|
NAVIGATION
|
NEWS TIPS!
RightMichigan.com
Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?Tweets about "#RightMi, -YoungLibertyMI, -dennislennox,"
 |
The moral argument against abortionBy Theblogprof, Section News
This is one post in a series focusing on the issue of pro-life leading up to the critical 2010 elections, which will be a turning point for this state and the nation. Life is under attack. Not only the unborn, but also our seniors. With the health care boondoggle coming down the pike, life will further be devalued, more babies butchered, and the elderly subject to death panels that will calculate the worthiness of a treatment based upon how many years such a panel determines that person might benefit (this is called "comparative effectiveness" and only figures on 2 things: cost and age. And that's it!). We must arm ourselves with knowledge, and fight such devaluing as it affects us all as a society.
We all live within the framework of certain laws. I'm not talking about man made laws, but rather universal laws that were imposed by The Creator over which we have no control. After all, only those that impose a law can repeal it. There are several levels of natural laws, which in my estimation are as follows in order:
 As you go down the list, there is more controversy and debate. For instance, laws of logic give little leeway to debate. You are either reading this or you are not. True-false statements, 0 or 1, are the basis for all computers. Mathematics is next and takes largely from laws of logic. Laws of science include the fundamental precepts that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that outside a nuclear reaction mass cannot be created nor destroyed, that the universe must increase in disorder upon any type of change whatsoever (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). I want to today focus on the 4th level of laws. For those that would argue that there is no such thing as moral laws, I would beg to differ. As a matter of fact, sociologists have recognized for some time that there are certain human behaviors that are universal and independent of culture, language, geographic location, race, ethnicity or a whole host of identifications. For instance, leaving your family to die while you seek to save yourself is universally condemned in all cultures. Plenty of examples around such as that one. Continued below the fold...
The question is, where do moral laws come from? Moral laws operate on the premise that there is right and wrong, which is why any such precept is under attack in our increasingly relativistic culture. I should note, however, that truth is truth regardless of what one thinks about it. That being said, I haven't talked with anyone that doesn't believe in moral law, just what they are and where they come from. Our Founding Fathers (a term now banned in education textbooks) knew where moral authority, and thus our individual rights came from - The Creator. The God of the Bible. If not for this book of moral law, where would one go to be grounded in what is right and wrong? Man?
I won't review all moral laws and implications here, but will instead focus on what The Creator who endowed us with unalienable rights had to say specifically on the unborn. There are both Old and New Testament passages that specifically forbid the killing of children. For one, both the biblical Hebrew text as well as the koine greek language did not differentiate between born and unborn babies. In both instances, the same word is used. For instance, the greek Brephos means "infant" and is used both for born and unborn children. (If you want to be able to look up original words from the original bible, garb this free software: ISA Internlinear Scripture Analyzer. That ought to get anyone off to a good start). There are a ton of websites that give biblical evidence for life, but I will focus only on a few, and then give some references for further reading. One of the most striking passages for me, at least in the New Testament, is in Luke Ch 1 starting at verse 39. In this chapter, a barely pregnant teenager Mary went to visit Elizabeth, likely to flee the chance of getting stoned to death for being pregnant outside of wedlock (good thing an angel explained the situation to Joseph!): (NIV version) 39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!"A few things here. First, Elizabeth identified Mary as a mother, even though she was barely pregnant! Jesus would have been a zygote at best at this time. Babies are a blessing, and Mary was already thus blessed. Also, John the Baptist, still unborn at this time, perceived Jesus' presence and jumped for joy! Let me ask you a serious question. If Mary was alive today and had become pregnant, and chose to have an abortion instead, what would she have aborted? That question sends a chill down my spine. For balance, I will give one reference that sticks out in my mind from the Old Testament as well - Exodus 21 starting at verse 22: 22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely 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, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.Some translations mistakenly refer to the premature birth as "miscarriage." Or "stillborn." The literal Hebrew translates to "separate from her fruit." So premature delivery is more appropriate. Almost everyone knows the "eye for an eye" command, but not the context. Some liberal theologians argue that verse 23 refers to the injury of the woman, not the baby. Logic, however, begs to differ as there would be no sense in mentioning the pregnancy or delivery in 22 leading into 23 in that case. That's why they're called liberal theologians.
There are plenty (and I mean A LOT) of other references, some of which others would point to before the one's I listed). For further reading that goes far deeper into the Bible than I did here, I will suggest these two posts among many other possibilities: Read them and arm yourselves with this knowledge as it is the consequence of moral law that God Himself has set up! This will give you a moral foundation from which to argue against abortion! Next week, I will cover the scientific case against abortion.
Previously in this series:
Share This:
The moral argument against abortion | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden)
The moral argument against abortion | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden)
|
 |
