Is the Media Unfair to McCain?

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Abortion is problematic. There isn't another relationship where the lives of two individuals are so intertwined. The question is who's rights are to be respected? Should the government have the power to essentially seize a woman's body and force her to give birth against her will or should the decision (right or wrong) be left up to individual women? To empower the government to seize a woman's body and force her to give birth is to extend government guardianship over both the woman and her unborn child. So in order to protect individual sovereignty the choice to abort (right or wrong) is granted to women as individuals.

Also....how will criminalizing abortion be enforced? No court in the land will prosecute a woman for murder if she aborts. No woman will be executed for committing an abortion. No woman will even been sentenced to prison time for procuring an abortion. Odds are the government would fine women who procure abortions. This does two things. First, it reduces the value of human life to that of a traffic ticket. Second, it becomes something for the government to use to generate revenue.

My wife and I know a woman who had a pregnancy with complications. The woman consulted with several doctors on staff. She was told by some that she should consider aborting...she was told by others that it may be premature to make such a decision. She made her choice and kept the child but naturally lost it later. Here's the deal...if it were my wife and we were faced with such a decision, that choice should be ours not Washington's.

No doubt too many women abuse their right to choose. Those women will answer to God severely as individuals. As individuals they made their choices and as individuals they will be judged as to if their choices were necessary. We must preach the value of life and admonish women to choose life unless faced with the most dire of circumstances. But in the end, for better or worse, the choice is best left in the hands of individual women.

Here's something that bothers me. The Republicans have politicized the issue. Prolife people blame Democrats for unnecessary abortions MORE than the vile, filthy, murderous, abominable women who procure them. I say we need to hold women accountable. I'd say that a church would be within it's right to deny baptism or the Lord's Supper to a woman who has procured an abortion. But here's the deal...preachers rather blame Democrats and wimp out with confronting murderous women...because if they attend they might give offerings. Some might think that my suggestion is extreme. It's no more extreme than the idea of executing women. In fact...it's far more serious a penalty, it delivers eternal damnation. The church needs to use the clout she has to bind sin on people instead of allowing one political party to politicize it. And maybe what I said is offensive to some. If so, I apologize. Maybe I'm speaking from my feelings about the subject. My over all point is that we have to address this issue by addressing women individually.

In a fallen world life and death decisions are made every day. Some are necessary and some are not. Those are the cold hard facts of life.

Aquila, if a government is given the right to force a woman to have a baby, it also makes it possible for the government to force a woman not to have a baby. The decision to have or have a baby needs to be the mother's, not the government's.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Aquila

ReformedDave

If it is the government's responsibility to protect the unborn by seizing a pregnant woman's body and forcing her to give birth...shouldn't it provide health insurance to cover the unborn child and mother, and extend said coverage to protect them after the birth of the child? What makes you care so much for the child's life before birth...but then render it expendable to preserve the free market social darwinism in health care that you preach after it's born?

A consistent life ethic will seek to protect and preserve life and health as policy from womb to tomb. Also consider, a national health care system brings the will of the tax payer into the issue like never before....abortion can be something heavily regulated by the system as in Ireland's universal health care system if we take health care from being strictly a private industry.

IN is a very pro-child insurance state. The income threshold for children to qualify for Medi-Caid is very high. Adults in a family will not quallify, but children almost always will.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Rico

Aquila, if a government is given the right to force a woman to have a baby, it also makes it possible for the government to force a woman not to have a baby. The decision to have or have a baby needs to be the mother's, not the government's.

And then there's that.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Rico

IN is a very pro-child insurance state. The income threshold for children to qualify for Medi-Caid is very high. Adults in a family will not quallify, but children almost always will.

That's like saying it's our duty to preserve the life and health of a child...but his or her parents are expendable.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've spoken to a few rabbis about abortion. You do realize that in ancient Israel the right of the unborn to live was not recognized, especially if the woman was guilty of adultery. The oral tradition stated that a woman's execution was sure...even if pregnant because the Law of God made no provision for protecting the unborn. The only acception was if she were "on the stool" and giving birth at the moment. In fact the trial by ordeal was designed to not only determine an adulterous woman's guilt...it's purpose was also to destroy the seed in her womb.

Also they have a different interpretation of a passage we commonly use to defend the life ethic. Here it is (just for academic purposes):

Exodus 21:22-25
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her (miscarriage), and yet no mischief follow (she suffers no further harm): he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow (the woman sustains physical injury from the attack), then thou shalt give life for life,
24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Rabbinical authorities point out that this text is primarily concerned with the woman's physical well being after an accidental miscarriage. It is taken for granted that the child dies....the focus is the woman's welfare. The death of the child is an issue of paying restitution as the father demands and as the judges determine. But if the woman sustains further injury they are to render injury for injury.

I know that's not a popular interpretation among us...but it is a viable traditional interpretation that goes back to antiquity and was actually in place in ancient Israel.

Either way, the issue of abortion is best left in the hands of individual women.

Can those rabbis substantiate their position from scripture or is this their tradition?

I'm glad you quoted from the Exodus passage but I believe you've mis-interpreted it. The ESV renders the passage as such: Exodus 21:22-24 22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, "

This is clear that if the woman is hit and the child is born and no harm is done either to the mother or child the man should be fined. However, if the child or mother is harmed equal retribution is to be obtained.

The term in the Hebrew it’s a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means “the child comes forth". It does not automatically mean to be born dead. There are many other places where the term 'yasa' is used and they are as follows:

Genesis 1:24 “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’; and it was so.”

Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] “Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth....”

Genesis 15:4 “This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body....”

Genesis 25:25-26 “Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob.”

1 Kings 8:19 “Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you, he shall build the house for My name.”

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

2 Kings 20:18 “And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.”

Notice how all of these passages refer to 'live' babies/things-

There is only one place, that I'm aware of, in scripture where the term is used in relation to dead baby- Numbers 12:12- "Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!"

The context is crystal clear that it should be a miscarriage not like the passages above. We don't infer that the child was dead from the term 'yasa' but from the context of the passage. The term itself has nothing to do with alive or dead. It must be taken by the context of the passage.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

ReformedDave

If it is the government's responsibility to protect the unborn by seizing a pregnant woman's body and forcing her to give birth...shouldn't it provide health insurance to cover the unborn child and mother, and extend said coverage to protect them after the birth of the child? What makes you care so much for the child's life before birth...but then render it expendable to preserve the free market social darwinism in health care that you preach after it's born?

A consistent life ethic will seek to protect and preserve life and health as policy from womb to tomb. Also consider, a national health care system brings the will of the tax payer into the issue like never before....abortion can be something heavily regulated by the system as in Ireland's universal health care system if we take health care from being strictly a private industry.

How is it immoral or unethical for a government to protect the life of a pre-born infant but moral to protect the life of a 'post' born infant?

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Rico

Aquila, if a government is given the right to force a woman to have a baby, it also makes it possible for the government to force a woman not to have a baby. The decision to have or have a baby needs to be the mother's, not the government's.

The problem is that when a woman becomes pregnant the choice is already made. The government doesn't use forced in vitro-fertilization to impregnate and it should not use force to end the pregnancy. As the baby is a life the government has the obligation to protect it.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

How is it immoral or unethical for a government to protect the life of a pre-born infant but moral to protect the life of a 'post' born infant?

My point is that we either have a society that protects life and health from womb to tomb or we don't. You want to protect the unborn but allow them or their mother to die of disease if they can't afford treatment. If I consider the prolife position...it's all or nothing.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

The problem is that when a woman becomes pregnant the choice is already made. The government doesn't use forced in vitro-fertilization to impregnate and it should not use force to end the pregnancy. As the baby is a life the government has the obligation to protect it.

So you support national health insurance to protect the life and health of that child and it's mother?

[Aquila]

You're confusing induced labor with miscarriage in the middle of a fight. A miscarriage due to blunt trauma in this ancient land would be a death sentence for the unborn child and a serious injury for the mother possibly ending in her bleeding to death. If it were a live birth the verse would have said something like "Tinoch ha' nolad". "Tinoch" being the word for baby or infant. The verse has always been translated by the Jews to mean miscarriage.

Either way, this is the way men who speak Hebrew that I know have interpreted it. Do you speak Hebrew?