Why Democrats Can�t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[Terraceth]

This war has raged for pretty much my entire life - with no signs of abating. If the right successfully has Roe vs. Wade overturned, the left will rise up in a tide, eventually displace the judges that made that decision, or perhaps pad the court, and shift the decision back again. Then the right will continue their fight...and on and on and on.

Not so sure about that. While there have been overturns, to my knowledge no decision of the Supreme Court has ever un-overturned a case. I suppose someone could say that's because it's been "only" 230 years since its establishment and thus there hasn't been time for it, but it still shows rarity.

I doubt we'll see an overturn soon anyway; I'm not sure the numbers are there. If it is ever overturned (as I believe it should be), it'll probably be years in the future after various restrictions on Roe v. Wade/Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Supreme Court didn't wake up one day and decide to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education*, there were a number of cases beforehand which put some restrictions on segregation before the Supreme Court finally decided to dispense with it. Then again, the Lochner era more or less did end with one of the justices waking up one day and deciding to rule differently on the subject of "liberty of contract" than he had previously...

Too bad Anthony Kennedy chickened out about completely overruling Roe v. Wade back in 1992. Doing so would've still been controversial, but ripping that bandage off wouldn't hurt as much as it would now.

*Contrary to what you'll hear, Brown v. Board of Education did not technically overrule Plessy v. Feguson; Plessy v. Ferguson concerned train cars, while Brown v. Board of Education was about schools. Indeed, an argument raised on the part of the plaintiff (Brown) was that Plessy v. Ferguson wasn't applicable to their situation for that reason. However, Brown v. Board of Education marked the start of a new anti-segregation jurispudence, and that new jurispudence effectively overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Roy]

Heaven is full of embryos, fetuses, babies, and small children.

They never mature? What would be the point of being in heaven as a fertilised egg?

[Starlight]

They never mature? What would be the point of being in heaven as a fertilised egg?

You'd think God would instead decide they hadn't got a fair shot at life and stick their soul into a new fetus. Or, even, y'know, use his omniscience to know the fetus wasn't going to make it to term and so not stick a soul in it in the first place.

Apparently he prefers a heaven full of fertilized eggs. I'm left imagining something like this...

[Christianbookworm]

They can grow up!

[oxmixmudd]

The argument in this case isn't about abortion but making the claim that the Bible places less value (materially and morally) on an unborn child, but that interpretation requires you to add words to the English translation that aren't in the original Hebrew. Anytime you have to add to the Bible to make your case then you're wrong by default.

No mm. Its the meaning of the text as understood at least from 250BC until the latter half of the 20th century.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

No mm. Its the meaning of the text as understood at least from 250BC until the latter half of the 20th century.

Except the word "other" or "further" isn't in the original text, and adding it completely changes the meaning. Also, the text does not use the Hebrew word for "miscarriage".

[oxmixmudd]

Except the word "other" or "further" isn't in the original text, and adding it completely changes the meaning. Also, the text does not use the Hebrew word for "miscarriage".

Unfortunately that isnt relevant. The people given the text, the people that lived it out, applied in their culture, that spoke its language, that interpreted it day in and day out hundreds of years before christ, understood this text to mean a miscarriage. That understanding crossed into the christian faith as evidenced by the text in the vulgate, and it has remained until the modern abortion debate. The driver for the alternate, modern rendering preferred by yourself and piper is not the language, the historical or culturally accurate rendering, but rather a desire to simplify the abortion debate in the evangelical church and especially as a counter to those that would use the accurate, historical understanding of the text to justify abortion.


Jim

[Roy]

They can grow up!

Can you elaborate?

[lilpixieofterror]

No mm. Its the meaning of the text as understood at least from 250BC until the latter half of the 20th century.

Jim

Which was centuries after the text was written.

[lilpixieofterror]

Unfortunately that isnt relevant. The people given the text, the people that lived it out, applied in their culture, that spoke its language, that interpreted it day in and day out hundreds of years before christ, understood this text to mean a miscarriage. That understanding crossed into the christian faith as evidenced by the text in the vulgate, and it has remained until the modern abortion debate. The driver for the alternate, modern rendering preferred by yourself and piper is not the language, the historical or culturally accurate rendering, but rather a desire to simplify the abortion debate in the evangelical church and especially as a counter to those that would use the accurate, historical understanding of the text to justify abortion.


Jim

Acting like the Jews of the third century BC had the same understanding as their ancestors that lived 1000+ years before them is ridiculous.

[oxmixmudd]

Which was centuries after the text was written.

That is truly irrelevant pix. They were IN the culture of the text at the time. We are NOT. we are an additional 2200 years later, and we are completely disconnected from the actual culture that lived those words and understood their meaning.

The Jewish tradition, however, stretches all the way back to that time, and CONTINUED to understand the text as I have shown the entire time, as evidenced by what I quoted and llnked to in my previous post (did you read it?). Further that understanding was the Christian understanding as well right up until modern times. There is no leg to stand on here pix. Interpreting the text as referring to something other than a miscarriage is a modern invention, out of time, out of culture, out of language. That it means a miscarriage is clear. I've always seen it as meaning that just reading the NASV translation which is quite accurate in its rendering of the Hebrew. So has every Christian scholar I have found so far that precedes modern times, and all Jewish Hebrew scholars I can find so far.

Given the correct rendering does not, in fact, give real support to the idea of abortion (it is after all talking about an accidental effect) it is a travesty that we would so disrespect the Hebrew scripture and the millenia of understanding of its meaning just to make it a tad bit easier to hold a specific position on abortion.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Acting like the Jews of the third century BC had the same understanding as their ancestors that lived 1000+ years before them is ridiculous.

Acting like a small subset of Christianity only present in the last 40 years or so would know better 4000+ years later what is ridiculous pix. That culture in 250BC that did the translation to the septuagint was directly connected to the original Hebrews producing the text. The tradition of copying the Hebrew text and handing down the traditions of the priesthood was extremely rigorous. It is why we have a text that is with almost certainty only a few pen strokes different than whatever the original was. These we not 'old' laws in an 'old' culture written in an ancient language. This we THE law in THEIR culture written in THEIR own language.To presume their understanding of this text would be somehow less likely to be accurate than what some small subset of theologians has derived only recently in a very biased and hostile environment is truly absurd.

Yes it is perhaps 'convenient' to dismiss that historical understanding for modern evangelicals that tend to have little respect for scholarship or learning or tradition. It rids one of those nagging doubts and uncertainties that can come through understanding. Nevertheless, it is wrong.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

That is truly irrelevant pix. They were IN the culture of the text at the time. We are NOT. we are an additional 2200 years later, and we are completely disconnected from the actual culture that lived those words and understood their meaning.

The Jewish tradition, however, stretches all the way back to that time, and CONTINUED to understand the text as I have shown the entire time, as evidenced by what I quoted and llnked to in my previous post (did you read it?). Further that understanding was the Christian understanding as well right up until modern times. There is no leg to stand on here pix. Interpreting the text as referring to something other than a miscarriage is a modern invention, out of time, out of culture, out of language. That it means a miscarriage is clear. I've always seen it as meaning that just reading the NASV translation which is quite accurate in its rendering of the Hebrew. So has every Christian scholar I have found so far that precedes modern times, and all Jewish Hebrew scholars I can find so far.

Given the correct rendering does not, in fact, give real support to the idea of abortion (it is after all talking about an accidental effect) it is a travesty that we would so disrespect the Hebrew scripture and the millenia of understanding of its meaning just to make it a tad bit easier to hold a specific position on abortion.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Acting like the Jews of the third century BC had the same understanding as their ancestors that lived 1000+ years before them is ridiculous.

I see so far no one has actually dealt with the substance of my post. here is the link to it again if perhaps latecomers missed its content.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post612315

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Acting like a small subset of Christianity only present in the last 40 years or so would know better 4000+ years later what is ridiculous pix. That culture in 250BC that did the translation to the septuagint was directly connected to the original Hebrews producing the text. The tradition of copying the Hebrew text and handing down the traditions of the priesthood was extremely rigorous. It is why we have a text that is with almost certainty only a few pen strokes different than whatever the original was. These we not 'old' laws in an 'old' culture written in an ancient language. This we THE law in THEIR culture written in THEIR own language.To presume their understanding of this text would be somehow less likely to be accurate than what some small subset of theologians has derived only recently in a very biased and hostile environment is truly absurd.

Yes it is perhaps 'convenient' to dismiss that historical understanding for modern evangelicals that tend to have little respect for scholarship or learning or tradition. It rids one of those nagging doubts and uncertainties that can come through understanding. Nevertheless, it is wrong.


Jim

Asserted, not shown. Have you ever you know, read the entire Bible?