of their position; they also teach that Cain was the spawn of Satan.[42]

Fucked up from our view, but an interpretation of the bible nonetheless, and one that supports their beliefs. Keep your blinders on if you wish, but not acknowledging their theology as being grounded is a huge mistake, I think.

Interpretation for religious freedom was settled in the First Amendment.

Then quit calling other Christians wrong. They're entitled to their own interpretation, and it's just as valid as yours.