Morality Should Be All Bible, All The Time – And No, I’m Not Kidding.
I’ve got what some will consider an outrageous suggestion for Evangelical institutions: the Bible should be consulted more, not less, where norms for human behavior are at stake. The self-defeating American anti-abortion movement is a good example of what can happen when the Bible serves as a limited, narrow set of rules, disregarded when an issue isn’t “covered.”
No Biblical passage mentions voluntary abortion. Generally in the ancient world, the practice provoked disapproval but no serious efforts at prevention. Even in such patriarchal societies, men did not picture themselves stepping into the very intimate realm of a pregnancy in progress, and they were sensitive to ways their own disproportionate power could turn on itself.
In the Greek tragedy named for her, Medea gets away with killing her own young children to punish her husband when he insists on discarding her in favor of a well-connected young bride. Medea’s speech on the hardships and injustices of women’s lives, along with her husband’s repellent, con-artist pragmatism, helps show her as fairly sympathetic.
On the Roman literary scene is the poet Ovid’s persona, preaching at his mistress as she fights for her life after a self-induced abortion. But it is legally impossible for a citizen, like the speaker, to acknowledge an illegitimate child, let alone be forced to take any responsibility for one, and he doesn’t bother to mention what the pregnancy might have meant for the future. Probably even contemporary readers would have choked on the impregnator’s gall. Real courtesans, for certain, would have laughed at “moral” arguments against abortion, and according to the satirist Juvenal, married women obtained abortions at will if they could afford them. Juvenal doesn’t like it, but he doesn’t hint at anyone’s being able to do anything about it.
It’s my guess that the Bible elides voluntary abortion because of similar circumstances, which dictated that women be left some reproductive leeway we could actually place under the heading of “privacy.” I think it’s unfortunate that, now that modern law, politics, medicine, and social relations make it necessary for us to have public policy on abortion, we can’t both honor that elision and imitate what the Bible’s inspirers and authors normally did when they expressed opinions and made decrees: look at where their society was, weigh the general principles of their tradition, and strive to construe on that basis what was in accordance with God’s will. Jesus Himself didn’t balk at outright change in ancient law, as when, for humane reasons, He banned divorce on any grounds but the wife’s adultery.
Notably, he didn’t make a rule for an ideal society, one in which the trauma of divorce shouldn’t ever be necessary, but for the way things were: men were hard-hearted, and not even He could change that, so women needed better legal protection. I believe He would have been revolted at the sanctimony of certain hard-line abortion opponents, who parade, as an argument for their views, their own large, comely, prospering broods and sometimes their prowess at special-needs childcare that would ravage poor or troubled families; and at the same time such pundits decry government-funded social services, progressive taxation, fair-employment law, and a great deal of other help for bringing pregnancies to term and bringing up children. This is the type of hypocrisy Jesus denounces in high-level Jewish clerics of His day: they are (they claim) pure and holy, but only because they can afford it (as it’s very expensive to become and remain ritually correct), and they both grind down the poor and oppress them further on the pretext of their lack of purity and holiness.
But all around, we need to return to the Bible in framing a response to abortion, starting with terminology. The book itself, carefully read within our present-day context, is the best source for what “life” and “murder” and “child” and other concepts mean, and how to respect these concepts. But self-aggrandizing Evangelical leaders have instead taken the lack of specific discussion of voluntary abortion as a license to declare whatever is convenient to them and, very disappointingly, have not met with significant opposition within their own and allied churches.
Abortion as a recent contentious issue started not from Biblical interpretation or any other religious impetus but from an electoral strategy, by which Richard Nixon secured many more Catholic, Southern, and Evangelical voters for the Republican Party. It was mainly in the role of politicians that figures such as Jerry Falwell opposed abortion. The highly artificial, thoroughly extra-scriptural origin and development of anti-abortion thinking in America are reflected in conclusions no sane modern religious community would reach in reading their holy book and construing it to help them in faithful lives.
Around 50% of fertilized human embryos perish and are flushed out with menstrual blood within two weeks of conception, usually due to gross abnormalities and without the mother knowing that sperm has penetrated an egg and cell division has begun. It is not medically possible, if in the first place it were to be desirable, routinely to “protect life from the moment of conception” and bring to term millions of infants with major organ systems absent or unable ever to function. These beings flat-out do not have the physical means to live; to place them in the same category as a viable late-term fetus whose spine a doctor severs makes no sense.
Early religious and legal definitions of fetal “life” centered on “quickening” and “ensoulment,” long after conception. The medical counterparts, however, the first perceptible fetal movements and the full development of the brain to allow pain and other sensation, are usually several months apart. There is merit in various opinions on when we can refer to a full human being with rights, but the moment of conception as a criterion has neither a meaningful history nor any intellectual or moral content.
History provides a lot of evidence for something else: a simple, inherited, written law can function not at all like a source of backwardness and oppression. It is, in fact, usually the opposite. A critical step in the establishment of legal rights in Rome was the posting of the Twelve Tables of the Law as bronze plaques in a public place. Now everyone who was literate could read the law, and no one could secretly change it, and a long age of public interpretation and application began. The Jews acquired their written Torah (= “Teaching”), including a body of laws, in an era when national upheavals had made questions of social justice very pressing, and all boys and now most girls raised within Judaism ceremonially comment on scripture to mark their full membership in the community. It is an ordinary thing for the commitment to a text to appear in proportion to the responsible freedom in interpreting it.
The problem isn’t that the Bible has moral authority that it’s proper to apply to all of life. The problem is that processes for studying and adapting the Bible have been taken away from us, and so aggressively that many people see the fault in the Bible itself: the book makes religious leaders behave like that. No, they behave like that, in defiance of what the book inherently is and most of what it says.
It is difficult to know exactly how to respond in “conversation” when one’s interlocutor (in this case, Ruden) has negatively pronounced on the sanity of many evangelicals when she writes, “no sane modern religious community would reach [the conclusions of anti-abortion thinking in America] in reading their holy book and construing it to help them in faithful lives.” I suppose I’m simply left wondering whether my opposition to slavery is an indication that I’m not consulting the Bible enough when it comes to morality. After all, as Ruden points out, “Generally in the ancient world, the practice provoked disapproval[?] but no serious efforts at prevention.” And as far as I’m aware, no biblical passage calls for its abolition.
It is difficult to know exactly how to respond in “conversation” when one’s interlocutor (in this case, Ruden) has negatively pronounced on the sanity of many evangelicals when she writes, “no sane modern religious community would reach [the conclusions of anti-abortion thinking in America] in reading their holy book and construing it to help them in faithful lives.” I suppose I’m simply left wondering whether my opposition to slavery is an indication that I’m not consulting the Bible enough when it comes to morality. After all, as Ruden points out, “Generally in the ancient world, the practice provoked disapproval[?] but no serious efforts at prevention.” And as far as I’m aware, no biblical passage calls for its abolition.
It is difficult to know exactly how to respond in “conversation” when one’s interlocutor (in this case, Ruden) has negatively pronounced on the sanity of many evangelicals when she writes, “no sane modern religious community would reach [the conclusions of anti-abortion thinking in America] in reading their holy book and construing it to help them in faithful lives.” I suppose I’m simply left wondering whether my opposition to slavery is an indication that I’m not consulting the Bible enough when it comes to morality. After all, as Ruden points out, “Generally in the ancient world, the practice provoked disapproval[?] but no serious efforts at prevention.” And as far as I’m aware, no biblical passage calls for its abolition.
I had a reaction similar to Justin's. I think Sarah has something worth saying that didn't quite make it into this piece. The "no sane modern religious community" comment may be true and could be argued, but it seems to have been intended only as a hyperbolic sigh of desperation that will also read as a fallacy (which it is) and provoke many readers to angrily dismiss the author as a credible thinker. Focusing one's ire on "hypocrisy" too — as exemplified by odd stereotypes of people whose world we have not experienced much directly — is another non-starter.
Let me suggest that the points drawn from pagan antiquity need to be made very, very carefully too. As written, it sounds like Greco-Roman society, ancient Judaism, and the supposed liberality of other pre-modern patriarchs are being imaginatively construed as positive, unproblematic, and preferred pro-choice foils for contemporary conservative Christians.
Such poor use of historical material makes me think the relevant history is not all that well known. Jewish opinion on abortion is not really delved into even though it is the single best source of support for the points being made since the major branches of Judaism have either liberal to extremely liberal views on abortion and well illustrate how scripture/law is interpreted within a community (for example Orthodox Jews) that have to really live with each other in what the rest of us now call "intentional communities."
Everyone can imagine Jesus and "all reasonable people" agreeing with their own thoughts and sentiments. What actually enables a community to live with rival interpretations on vexed issues or put them to rest, while sustaining itself as a community? Is it really just an interpretive/intellectual process, or does it include a discipline of obedience — a life lived under the authority of others?
I had a reaction similar to Justin's. I think Sarah has something worth saying that didn't quite make it into this piece. The "no sane modern religious community" comment may be true and could be argued, but it seems to have been intended only as a hyperbolic sigh of desperation that will also read as a fallacy (which it is) and provoke many readers to angrily dismiss the author as a credible thinker. Focusing one's ire on "hypocrisy" too — as exemplified by odd stereotypes of people whose world we have not experienced much directly — is another non-starter.
Let me suggest that the points drawn from pagan antiquity need to be made very, very carefully too. As written, it sounds like Greco-Roman society, ancient Judaism, and the supposed liberality of other pre-modern patriarchs are being imaginatively construed as positive, unproblematic, and preferred pro-choice foils for contemporary conservative Christians.
Such poor use of historical material makes me think the relevant history is not all that well known. Jewish opinion on abortion is not really delved into even though it is the single best source of support for the points being made since the major branches of Judaism have either liberal to extremely liberal views on abortion and well illustrate how scripture/law is interpreted within a community (for example Orthodox Jews) that have to really live with each other in what the rest of us now call "intentional communities."
Everyone can imagine Jesus and "all reasonable people" agreeing with their own thoughts and sentiments. What actually enables a community to live with rival interpretations on vexed issues or put them to rest, while sustaining itself as a community? Is it really just an interpretive/intellectual process, or does it include a discipline of obedience — a life lived under the authority of others?
I had a reaction similar to Justin's. I think Sarah has something worth saying that didn't quite make it into this piece. The "no sane modern religious community" comment may be true and could be argued, but it seems to have been intended only as a hyperbolic sigh of desperation that will also read as a fallacy (which it is) and provoke many readers to angrily dismiss the author as a credible thinker. Focusing one's ire on "hypocrisy" too — as exemplified by odd stereotypes of people whose world we have not experienced much directly — is another non-starter.
Let me suggest that the points drawn from pagan antiquity need to be made very, very carefully too. As written, it sounds like Greco-Roman society, ancient Judaism, and the supposed liberality of other pre-modern patriarchs are being imaginatively construed as positive, unproblematic, and preferred pro-choice foils for contemporary conservative Christians.
Such poor use of historical material makes me think the relevant history is not all that well known. Jewish opinion on abortion is not really delved into even though it is the single best source of support for the points being made since the major branches of Judaism have either liberal to extremely liberal views on abortion and well illustrate how scripture/law is interpreted within a community (for example Orthodox Jews) that have to really live with each other in what the rest of us now call "intentional communities."
Everyone can imagine Jesus and "all reasonable people" agreeing with their own thoughts and sentiments. What actually enables a community to live with rival interpretations on vexed issues or put them to rest, while sustaining itself as a community? Is it really just an interpretive/intellectual process, or does it include a discipline of obedience — a life lived under the authority of others?
I have to take strong issue with the commenters above who, while critiquing Ruden's take on ancient history–on which she is a major scholar–seem oblivious to recent history, of which they are a part. Ruden is completely correct about what "sane" communities can get from the Bible. If contemporary "personhood begins at conception" claims were biblical, where is the long history of religious communities finding that in the Bible? Where is the outcry in the years immediately after Roe v. Wade? Is it just a coincidence that "Biblical anti-abortion" emerged at exactly the same time as "Political anti-abortion" became a campaign strategy?
I have to take strong issue with the commenters above who, while critiquing Ruden's take on ancient history–on which she is a major scholar–seem oblivious to recent history, of which they are a part. Ruden is completely correct about what "sane" communities can get from the Bible. If contemporary "personhood begins at conception" claims were biblical, where is the long history of religious communities finding that in the Bible? Where is the outcry in the years immediately after Roe v. Wade? Is it just a coincidence that "Biblical anti-abortion" emerged at exactly the same time as "Political anti-abortion" became a campaign strategy?
I have to take strong issue with the commenters above who, while critiquing Ruden's take on ancient history–on which she is a major scholar–seem oblivious to recent history, of which they are a part. Ruden is completely correct about what "sane" communities can get from the Bible. If contemporary "personhood begins at conception" claims were biblical, where is the long history of religious communities finding that in the Bible? Where is the outcry in the years immediately after Roe v. Wade? Is it just a coincidence that "Biblical anti-abortion" emerged at exactly the same time as "Political anti-abortion" became a campaign strategy?
Karl,
Your question, “where is the long history of religious communities . . .” etc. seems to assume that in order for a position to be “biblical”, there must be such a history. That is, you seem to assume that such a history is a necessary condition for something’s being “biblical”. (This is implied by the counterfactual structure of your question.) I’m not sure that assumption is warranted. But either way, it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.
My colleague, Ben Mitchell, has already pointed out the “long history” of both Jewish and Christian communities defending the sanctity of human life on the basis of the Bible. No one (as far as I know) in this discussion is disputing that throughout that “long history” of defending the sanctity of human life, there has been disagreement about the onset of human existence. Thus, one could argue (as perhaps you are) that the more recent view of human existence beginning with conception (as opposed to quickening) is a development within the “long history” of that tradition of defending the sanctity of human life.
I’m quite happy to grant that it is a development within that tradition – and a relatively recent one at that. But, it does not follow from this that such a development is not “biblical” — much less that it’s not “sane”. Moreover, even if the recent causal-historical catalysts for that development were political, it does not follow that the position itself is false. After all, one could argue the deliverances of the Council of Nicea were the result of causal-historical circumstances that were largely political. But it would not follow from such an argument that the content of the Nicene Creed is mistaken.
Ruden insists that “we need to return to the Bible in framing a response to abortion, starting with terminology.” She adds, “The book itself, carefully read within our present-day context, is the best source for what ‘life’ and ‘murder’ and ‘child” and other concepts mean, and how to respect these concepts.” I wholeheartedly agree. But I’m quite sure that Ruden does not mean for us to read the Bible only and all by itself. If we did that, then I’m not sure (as I implied in my original comment above) how we’d ever arrive at the conclusion that slavery is morally problematic.
So, Ruden presumably thinks (as I do) that the Bible must be read “carefully” and “within our present-day context.” The careful reading of Scripture has a “long history” of defending human life. As an expert in science, you are well aware that in our present-day context, knowledge of human embryology indicates that the onset of human life begins at conception. Therefore, it strikes me as quite plausible that a “sane” community of readers (i.e., one trying to read carefully in our present context) might draw the conclusion that the sanctity of human life from conception forward is a “biblical” position.
Peace,
Justin
Karl,
Your question, “where is the long history of religious communities . . .” etc. seems to assume that in order for a position to be “biblical”, there must be such a history. That is, you seem to assume that such a history is a necessary condition for something’s being “biblical”. (This is implied by the counterfactual structure of your question.) I’m not sure that assumption is warranted. But either way, it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.
My colleague, Ben Mitchell, has already pointed out the “long history” of both Jewish and Christian communities defending the sanctity of human life on the basis of the Bible. No one (as far as I know) in this discussion is disputing that throughout that “long history” of defending the sanctity of human life, there has been disagreement about the onset of human existence. Thus, one could argue (as perhaps you are) that the more recent view of human existence beginning with conception (as opposed to quickening) is a development within the “long history” of that tradition of defending the sanctity of human life.
I’m quite happy to grant that it is a development within that tradition – and a relatively recent one at that. But, it does not follow from this that such a development is not “biblical” — much less that it’s not “sane”. Moreover, even if the recent causal-historical catalysts for that development were political, it does not follow that the position itself is false. After all, one could argue the deliverances of the Council of Nicea were the result of causal-historical circumstances that were largely political. But it would not follow from such an argument that the content of the Nicene Creed is mistaken.
Ruden insists that “we need to return to the Bible in framing a response to abortion, starting with terminology.” She adds, “The book itself, carefully read within our present-day context, is the best source for what ‘life’ and ‘murder’ and ‘child” and other concepts mean, and how to respect these concepts.” I wholeheartedly agree. But I’m quite sure that Ruden does not mean for us to read the Bible only and all by itself. If we did that, then I’m not sure (as I implied in my original comment above) how we’d ever arrive at the conclusion that slavery is morally problematic.
So, Ruden presumably thinks (as I do) that the Bible must be read “carefully” and “within our present-day context.” The careful reading of Scripture has a “long history” of defending human life. As an expert in science, you are well aware that in our present-day context, knowledge of human embryology indicates that the onset of human life begins at conception. Therefore, it strikes me as quite plausible that a “sane” community of readers (i.e., one trying to read carefully in our present context) might draw the conclusion that the sanctity of human life from conception forward is a “biblical” position.
Peace,
Justin
Karl,
Your question, “where is the long history of religious communities . . .” etc. seems to assume that in order for a position to be “biblical”, there must be such a history. That is, you seem to assume that such a history is a necessary condition for something’s being “biblical”. (This is implied by the counterfactual structure of your question.) I’m not sure that assumption is warranted. But either way, it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.
My colleague, Ben Mitchell, has already pointed out the “long history” of both Jewish and Christian communities defending the sanctity of human life on the basis of the Bible. No one (as far as I know) in this discussion is disputing that throughout that “long history” of defending the sanctity of human life, there has been disagreement about the onset of human existence. Thus, one could argue (as perhaps you are) that the more recent view of human existence beginning with conception (as opposed to quickening) is a development within the “long history” of that tradition of defending the sanctity of human life.
I’m quite happy to grant that it is a development within that tradition – and a relatively recent one at that. But, it does not follow from this that such a development is not “biblical” — much less that it’s not “sane”. Moreover, even if the recent causal-historical catalysts for that development were political, it does not follow that the position itself is false. After all, one could argue the deliverances of the Council of Nicea were the result of causal-historical circumstances that were largely political. But it would not follow from such an argument that the content of the Nicene Creed is mistaken.
Ruden insists that “we need to return to the Bible in framing a response to abortion, starting with terminology.” She adds, “The book itself, carefully read within our present-day context, is the best source for what ‘life’ and ‘murder’ and ‘child” and other concepts mean, and how to respect these concepts.” I wholeheartedly agree. But I’m quite sure that Ruden does not mean for us to read the Bible only and all by itself. If we did that, then I’m not sure (as I implied in my original comment above) how we’d ever arrive at the conclusion that slavery is morally problematic.
So, Ruden presumably thinks (as I do) that the Bible must be read “carefully” and “within our present-day context.” The careful reading of Scripture has a “long history” of defending human life. As an expert in science, you are well aware that in our present-day context, knowledge of human embryology indicates that the onset of human life begins at conception. Therefore, it strikes me as quite plausible that a “sane” community of readers (i.e., one trying to read carefully in our present context) might draw the conclusion that the sanctity of human life from conception forward is a “biblical” position.
Peace,
Justin
To Justin D. Barnard:
I certainly did not mean to pronounce negatively on the sanity of many evangelicals concerning their anti-abortion views – just the opposite: these are cohesive, self-conscious communities, with proud histories of expanding human rights. Treating the Bible's general principles as their charter, as they have done in other matters–slavery is an excellent example–they could not have come to a conclusion as bizarre and unworkable as that a zygote from the moment of conception deserves all the protection that late-gestation or post-partum human life does.
To live this idea, to take it seriously, to integrate it into a community, in the face of the medical facts that need to be taken into account, would require totalitarian arrangements. Couples would forfeit all sexual privacy and automony to their duty to try to preserve every new zygote past its first few days, and medical resources would be grossly misdirected in attempts to save profoundly nonviable organisms.
This is why I would stress that "from the moment of conception" is understandable as a formulation of celibate clergy trying to exert more control over their church members' private lives; or a slogan of politicians stirring up sectarian passions. This is nothing like the strengthening conviction that the Bible's explicit endorsements of slavery were not important in comparison with what the New Testament asserted about the relationship between God and humankind – so that already in antiquity bishops were sitting in judgment of even wealthy and powerful parishioners who had abused their slaves, a situation unthinkable during the pagan era. That was a thought-through, studied, discussed, lived development. "Protecting life from the moment of conception" isn't.
To Dan:
I don't mean to idealize Biblical interpreters of any era – it's more like the opposite that I'm positing. The closest practical way to put oneself under the direct authority of God is to place oneself under the authority of time. Either an intellectual or interpretive process or the authority of others in a community clearly has only a limited, temporal, human value. What promises eternal value is the work of God in history – as in the evolution of Jewish and Christian attitudes toward slavery. A reasoning but flexible – not a rigid or doctrinaire – treatment of the Bible seems intuitively to get less in God's way. I'm trying in my analogies and opinions to come at issues from new angles – and I may be quite wrong. But I think that nothing could be worse than leaving certain issues absolutely stuck, as they really appear to be.
Sarah Ruden
To Justin D. Barnard:
I certainly did not mean to pronounce negatively on the sanity of many evangelicals concerning their anti-abortion views – just the opposite: these are cohesive, self-conscious communities, with proud histories of expanding human rights. Treating the Bible's general principles as their charter, as they have done in other matters–slavery is an excellent example–they could not have come to a conclusion as bizarre and unworkable as that a zygote from the moment of conception deserves all the protection that late-gestation or post-partum human life does.
To live this idea, to take it seriously, to integrate it into a community, in the face of the medical facts that need to be taken into account, would require totalitarian arrangements. Couples would forfeit all sexual privacy and automony to their duty to try to preserve every new zygote past its first few days, and medical resources would be grossly misdirected in attempts to save profoundly nonviable organisms.
This is why I would stress that "from the moment of conception" is understandable as a formulation of celibate clergy trying to exert more control over their church members' private lives; or a slogan of politicians stirring up sectarian passions. This is nothing like the strengthening conviction that the Bible's explicit endorsements of slavery were not important in comparison with what the New Testament asserted about the relationship between God and humankind – so that already in antiquity bishops were sitting in judgment of even wealthy and powerful parishioners who had abused their slaves, a situation unthinkable during the pagan era. That was a thought-through, studied, discussed, lived development. "Protecting life from the moment of conception" isn't.
To Dan:
I don't mean to idealize Biblical interpreters of any era – it's more like the opposite that I'm positing. The closest practical way to put oneself under the direct authority of God is to place oneself under the authority of time. Either an intellectual or interpretive process or the authority of others in a community clearly has only a limited, temporal, human value. What promises eternal value is the work of God in history – as in the evolution of Jewish and Christian attitudes toward slavery. A reasoning but flexible – not a rigid or doctrinaire – treatment of the Bible seems intuitively to get less in God's way. I'm trying in my analogies and opinions to come at issues from new angles – and I may be quite wrong. But I think that nothing could be worse than leaving certain issues absolutely stuck, as they really appear to be.
Sarah Ruden
To Justin D. Barnard:
I certainly did not mean to pronounce negatively on the sanity of many evangelicals concerning their anti-abortion views – just the opposite: these are cohesive, self-conscious communities, with proud histories of expanding human rights. Treating the Bible's general principles as their charter, as they have done in other matters–slavery is an excellent example–they could not have come to a conclusion as bizarre and unworkable as that a zygote from the moment of conception deserves all the protection that late-gestation or post-partum human life does.
To live this idea, to take it seriously, to integrate it into a community, in the face of the medical facts that need to be taken into account, would require totalitarian arrangements. Couples would forfeit all sexual privacy and automony to their duty to try to preserve every new zygote past its first few days, and medical resources would be grossly misdirected in attempts to save profoundly nonviable organisms.
This is why I would stress that "from the moment of conception" is understandable as a formulation of celibate clergy trying to exert more control over their church members' private lives; or a slogan of politicians stirring up sectarian passions. This is nothing like the strengthening conviction that the Bible's explicit endorsements of slavery were not important in comparison with what the New Testament asserted about the relationship between God and humankind – so that already in antiquity bishops were sitting in judgment of even wealthy and powerful parishioners who had abused their slaves, a situation unthinkable during the pagan era. That was a thought-through, studied, discussed, lived development. "Protecting life from the moment of conception" isn't.
To Dan:
I don't mean to idealize Biblical interpreters of any era – it's more like the opposite that I'm positing. The closest practical way to put oneself under the direct authority of God is to place oneself under the authority of time. Either an intellectual or interpretive process or the authority of others in a community clearly has only a limited, temporal, human value. What promises eternal value is the work of God in history – as in the evolution of Jewish and Christian attitudes toward slavery. A reasoning but flexible – not a rigid or doctrinaire – treatment of the Bible seems intuitively to get less in God's way. I'm trying in my analogies and opinions to come at issues from new angles – and I may be quite wrong. But I think that nothing could be worse than leaving certain issues absolutely stuck, as they really appear to be.
Sarah Ruden
Sarah,
Thank you for this clarification. It is quite helpful. However, I still think there’s some confusion for which I’d like to try to offer clarification.
You say that the conclusion that a “zygote from the moment of conception deserves all the protection” of more fully developed human beings is “bizarre and unworkable”. This is because you think that living out this idea requires “totalitarian arrangements” to enforce a “duty” to protect and preserve life in grossly misdirected ways (e.g., unwise distribution of resources on nonviable organisms).
I’m confident that you are aware of the distinction between duties of non-maleficence and duties of beneficence. Yet, you are treating the anti-abortion position as though it entails an absolute duty of beneficence (or something close to it) in arguing against it. To believe that human life ought to be protected from conception forward does not entail that one has an obligation to preserve or prolong it at all costs (i.e., beneficence). What it does entail is that one has an obligation to avoid intentionally interfering with it in lethal ways (i.e., non-maleficence). There’s nothing unlivable about this position whatsoever. For it merely requires that I act toward others (including human embryos) in ways that (as far as it lies within me) do not intentionally and directly seek to take their lives. I’m pretty sure we all do this daily – Christian or not.
So, I’m not sure what “medical facts” you think render this position difficult to take seriously. Nor do I see why you think that couples would have to forfeit all sexual privacy and autonomy to live this way. After all, I’m pretty sure that I know lots of evangelicals who don’t intentionally and directly seek the death of children – born and unborn. And they live this way because they believe that a zygote from the moment of conception deserves all the protection that you and I do.
Peace,
Justin
Sarah,
Thank you for this clarification. It is quite helpful. However, I still think there’s some confusion for which I’d like to try to offer clarification.
You say that the conclusion that a “zygote from the moment of conception deserves all the protection” of more fully developed human beings is “bizarre and unworkable”. This is because you think that living out this idea requires “totalitarian arrangements” to enforce a “duty” to protect and preserve life in grossly misdirected ways (e.g., unwise distribution of resources on nonviable organisms).
I’m confident that you are aware of the distinction between duties of non-maleficence and duties of beneficence. Yet, you are treating the anti-abortion position as though it entails an absolute duty of beneficence (or something close to it) in arguing against it. To believe that human life ought to be protected from conception forward does not entail that one has an obligation to preserve or prolong it at all costs (i.e., beneficence). What it does entail is that one has an obligation to avoid intentionally interfering with it in lethal ways (i.e., non-maleficence). There’s nothing unlivable about this position whatsoever. For it merely requires that I act toward others (including human embryos) in ways that (as far as it lies within me) do not intentionally and directly seek to take their lives. I’m pretty sure we all do this daily – Christian or not.
So, I’m not sure what “medical facts” you think render this position difficult to take seriously. Nor do I see why you think that couples would have to forfeit all sexual privacy and autonomy to live this way. After all, I’m pretty sure that I know lots of evangelicals who don’t intentionally and directly seek the death of children – born and unborn. And they live this way because they believe that a zygote from the moment of conception deserves all the protection that you and I do.
Peace,
Justin
Sarah,
Thank you for this clarification. It is quite helpful. However, I still think there’s some confusion for which I’d like to try to offer clarification.
You say that the conclusion that a “zygote from the moment of conception deserves all the protection” of more fully developed human beings is “bizarre and unworkable”. This is because you think that living out this idea requires “totalitarian arrangements” to enforce a “duty” to protect and preserve life in grossly misdirected ways (e.g., unwise distribution of resources on nonviable organisms).
I’m confident that you are aware of the distinction between duties of non-maleficence and duties of beneficence. Yet, you are treating the anti-abortion position as though it entails an absolute duty of beneficence (or something close to it) in arguing against it. To believe that human life ought to be protected from conception forward does not entail that one has an obligation to preserve or prolong it at all costs (i.e., beneficence). What it does entail is that one has an obligation to avoid intentionally interfering with it in lethal ways (i.e., non-maleficence). There’s nothing unlivable about this position whatsoever. For it merely requires that I act toward others (including human embryos) in ways that (as far as it lies within me) do not intentionally and directly seek to take their lives. I’m pretty sure we all do this daily – Christian or not.
So, I’m not sure what “medical facts” you think render this position difficult to take seriously. Nor do I see why you think that couples would have to forfeit all sexual privacy and autonomy to live this way. After all, I’m pretty sure that I know lots of evangelicals who don’t intentionally and directly seek the death of children – born and unborn. And they live this way because they believe that a zygote from the moment of conception deserves all the protection that you and I do.
Peace,
Justin
"The closest practical way to put oneself under the direct authority of God is to place oneself under the authority of time."
There's a lot in that idea. Well said.
"The closest practical way to put oneself under the direct authority of God is to place oneself under the authority of time."
There's a lot in that idea. Well said.
"The closest practical way to put oneself under the direct authority of God is to place oneself under the authority of time."
There's a lot in that idea. Well said.