Stumble it!Pope: “Little balls of goo are human.”
posted in Abortion by themaiden |Poetically speaking, he may be right. Or perhaps, “humans are little balls of goo”? Hmmm….
The current Pope has stepped into the abortion debate and stated that “God sees embryos as “full and complete” humans” and that “The loving eyes of God look on the human being, considered full and complete at its beginning…”
World News Article | Reuters.co.uk
He cites Psalm 139 as evidence.
In Psalm 139, the psalmist says to God: “Thou didst see my limbs unformed in the womb, and in thy book they are all recorded.”
It is interesting to me that he chose to cite a poet, a human, talking to God rather than citing a verse where God, purportedly, is talking to man. I’d recommend Exodus 21:22-23.
22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
Footnotes:
a. Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-23&version=31
Notice that if a pregnant woman is injured and she gives birth prematurely, the offender must be fined. It is only if the woman is seriously injured or killed that the case is treated as an assault or a murder. To me, this is a real deal killer for any Biblically based anti-abortion arguments that depend upon the idea that the fetus is a human life. God, rather clearly says otherwise.
Now there are some complicated linguistic arguments, such as one I found at ChristianCourier.com, designed to counter the pretty obvious rendering of this verse. These argument hinge upon the idea that this verse does not refer to a stillbirth but merely to a premature birth. That is, the part of the verse refering to the fine only refers to a miscarriage where the infant survives. The “life for a life” rule applies if the fetus or the mother are seriously injured in this process.
Before touching on the specifics of this counter-argument, lets think about this situation a bit. Exodus was written thousands of years ago by nomadic peoples living in harsh conditions. Now, what are the chances, honestly, that a premature birth would survive? Just fifty years ago in the United States a child born less than 30 weeks into a pregnancy had little chance of survival. Thirty weeks is seven and a half months, well into the third trimester. Two and a half thousand years ago, in the desert, I’d guess the rates of death would be even higher. That means that is most cases where a woman gives birth prematurely, the fetus would die. This would be the general rule, by a wide margin. Does it really make sense then that God is refering to a miscarriage as a live birth? I can’t make sense of the claim that it does. Why refer nonchalantly to the ridiculously uncommon case rather than to the vastely more common one?
Now lets take a look at the liguistic argument given at ChristianCourier.com.
We must observe, though, that some translations have given credence to this erroneous viewpoint by rendering the word “depart” as miscarriage. The Revised Standard Version reads: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage . . .” (cf. NASB). The liberal commentary, The Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon, 1952), as well as other commentaries, also accommodate this view.
However, there is absolutely no evidence that a dead fetus is under consideration in this passage. The fact is, the Hebrew language has a term (shachol) that denotes an abortion, or miscarriage (see 2 Kgs. 2:21; Hos. 9:14), yet that word is not employed in this context. This passage deals with a premature birth, not an aborted fetus.
The Hebrew word rendered “depart” is yasa, basically meaning “to go (come) out.” Though the word has a wide variety of uses in the Old Testament, it is frequently employed of an ordinary birth. God told Jeremiah, “ . . .before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you . . .” (Jer. 1:5). In Exodus 21:22 the verb is used “of untimely birth” (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, p. 423), or of “premature birth” (cf. NIV; NKJV).
As for the first paragraph and the second as well, it is hard to take it as more than pure sophistry. Indeed, much of this liguistic argument is the same. There is precious little difference “make a child go out of its mother’s womb”, or “untimely birth” and “miscarriage”. Also, to put it into perspective, it is quite common to say “passed away” even though English has a perfectly good phrase for dying– kicking the bucket. To argue so critical an issue based upon choice of words is to ignore the dynamics of language.
It is illustrative to note the similarity to other law from around the same time.
Code of Hammurabi (209, 210) which reads: “If a seignior struck a[nother] seignior’s daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death.”
Hittite Laws, (1.17): “If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver…” The phrase “drives out the embryo” appears to relate to a miscarriage rather than to a premature birth.
We are told that Hebrew has a perfectly good word for abortion, or miscarriage, and that the term is found in 2 Kings 2:21, and Hosea 9:14. I challenge anyone to find a reference to abortion or miscarriage in 2 kings 2:21, and in Hosea… well, God is being asked to cause miscarriages, to make women unable to give birth– that is, to make them infertile.
2 Kings 2:21: And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the LORD, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren [land].
Blue Letter BibleHosea 9:14: Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
The Hebrew word shachol can mean ‘miscarry’. It can also mean bereaved, and make childless, or make barren.
1) to be bereaved, make childless, miscarry
a) (Qal) to be bereaved
b) (Piel)
1) to make childless
2) to cause barrenness, show barrenness or abortion
3) to miscarry
c) (Hiphil) miscarrying (participle)
It is in its sense of “make barren” that the word appears in 2 Kings, and it could be any of the senses in Hosea, but pick whichever sense you prefer, the passage shows no concern for the fetus. It simply isn’t an issue.
Then I’d recommend that the Pope read Numbers 5:27, where we are given God’s instructions on how to perform an abortion.
Num 5:27
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, [that], if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, [and become] bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
In other words, if she cheated, the baby will die. This is God sanctioned abortion, albiet via magic. (For those still hanging onto the linguistic arguments, note that here the fetus is refered to as the woman’s thigh.)
So perhaps the Pope ought to stop decrying abortion and start feeding pregnant women with dust from the Vatican floor.
Popularity: 1%
