Sanders: Communism Light...

[Starlight]

If you're operating within a Christian system of ethics, you don't proceed to make conclusions based on what God might do.

So you don't have a reason.

[Tassman]

[The murder of a fetus has been condemned as early as the 1st and 2nd Century.[/b]


Starting with the New Testament, Luke 1:41, 44 clearly reveals that babies were considered alive and responsive while still in their mother's womb. That means killing them would have been regarded as the same as murder. And that is something repeatedly condemned.

List of Church Father and Jewish Rabbis from 1st and 2nd Century condemning abortion

• I Enoch
• Sibylline Oracles
• Pseudo-Phocylides
• Flavius Josephus
• Didache
• Apocalypse of Peter
• Epistle of Barnabas
• Origen
• Athenagoras of Athens
• Tertullian
• I Enoch
• Cyprian
• Clement of Alexandria
• Hippolytus of Rome
• Basil the Great
• Jerome
• Apostolic Constitutions
• Synod of Elvira
• Synod Ancyra
• John Chrysostom
• 3rd ecumenical council (Chalcedon)

Oh, this tired old nonsense from the anti-abortion websites again. The fact is, regardless of this long list of cherry-picked sources – presumably intended to overwhelm with a "vast array of evidence" (embarrassingly non-biblical) abortion was NOT a major issue for either Judaism or Christianity over long periods of time.

The Jewish state of Israel virtually has abortion on demand. And the Protestant Churches (notably the Evangelical ones) only began to seriously regard it as homicide c.50 years ago. The Catholic Church has a longer history of opposition but often not for the destruction of a human body implanted with a soul (as is the argument nowadays) but for reasons other than that. E.g. “Augustine declared that abortion is not homicide but was a sin if it was intended to conceal fornication or adultery. During the period of 600-1500, illicit intercourse was deemed by the Irish Canons to be a greater sin than abortion".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12178868

[simplicio]

Oh, this tired old nonsense from the anti-abortion websites again. The fact is, regardless of this long list of cherry-picked sources – presumably intended to overwhelm with a "vast array of evidence" (embarrassingly non-biblical) abortion was NOT a major issue for either Judaism or Christianity over long periods of time.

The Jewish state of Israel virtually has abortion on demand. And the Protestant Churches (notably the Evangelical ones) only began to seriously regard it as homicide c.50 years ago. The Catholic Church has a longer history of opposition but often not for the destruction of a human body implanted with a soul (as is the argument nowadays) but for reasons other than that. E.g. “Augustine declared that abortion is not homicide but was a sin if it was intended to conceal fornication or adultery. During the period of 600-1500, illicit intercourse was deemed by the Irish Canons to be a greater sin than abortion".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12178868

A question for Christians here: Is this post, read in isolation, pro or anti-abortion rights?

Many Christians approach all of theology expecting the church through the ages to think just like we do today. But that is not the case for any number of topics.

Another question is whether seeing this post as having validity is some betrayal of the faith, or a rejection. (I know, two questions is a bit much)

Yes, I recognize that Tassman and Star are atheists AND they support permissive abortion laws, even seeing it as a right.

[simplicio]

And now you use Scripture which you don't even believe in? And using one's tax dollars to pay for services like roads, fire and police is one thing, paying for another person's food, housing, health care is another.

So the common good only extends to communal goods like highways and fire protection, but not access to food housing and healthcare?

Might want to examine the scriptures which you claim to believe in!

Seems the anarcho-capitalist Christians cannot s=decide where the dividing line between social welfare policies and socialist policies.

[seer]

So the common good only extends to communal goods like highways and fire protection, but not access to food housing and healthcare?

The point is, they are two different things. One is paying for a service the other is charity.

Might want to examine the scriptures which you claim to believe in!

My Church, as I linked, does a lot to help the poor. So we do follow Scripture.

[Sparko]

A question for Christians here: Is this post, read in isolation, pro or anti-abortion rights?

Many Christians approach all of theology expecting the church through the ages to think just like we do today. But that is not the case for any number of topics.

Another question is whether seeing this post as having validity is some betrayal of the faith, or a rejection. (I know, two questions is a bit much)

Yes, I recognize that Tassman and Star are atheists AND they support permissive abortion laws, even seeing it as a right.

Dude, just admit you are posing as a Christian. Your posts make it so obvious!

[rogue06]

So the common good only extends to communal goods like highways and fire protection, but not access to food housing and healthcare?

Might want to examine the scriptures which you claim to believe in!

Seems the anarcho-capitalist Christians cannot s=decide where the dividing line between social welfare policies and socialist policies.

So in your mind the only way for Christians to help the poor is to have the government do it for them. That we should just sit back and take absolutely no personal responsibility. Like if we see someone freezing or starving we can safely ignore them because, hey we paid our taxes so we did our job, and just keep walking on by pleased with ourselves for having helped so much.

[JimL]

So in your mind the only way for Christians to help the poor is to have the government do it for them. That we should just sit back and take absolutely no personal responsibility. Like if we see someone freezing or starving we can safely ignore them because, hey we paid our taxes so we did our job, and just keep walking on by pleased with ourselves for having helped so much.

I don't see where simplicio suggested that at all. Btw, you, we, are the government, so when the government initiates policies to help the poor, or to say to hell with them, it is we the people who make that decision. That doesn't mean that taking personal responsibility is therefore outlawed or something.

[Leonhard]

So you don't have a reason.

"Starlight: Is it too hard for God to have foreknowledge and know if a fetus would be aborted and refrain from putting a soul in it if that is going to happen? And if that's too hard, is it too hard for him to wait til after the abortion and then stick the soul of an aborted fetus into a newly conceived fetus?
Leonhard: Of all attempted defenses of abortion within a Christian ethics framework, done by a pro-abortionist, this has got to be the worst arguments I've seen.
Starlight: Reason?
Leonhard: If you're operating within a Christian system of ethics, you don't proceed to make conclusions based on what God might do."

This was our discussion. You posted a bad argument, I called it out as bad, you asked why, I proceeded to give an explanation of one of many critical flaws in it. Stating "So you don't have a reason" not only makes you come off as stupid Starlight, but as completely disingenous.

[Leonhard]

A question for Christians here: Is this post, read in isolation, pro or anti-abortion rights?

It is falsehood in the service of pro-abortion rights.

[Leonhard]

Oh, this tired old nonsense from the anti-abortion websites again ... cherry-picked sources

Please don't lie Tassman, of the facts listed, only the list of Jewish scholars and Church Fathers came from a pro-life website. The rest came either from an ancient commentary on the Talmud, and the other came from the website you repeated ad nauseum back in the day www.myjewishlearning.com.

Your contention is that abortion was not condemned in the vast majority of Christian history, so I find you evidence of the major Christian and Jewish leaders and scholars condemning it. That is not cherry-picking, that is quite literally evidence.

abortion was NOT a major issue for either Judaism or Christianity over long periods of time.

You keep stating this, but where is the evidence? You keep citing either the behaviour of modern day secular jews which are irrelevant to this discussion, or you cherry-pick a quote from a modern day commentator. That's about it.

The Jewish state of Israel virtually has abortion on demand.

Yes, and so what? Your point wasn't that modern day secular jews support abortion, but that in fact throughout the majority of Christian and Jewish history, abortion was not considered evil.

The Catholic Church has a longer history of opposition but often not for the destruction of a human body implanted with a soul (as is the argument nowadays)

Actually of all the people I've ever seen arguing against abortion, the only people I've seen using arguments about souls, are atheists parodying Christians. Look up the Ideological Turing Test, when you're arguing with a person you ought to be able to represents the persons ideological view so faithfully the person would accept your position as theirs, or you have failed to understand it and therefore cannot consistently argue against it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12178868

I'm impressed. You've found one of the few articles on pubmed without any kind of peer review. The point it makes is irrelevant. Abortion was condemend, severely so. That it was slightly less severely condemned than some other evil doesn't do anything here.

[Sparko]

Please don't lie Tassman, of the facts listed, only the list of Jewish scholars and Church Fathers came from a pro-life website. The rest came either from an ancient commentary on the Talmud, and the other came from the website you repeated ad nauseum back in the day www.myjewishlearning.com.

Your contention is that abortion was not condemned in the vast majority of Christian history, so I find you evidence of the major Christian and Jewish leaders and scholars condemning it. That is not cherry-picking, that is quite literally evidence.



You keep stating this, but where is the evidence? You keep citing either the behaviour of modern day secular jews which are irrelevant to this discussion, or you cherry-pick a quote from a modern day commentator. That's about it.



Yes, and so what? Your point wasn't that modern day secular jews support abortion, but that in fact throughout the majority of Christian and Jewish history, abortion was not considered evil.



Actually of all the people I've ever seen arguing against abortion, the only people I've seen using arguments about souls, are atheists parodying Christians. Look up the Ideological Turing Test, when you're arguing with a person you ought to be able to represents the persons ideological view so faithfully the person would accept your position as theirs, or you have failed to understand it and therefore cannot consistently argue against it.



I'm impressed. You've found one of the few articles on pubmed without any kind of peer review. The point it makes is irrelevant. Abortion was condemend, severely so. That it was slightly less severely condemned than some other evil doesn't do anything here.

It was also so universally condemned by society in general that there was no need to mount a large public against it. It was taken as a given that abortion was wrong in most religious societies until the mid-20th Century.

[Leonhard]

It was also so universally condemned by society in general that there was no need to mount a large public against it. It was taken as a given that abortion was wrong in most religious societies until the mid-20th Century.

I think the best one can do is argue about how strongly it was condemned. What sort of punishments were prescribed, compared to other crimes. But that still belies the point. Because legality is not the same thing as morality. People tend to forget that many medieval theologians considered prostitution something that shouldn't be a crime. Not because it wasn't immoral, but because such laws ultimately did more harm than good. Similarly modern day pro-lifers don't make an argument that women who procured abortion should be punished as murderers, or even at all.

We impose laws to create a regulated society, one where on the balance more justice occurs and things are more in accordance with what is good. All laws have to be balanced against what effects they will have.

[simplicio]

Dude, just admit you are posing as a Christian. Your posts make it so obvious!

Why? You discerned that from the post?

Maybe it is because the post contained some difficult reflective questions, and you see no room for reflection in the Christian life. In which case, maybe you are the poseur. Self righteousness is so becoming on the Christian.

[simplicio]

It is falsehood in the service of pro-abortion rights.

Where is the falsehood in that post, other than the blatant editorializing in the first paragraph (tired old nonsense, cherry picked sources, embarrassingly nonbiblical)? I would dare say his post's main theme is that abortion was not a major issue for the church through the ages. The second paragraph rolled off a series of clear statements, statements which are not mere editorializing, but they can be examined.