Abortion for academic credit at Yale
Posted by Matt Yonke, April 17th, 2008
UPDATE: As the story develops, the young art student has claimed that the piece is not "performance art" but perfectly real. Yale, for it's part, is claiming that her denial is part of the performance and that she told them she would deny it if they exposed the piece. For my money, I still think it's a hoax, especially since her thesis adviser refuses to comment.
Either way, it is an unbelievably tasteless stunt for a revered institution such as Yale to be party to. By supporting an endeavor like this, whether real or a performance, Yale has removed all doubt that they have completely broken ties with the Christian origins which made the Ivy League the haven for intellectual excellence it had been. We'll see how long that reputation lasts.
Events at Yale this week make it easy to sympathize with King Solomon. Reflecting on a long, productive life, the king spake thus:
I hated all my labor in which I labored under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who comes after me. Who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have rule over all of my labor in which I have labored, and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun. This also is vanity.
Yale, one of our nation's oldest and proudest institutions of higher learning was founded in 1701 to be a place “wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State.” (from the Yale Charter). A mere 207 years later, a student is making her senior art project out of the remains of babies which she conceived and aborted herself. This also is vanity. Perhaps King Solomon understates the case.
Aliza Shvarts, who plans to graduate this spring, artificially inseminated herself "as many times as possible" in the last nine months and proceeded to take herbs that would cause her to, in her words, miscarry (read: abort) the pregnancy. She then took video of herself in the process of miscarrying the child. Her project will combine the video footage with an "artistic" presentation of the the blood and other results of her pregnancies. The Yale newspaper has more details, should you be curious.
Before I comment, there is some speculation that this may be a hoax, but even if it is the fact that Yale is willing to sponsor a hoax this offensive and disgusting is outrageous enough in and of itself. And whatever is going on here, this young lady needs all the compassion and prayers we have to offer as she clearly has some deep-seated issues and I pray that she will find resolution for them in the arms of her Creator, who loves her and her children more than she can possibly imagine.
That said, the way nearly every pro-choice person has responded and will respond to this story proves far too much for their position.
If a person was consistently pro-choice, there would be no reason to be shocked or outraged by this story. This is her body and she's doing what she wants to do with it. Who are we to tell her she should act differently? Sounds awful judgemental to me! And, after all, these pregnancies were all terminated very early. It's only a glob of cells, right? Why is what she did any different than trimming her finger nails? It was just a bunch of cells she didn't want in her body any more and now they're gone.
We have been fed these lines for decades now but when it comes down to it, even the pro-choice crowd knows better. They know that what this girl has done is the destruction of a human person for the sake of destroying it. They might deny that an baby early in its development is a person for the sake of keeping abortion legal, but their reaction to a story like this displays that they don't believe that any more than the Pope.
That's just one of the issues this story raises. How is this different than our use of graphic abortion photos to make the case for the pro-life position? Why are we surprised by this? After all this young lady was told her entire life that babies in the womb are fair game to get rid of for convenience. How does this differ from stem cell research and other forms of science that create life to make a point (albeit scientific rather than artistic) and then destroy it? What would cause a person to put themselves through the agony of multiple abortions (which are not pain free!) for the sake of "art"?
As we look for answers, let's be sure to remember Aliza and her young ones in our prayers. Lord have mercy!
This turned out to be a hoax, thank God. A sick, horrible hoax from a sad woman who lied in order to get 15 minutes of fame. http://www.yale.edu/opa/
April 17th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Thanks for the heads up Brian.
Like I said, the fact remains that Yale was either taken in like everyone else and ok'd what they thought was a real atrocity, or they were complicit in this very tasteless stunt.
In either case the school's founders are no doubt spinning in their graves.
Matt
April 17th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
When I read something like this, I just want to hang my head in my hands and cry. My children know when I get really upset with this world of ours and how low we have sunk as human beings, how we insult our Creator with such evil doings, they know this as they walk by the family room, and see me watching one Leave it to Beaver Show after another. (I have season one and two).It has become quite comical as my 19 yr. old son says," Mom's on a Beaver binge again." LOL. Along with clinging to Almighty God, it seems to almost be therapy for me. I know the show is not exactly true to how things use to be, but in many cases very close. And it is a far cry from how our families are today. Jesus, help us come back to You and wholesomeness, it is not impossible. With Him all things are possible. Pray for the family.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Karen,
I liked your post a lot as a Jerry Mathers fanatico. You can watch/tivo/tape two episodes at noon on TV Land.
When I heard about this this afternoon, my reaction was very, very selfish. I thought, how am I supposed to raise a child to be a decent person in a world this filled with evil? That tends to be my thought process about everything. Lord knows I'm no saint, but my God, what has happened that even the thought of something this evil entered that woman's mind?
April 17th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Sadly, in the US today there would be no way of legally stopping a person from getting themselves pregnant and "miscarrying" their babies. Ughh
April 17th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Brian,
Thanks for the beaver info. I was already aware of the schedule, especially since they show episodes I don't have. Don't be worried too much, about bringing children into this world. We need to have hope, and through Jesus we will be that hope for the world. We, the ones who love Him will be the light in this dark world that has lost its way. Each little child brought up to know and love our Creator, to respect His Will, are little lights, and when we stand together become a beacon for all the lost ones.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Brian,
Some of us have chosen to homeschool our children to protect them from the society that has produced this. There is no way to completely keep children from the evil influences in society, but it becomes much easier to teach them about God and faith and right when you know what they are learning and can better regulate what they are exposed to in their formative years.
Homeschooling is growing in popularity and producing beautiful young men and women who can courageously say "No" to the Culture of Death.
Of course it is possible to raise whole, healthy, moral children in public schools, but the fight is greater. The parents who succeed are to be commended.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:38 am
I think I'm going to be sick…
April 18th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
What amazes me is that normally rational people buy into this nonsense…..it reminds me of Jill Stanek & her Sweet & Sour Fetus BS. P.T. Barnum was right, there's a fool born every minute.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Student, with the moral decline of our country getting worse everyday, nothing surprises me anymore, so there's no need to call us foolish for thinking that something like this is possible. I for one, am sick of your insulting comments…
April 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Some of us have chosen to homeschool because the public schools cater too much to the religious fanatics and have under-qualified teachers. They don't teach science effectively because they are intimidated by the creationist kooks. We home-school because we are afraid that the schools won't present a broad range of ideas.
On the other side, you have those same religious kooks that home-school because they don't want their children exposed to ideas other than their own narrow vision.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I homeschooled my kids. They tore up public schools when they made the transition. It was a great choice keeping them home together for so long. Nothing you can do for your kids is as important as actually being with them and spending time together.
Student and Professor, your agruments against life are inadquate so you resort to bashing religion. Grow up.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Paul2,
Normally I wouldn't respond to you as you have shown yourself to be a bigot but I just can't pass up your latest comment.
You believe a book filled with misogyny, rape, incest, murder, torture, slavery, etc. is a "guide" to living life. You believe in an imaginary friend but I should grow up? Hmmm….
If you want to disagree that god is the biggest abortionist, I'm happy to hear your arguments. I have plenty of references from your holy book to back up my claim.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:10 am
MB,
And I am sick of people attempting to push their religious beliefs off on others. I am sick of people finger-pointing and name calling and behaving toward others in abusive ways because they disagree with them. I am sick of people going on and on about the "right to life" all the while ignoring children who are already here and in need of families and care. I am sick of people shouting that there are too many abortions while they try to take sex education out of the schools and reduce funds for birth control. In general, I am sick of the amount of ignorance I see in the world.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:18 am
And your arguments are inadequate, so you resort to promoting religion: i.e. unthinking acceptance of an interpretation of a 2000 year old book. Ooops, sorry, 1700 year old.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Student says:
What amazes me is that normally rational people buy into this nonsense…..it reminds me of Jill Stanek & her Sweet & Sour Fetus BS. P.T. Barnum was right, there's a fool born every minute.
Whether it was a hoax or not, it was sick and calling it so is not being a fool.
By the way, I know you like to pat yourself on the back about engaging in constructive dialogue at this site. Read your comments and your friend's belittling religion and other people. You're here for a fight.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Student, give it a rest, please.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Brian,
Whether it was a hoax or not, it was sick and calling it so is not being a fool.
Then why don't we call some of the other "hoaxs" sick as well…..like Ms. Stanek and her "Sweet & Sour Fetus" BS? Instead, we're going to defend her and claim the accuracy of her PL Blog. You can't play both sides of the fence w/o getting called on it. If that's looking for a fight then, yes, I guess I am.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I didn't say anything about her sweet and sour fetus thing. I don't even know what it is. If it was a hoax, hurray, it was a hoax. That proves nothing, and it doesn't excuse you for calling people fools and belittling their faith. Just go away if that's how you want to be.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I am sick of people going on and on about the "right to life" all the while ignoring children who are already here and in need of families and care. I am sick of people shouting that there are too many abortions while they try to take sex education out of the schools and reduce funds for birth control. In general, I am sick of the amount of ignorance I see in the world.
Posted by Student April 19th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Student, The people on this site are following the word's Jesus spoke to us. He spoke was told to him by his Father in heaven, and the commandment he brings is eternal Life. If you chose to follow his words then you too would repect life. Your insults make it apparent you hold anger us because we choose to follow the Word of Life. Know that pro-life people don't hold the same anger towards you. Persecution in Jesus' name is a blessing and a grace to us because we have faith in eternal life through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. How do you ratioinaize coming onto Christian sites and insulting people for their faith is heling the porr and the unfortunate? Sharing the burdens of others does NOT include making somebody like you feel good about abortion. Your insults against us make it apparent that you are looking not to mend fences or engage in civil dialogue, but rather you come here to lash out with anger and bitterness against us cause we won't deny our faith and allow you to commit abortion without opposition. I have found that many post-abortive people behave in this to assuage guilt and anger they relly feel inside about their own choices. Much like the ones that lash out by aiming theor cars at sidewalk counselors. Do you even realize that is how you are behaving?
April 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Student,
You just had to take the opportunity to insult me again.
Did posting your perjurous statements about God help you with your anger-management today?
April 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Paul2,
Which statements against god do you contend are perjurious?
April 19th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
You completely mis-interpret the basis for the anger. Our anger towards you is due to *your* sticking your nose into business that isn't yours. Our anger is that you want to legislate your twisted sense of morality rather than *really* caring for people. Our anger is from *your* actions (name-calling, harassment, etc). Our anger stems from the same base that our anger towards the Islamic terrorists stems from: they use their religion as an excuse for evil. So do you.
April 19th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
The name-calling towards you has been non-existant (or has your friend still the case of the vapors over being called a blow hard?). The debate on abortion is fundamentally about what is and what is not other peoples' business. You're simply begging the question there. How do you know how we care for other people? Why do you assume that you are more caring than I am? How do I use religion towards evil? If you think that those who oppose abortion are horrible people, why would you spend all this time on a website debating them? Professor, you're free not to be here.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Professor says:
You completely mis-interpret the basis for the anger.
Our anger towards you is due to *your* sticking your nose into business that isn't yours. Our anger is that you want to legislate your twisted sense of morality rather than *really* caring for people. Our anger is from *your* actions (name-calling, harassment, etc). Our anger stems from the same base that our anger towards the Islamic terrorists stems from: they use their religion as an excuse for evil. So do you.
April 19th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Dear Professor,
You should be interested in what another Professor has to report.
Professor Arthur C. Brooks from Syracuse University:
A new book, titled "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks examines the actual behavior of liberals and conservatives when it comes to donating their own time, money, or blood for the benefit of others. It is remarkable that beliefs on this subject should have become conventional, if not set in concrete, for decades before anyone bothered to check these beliefs against facts.
What are those facts?
People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.
It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.
You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.
So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.
Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.
According to Professor Brooks: "If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent."
Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find — so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.
What is the reason why some people are liberals and others are conservatives, if it is not that liberals are more compassionate?
Fundamental differences in ideology go back to fundamental assumptions about human nature. Based on one set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a liberal. Based on a different set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a conservative.
The two visions are not completely symmetrical, however. For at least two centuries, the vision of the left has included a belief that those with that vision are morally superior, more caring and more compassionate.
While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts.
Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test — and how completely it failed that test.
The two visions are different in another way. The vision of the left exalts the young especially as idealists while the more conservative vision warns against the narrowness and shallowness of the inexperienced. This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds.
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate
April 19th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
All,
A couple of points to ponder before you continue to post this "stuff":
Thanks and God Bless,
Roger
April 19th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Our anger towards you is due to *your* sticking your nose into business that isn't yours.
Posted by Professor April 19th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Professor you and your abortion mills are my business till you quit mutilating girls and promoting abortion without conscience.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
1 From whence are wars and contentions among you? Are they not hence, from your concupiscences, which war in your members? 2 You covet, and have not: you kill and envy and cannot obtain. You contend and war, and you have not: because you ask not. 3 You ask and receive not: because you ask amiss, that you may consume it on your concupiscences. 4 Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world becometh an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think that the scripture saith in vain: To envy doth the spirit covet which dwelleth in you? 6 But he giveth greater grace. Wherefore he saith: God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble. 7 Be subject therefore to God. But resist the devil: and he will fly from you. 8 Draw nigh to God: and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double minded. 9 Be afflicted and mourn and weep: let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into sorrow. 10 Be humbled in the sight of the Lord: and he will exalt you. 11 Detract not one another, my brethren. He that detracteth his brother, or he that judgeth his brother, detracteth the law and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 12 There is one lawgiver and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver.
13 But who art thou that judgest thy neighbour? Behold, now you that say: To-day or to-morrow we will go into such a city, and there we will spend a year and will traffic and make our gain. 14 Whereas you know not what shall be on the morrow. 15 For what is your life? It is a vapour which appeareth for a little while and afterwards shall vanish away. For that you should say: If the Lord will, and, If we shall live, we will do this or that. 16 But now you rejoice in your arrogancies. All such rejoicing is wicked. 17 To him therefore who knoweth to do good and doth it not, to him it is sin.
James CXhapter 4
April 19th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Roger,
Really? I don't think Truthseeker got the message.
April 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Student,
I believe what Roger was saying is this site is a Pro-life site. Many Christians visit this site because Jesus is Pro-life, He is the author of all life. The next breath you take is given to you by God.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel;
he has come to his people and set them free.
He has raised up for us a mighty saviour,
born of the house of his servant David.
Through his holy prophets he promised of old
that he would save us from our enemies,
from the hands of all who hate us.
He promised to show mercy to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant.
This was the oath he swore to our father Abraham:
to set us free from the hands of our enemies,
free to worship him without fear,
holy and righteous in his sight
all the days of our life.
You, my child, shall be called the prophet of the Most
High;
for you will go before the Lord to prepare his way,
to give his people knowledge of salvation
by the forgiveness of their sins.
In the tender compassion of our God
the dawn from on high shall break upon us,
to shine on those who dwell in darkness and the
shadow of death,
and to guide our feet into the way of peace.
Luke 1: 68-79
April 21st, 2008 at 12:11 am
Truthseeker, I just don't see the point of your last couple posts. Sure, the Christians on here may catch your drift, but how are your posts intended to bring pro-choicers over to the pro-life side? It sometimes seems like you are hi-jacking the thread to evangelize Christianity. This is not the place for that.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:04 am
StudentFL,
I don't know who think my posts are offending but if you are talking about Student and Professor then so be it. I would venture to say that religion bashing appears in well over 50% of their recent posts. Do you expect me to stand idly by while they balspheme my God?
April 21st, 2008 at 9:57 am
Student,
It matters not if the other person gets it. Did you get it? People have different reasons for being pro-life. Some people's reasons have to do with their faith. We do not need to bash these people for their reasons or their religion.
Truthseeker,
In short, YES. Professor and Student have both said that they are atheists. They obviously do not believe in God.
Jesus said that he is the Truth and that the truth shall set you free. How about sharing some of that truth in a way that they can come to an understanding of the truth.
Life is valuable, that is truth. Abortion is wrong and harmful, that is truth. Help them using terms that they can understand. You have the truth on your side, but people can't always accept that truth, not because of the message, but sometimes because of the messenger.
Check out Matthew 5:38-40.
God Bless,
Roger
April 21st, 2008 at 10:21 am
StudentFL,
Please explain how posting scripture passagas will alienate people who might otherwise come over from the pro-choice to the pro-life side.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:31 am
Roger,
I can turn the other cheek if somebody speaks evil of me, but I could NEVER turn the other cheek while people speak alander of Jesus. Look bak upon their posts. Do you see any kind of rational or logical arguments for either side of abortion? All I see is them blaming religion for infringe on their right to kill babies. If they had more thoughtfll dialogue other then religion bashing then I would respond accordingly. This site is not only for Christians, but it IS for fighting against the killing of innocent children. Correct me if I am wrong but it is THEY who have chosen to attack religion in over 50% of their recents posts.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:41 am
My God and my strength. Help me find the humility to do your work without offending others. I ask this through my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:51 am
"Please explain how posting scripture passagas will alienate people who might otherwise come over from the pro-choice to the pro-life side."
Well they are definitely not offending, at least not to me. Also, I didn't exactly say that they alienate pro-choicers, but I did say that I don't understand how it helps. Just because it doesn't help, doesn't mean it harms, but anyways here ya go:
It is essential to find common ground if we are to go about solving this issue. Even if you cannot find common ground on the issue of abortion, you can always gain the respect of others by finding common ground with your opponents through the way you present your argument.
Now not all of our pro-choice friends can relate to you through Christianity… even when you look at Christian pro-choicers - many of them are staunch supporters of the separation of the Church and the State. Thus, it is best in this case to find the rational and the universally moral reasons to be pro-life and focus on those, rather than on scriptural passages that could very well mean nothing to some of our friends within the pro-choice movement, in order to gain their respect, as well as show them that you respect them.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:16 am
Thank you for your response StudentFL. I will meditate on this.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Student, I didn't really meditate long but here goes anyway. I agree with you. But some people don't want to enter into rational debate. A few days ago I noticed all of Student's and Professor's posts were no longer offering any rational debate but rather they were just religion bashing. They chose to continue bashing religion. I do understand that others may not understand my religious beliefs. I could go into great detail about the passage I quoted from Luke above. Explaing to people how those words were spoken Zechariah about John the Baptist, the son he and his wife Elizabeth were bringing into the world. We could relact on each and every line and then they would have a better understanding of my faith. I agree with you though that people without faith will only be able to see my faith through my actions. I don't have this conunundrum except with people who bash religion because the Holy Spirit is a part of my fabric and I find it offensive to listen to people to take the Lord's name in vain. I agree with what you posted. I am just trying to explain to you where I am coming from.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Something to ponder:
"Christian pro-choicers"
A person, who says they are Christian, bears the name of Christ. Jesus the Christ is the author of all life, not us. So it is contradictory to use the words Christian and pro-choice as if they are compatible.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Karen K,
I appreciate all your posts. Here is what I have come to think regarding this matter of Chritianity and "pro-choice". I don't think we should concede to the pro-abort people by allowing them to define themselves as pro-choice. I have come to understand a real need for us to clarify the differences between "pro-choice" and "pro-abort" so that the pro-aborts can no longer hide among a pro-choice crowd that would never "choose" abortion for themselves. We should not allow the pro-abort side to define us as anti-choice. I would rather clarify the difference. I am comfortable stating that a Christian's "unexpected pregancy" is never reason enough for abortion. Or a Christians desire to "focus on their career" is never reason enough to choose abortion. etc. etc. etc.. There is a lot about being pro-choice that is Christian, so lets not let the pro-aborts take our God given gift of choice and turn it into something that we as Christian's stand for. I am more then happy to legislate to keep people from killing babies through abortion, but that is not cause I am anti-choice, it is because I am anti choosing death (pro-life). We need the pro-choice crowd that would never choose to kill their own children to join us as part of our pro-choice/pro-life crwod. Least ways that is how I define myself.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Should have read:
There is a lot about being pro-choice that is Christian, so lets not let the pro-aborts take our God given gift of choice and turn it into something that we as Christian's DO NOT stand for.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Karen K.,
Actually, in the true sense of the words "pro-choice", it is not contradictory. The Christian faith is all about "choice" - free choice! Abortion is a "bad choice". It is a choice for death. Unfortunately, in this culture, the words "pro-choice" really mean "pro-abortion".
Deut 30:19
God Bless,
Roger
April 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
but can we not make a distinction between pro-choice and pro-life?
We cannot be so black and white about our opponents… There are some that support abortion whether or not some woman freely choose it (rare but sinister) and there are some that are merely attempting compassion by saying to the desperate pregnant woman, "I do not judge your situation…" and claim to be pro-choice because of that…
why must we place these two people in the same category without distinction? To do so makes us look heartless, bitter, and angry. And we do it every time we take our pro-choice friends and label every last one of them with the term PRO-ABORT.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
excuse me, I meant to say "but can we not make a distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion?"
sorry about the confusion…
April 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Roger & Truthseeker,
I do not think I have ever labeled either of you "anti-choice." I find that offensive, in much the same vein, as "pro-abort." I simply have never met a person who is "pro-abortion" and it is incredibly frustrating that neither of you can seem to differentiate between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion."
There have been significant biblical quotes here concerning your views on this subject. However, there are many others that show a total disregard for women/children/infants and the unborn. See below:
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24)
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21)
The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16)
Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7)
And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30)
You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22)
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18)
So, while I expect to be told that I'm "religion bashing," please at least see the inconsistencies in what you're saying.
***************
StudentFL — I sent you a private e-mail. I hope you received it.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
When we are talking about the subject of abortion, and the use the words Pro-choice, choice of what? Let us finish the sentence, choice of killing a life.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
KarenK,
Choice of parenting, choice of adoption, choice of abortion — not pushing any, but supporting a woman in whatever choice she makes.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
There was once a choice of slavery, not pushing any, but the government supporting the right to choose to own someone else. Now we have the choice to kill a life in the womb. Both are and were wrong. We corrected a wrong with slavery, we need to do the same for the human beings in the womb.
Some choices end a human life.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Is there any response to the passages Student referenced?
April 21st, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Pro-Lifers care for all life, mother and child. Some Pro-choicers are caring people too. But their care is imperfect; someone is going to die because "they care". No one should have their life snuffed out because "someone cared".
It IS possible to love them both.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Student,
Posting those passages from scripture is in no way religion bashing. Feel free to continue posting scripture. I shall pray about each of those, and when I have finished my thoughtful prayer I shall be very happy to give you my response.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I do not think I have ever labeled either of you "anti-choice." I find that offensive, in much the same vein, as "pro-abort." I simply have never met a person who is "pro-abortion" and it is incredibly frustrating that neither of you can seem to differentiate between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion."
Posted by Student April 21st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Student,
Have you ever met anybody who chose to have an abortion?
If you have then you have met a pro-abort. Although many post-abortive women have become pro-life at some point after their abortion experience.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:22 pm
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24)
Looking upon Elisha filled with the Spirit of God is like seeing a grizzly bear in the woods. The person in that passage saw Elisha filled with the Holy Spirit, but feeling emboldened they called out at him in mockery. It would have been better if they had only lied down and they likely would not have been struck by his ire. I enjoy lessons that teach fear of the Lord. Don't confuse that with God condoning you or I taking the life of another person. God sent Jesus to show us how to treat one another, judgement is for the Lord alone.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Student, all of these passages seem have a common thread… People who disobey the Lord’s commands or you are in for a world of hurt. It does not say truthseeker can kill any person (I don't want to be the judge). It does not say Student will burn in Hell for disobeying what Roger said.
While I was meditating on the scripture passages you posted I momentarily looked at it from the perception of an atheist and it did not look good. In fact it was scary and I see where you you would rally against it. I will pray some more on it. I am glad I am not the judge. I place my trust in Jesus.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Should have read:
People who disobey the Lord’s commands are in for a world of hurt. It does not say truthseeker can kill any person (I don't want to be the judge).
April 21st, 2008 at 11:52 pm
"Student,
Have you ever met anybody who chose to have an abortion?
If you have then you have met a pro-abort. Although many post-abortive women have become pro-life at some point after their abortion experience."
Ouch truthseeker… be careful not to hurt. you never know someone else's history, especially since we have so many outsiders that read this blog, and see that we represent a movement that claims to help them. We shouldn't use such judging terminology, if we ourselves don't judge.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 am
Ouch, if you choose abortion doesn't that make you pro-abort? Help me out here StudentFL. Where can we draw the line.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 am
btw StudentFL, that is just my current definition as it is what came to me tonight. I have been struggling top define the difference since Student insisted there was no such thing as a pro-abort. I am always willing to listen to dialogue on where the line should be drawn and that seems to me to be the most logical place.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 am
StudentFL, it goes without saying that there may be extenuating circumstances in any individual case. I don't expect there to be a line without exception
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 am
Any abortionist would definitely have to be considered to be a pro-abort. Any man who counsels the mother of his child to commit abortion is definitely pro-abort.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 am
That leaves a large majority of pro-life pro-choicers.
Hmmmm
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 am
Truthseeker,
No, what it says to me (and if you have a different interpretation, please explain) is that if god chooses to kill women, children, the unborn (or anyone else) that's ok because he has a reason. Sorry, I think that's sick. If you see abortion as murder why should it matter whether you do it, I do it, the woman down the street does it or God does it? Is it somehow less murder in your mind? If so, how?
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:37 am
Student,
The question isn't whether it's just to take a life or not. No one is arguing that, say, in a just war a soldier cannot kill his enemy. That is an instance of just killing.
What the Bible speaks against is murder, or the taking of innocent life (or the taking of life by a person not authorized to do so).
God is infinitely good and infinitely just, so we know that any killing authorized by God is just.
Now, I imagine the atheist will respond "Well, your God's actions don't look very just to me." and you would not be the first atheist to do so.
For an answer to the charge that any of God's actions are not just I would refer you to the last two chapters of the book of Job, where Job questions God's justice, or the book of Romans chapter 9 where St. Paul addresses similar questions (which, btw, hearkens back to a similar argument in the book of Isaiah, chapter 29).
The long and the short of the issue is that for a finite creature to swagger up to it's creator and say "Hey, I don't think that's fair" is about the same as a lump of clay telling the potter that it doesn't like what the potter is making out of it. Doesn't so much matter, does it?
Our position before God is that of servant, not of judge.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Roger,
I'm assuming you think "god" is authorized to take "an innocent life?"
Based on what….seriously? If I hold you responsible for wrongs against me that had nothing to do with you, would that be just?
Thinking rationally, I'm not sure how one comes to any other conclusion.
I am slightly familiar with the story of Job, however, I will read this tonight and get back with you afterward.
And how do you know there is a god and/or you have the right god. What distinguishes yours from Mithra or other similar mythologies?
I don't see how saying "god" is opposed to abortion makes a valid argument when "god" clearly has no problem with it based on the verses I quoted above. How is it any different than telling your kid not to smoke while you're sitting at the breakfast table with a lit cigarette in your hand?
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The above post was meant for Matt — sorry about that!
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Student,
In relating to the passages you quoted out of the bible:
People who are evil, and not repentive, come to an evil end.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
if god chooses to kill women, children, the unborn (or anyone else) that's ok because he has a reason.
Posted by Student April 22nd, 2008 at 7:37 am
Yes. As the giver of all life God holds the unique position of granting us life or taking our life away. Why do you think that is sick? Wether you or think thinks it is sick doesn't really change the fact that it is the truth.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 am
In the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain, Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand."
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:34 am
If you see abortion as murder why should it matter whether you do it, I do it, the woman down the street does it or God does it? Is it somehow less murder in your mind? If so, how?
Posted by Student April 22nd, 2008 at 7:37 am
One big differnce might be the fact that God can just as easily raise them from the dead.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:38 am
KarenK,
Ok, even if you go with this belief, how is a child "evil" for something his/her parent has done? If you do something "evil," does that mean your child should lose his/her life?
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:25 am
Truthseeker,
Why? I think it's nonsensical because you are basing this belief on something for which you have no evidence whatsoever. Insert the word "Zeus" for "god" and I think you'll agree.
And this is where I find things getting scary. "Truth" is defined as
1. a fact that has been verified; "at last he knew the truth"; "the truth is that he didn't want to do it"
2. conformity to reality or actuality; "they debated the truth of the proposition"; "the situation brought home to us the blunt truth of the military threat"; "he was famous for the truth of his portraits"; "he turned to religion in his search for eternal verities" [ant: falseness]
3. a true statement; "he told the truth"; "he thought of answering with the truth but he knew they wouldn't believe it" [ant: falsehood]
You are not defining truth — at best, it's nothing more than an opinion…..and at that, it's an opinion with no "truth" or "facts" or "evidence" to back it up.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:30 am
Truthseeker,
Ok, going with your premise…..is there a reason god couldn't raise an aborted fetus from the dead?
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:31 am
No there is no reason God couldn't raise an aborted fetus from the dead.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Why? I think it's nonsensical because you are basing this belief on something for which you have no evidence whatsoever. Insert the word "Zeus" for "god" and I think you'll agree.
Posted by Student April 23rd, 2008 at 7:30 am
Student, let's not confuse the truth with scientific fact. Nobody can make God appear for you or for anybody else. God can be, and often is, made known to me in my life and the lives of the people I interact with. I see the Holy Spirit working through them but I cannot scientifically prove it to you.
Personally I find God through meditating on the conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. But if want a quick overview of Catholic "proofs" here is a wikipedia link
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Student says:
KarenK,
People who are evil, and not repentive, come to an evil end.
Ok, even if you go with this belief, how is a child "evil" for something his/her parent has done? If you do something "evil," does that mean your child should lose his/her life?
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:25 am
No man is an island. Sin affects everyone. People say, "I can commit such and such a sin as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." That is one of the biggest fallacies. Sin affects all, maybe not right away, but some time or another.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Please view this you-Tube video: Go to http://www.YouTube.com/frfrankpavone
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
KarenK,
Thanks for post 76, however, it in no way addresses my question.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Student,
So here's what's going on. You question how I can defend God's actions in the Bible, I say I can because I believe (based on the Bible and the teachings of the Church) that God is Just, therefore His actions, even when inscrutable to me, are justifiable.
You reply that that's poppycock because I can't come up with any evidence for this "God" character I'm always on about.
Fair enough, now this has become a new kind of debate, a debate about epistemology. Now, I'm really counting on you here Student (and I say this completely without sarcasm), I've almost never seen an atheist actually follow this argument and interact with it, not even Christopher Hitchens, whom I respect as much as I can possibly respect an atheist, but I think you can do it.
As I said, we've moved on from ethics or theology now to epistemology, the study of how we know what we know. You claim that, because I cannot produce rational evidence for the existence of my God, you don't believe in Him and He has no claim to make on you. Here's my question for you: Why do you get to smuggle reason into the debate?
You're an atheist, and I'm going to assume for a minute, a materialist, by which I mean that you don't believe in a "spiritual" reality. The universe is a big huge bunch of matter affected by time and chance.
If this is the case, our human consciousness and our human thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions in our brains. So, from your perapective, when you argue that reason is a superior epistemological tool to faith, you are arguing that the chemical reactions in your brain are superior to the chemical reactions in my brain.
This, to rob an analogy from a college professor of mine, is like shaking up a bottle of Dr. Pepper, shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew, setting them on the table and asking which one is winning the debate. The question is absurd because chemical reactions cannot be superior or inferior to each other, they just are.
To predict an objection, I do in fact believe reason to be one good epistemological tool, but I have a reason for thinking so: I believe there is a reasonable God who made the universe orderly, like Himself. But if reason is just the result of molecules knocking around in your skull, what makes that trustworthy?
And furthermore, in your constantly evolving universe, why would you believe that you can just wake up tomorrow morning and keep assuming it's trustworthy?
Like Sartre said, "Without an infinite perspective, every finite perspective is absurd." So it is here. Unless there is an infinite consciousness giving meaning to our thoughts and ideas, they are merely so much brain gas and we should give them no more credence as unshakable truth claims than we would the rumblings in our tummies.
Student, we both know reason is a valid way to get at truth. I've given you my basis for that truth claim, a transcendent God. What's yours?
April 24th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
This analogy is very strained. Our brains encoded information in ways that bottles of Coke and Mountain Dew do not. This encoding of information is a chemical process. The question is which chemical processes give information that more accurately describes the universe. In particular, is reason (as a chemical process) or faith (as a chemical process) a more reliable way to model reality?
Now, we have very limited ways of acquiring information about the universe: our senses. We can see a limited part of the light spectrum, hear a limited amount of the auditory spectrum, etc. The problem is that our senses are not completely reliable: there are optical (and auditory) illusions, etc. How do we decide what is accurate and what is not?
We have two possibilities: we can assume the universe works a particular way or we can hold our models as tentative and test them, throwing out those models that don't work. The problem with the 'faith method' is that you have to be lucky and choose the correct model right from the beginning. With reason, you don't. You get to change your model as new information becomes available.
Now, in the 'faith method', you have to make a large number of assumptions: a deity exists, this particular book holds information on that deity, etc. You can't test the basic assumptions because you have 'faith' that they are right. But what if they aren't? Then your model doesn't correspond to reality. In the 'reason method', you get to throw out that model and replace it with a better one. Furthermore, you are *expected* to try to break any model you have so that you can reliably throw out the bad models. With faith, you are expected to uphold your model no matter what. Now, which method seems better to you?
So Sartre was wrong. Unlike the rumblings in our tummies, our brains do encode information about the universe. This is possible because chemical reactions can be non-reversible, so the current state of things can encode the past (for example). As such, we can ask whether the encoded information corresponds with reality. Some will and others won't. The way to get better correspondence is to throw out those models that don't correspond and keep those that do (as tested by our only information acquiring sources: our senses), choosing models at every stage of the game that can be tested. This is the path of reason and NOT the path of faith.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:06 am
But what is the basis for your belief? A muslim will believe that the universe is designed by a reasonable God, but also believes that every instant God *chooses* what will happen in the next instant, so there is no possibility of really knowing what will happen next: anything is possible with God. This belief ultimately led to the decline of islamic science.
The point is that those molecules 'knocking around' in my skull encode information about the larger world. The question is how to make sure that information is an accurate encoding.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Professor,
Believing everything began with a “Big Bang” is more of a leap of faith then believing that God is the Creator of all things. We are “light years” away from even beginning to understand the creation of the universe. Where, for example, would you say the original “Bang” come from? This is one of the ways we "see" God because logic makes God a necessary part of creation.
God can be, and often is, made known to me in my life and the lives of the people I interact with through the Holy Spirit. Science hasn’t yet created a reliable Paracletometer or a CT scan that can measure the soul.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Professor,
You're close, but you're still not getting the pointy end of this argument. The very fact that you can use your senses and analyze the data they give you and make something out of these molecules banging about in your head proves the very point I'm making.
We may have chemical reactions in our heads more complex than the ones in a bottle of soda, but if, at the end of the day, they are merely chemical reactions, then they do not, and cannot, mean anything.
A chemical reaction is meaningless. It has no moral value or anything like it. A thought, on the other hand, has immense meaning and can have moral value. But we all know there is a vast gap between a thought and a chemical reaction.
But if the synapses firing in your brain right now have no spiritual reality behind them, they are just that, chemical reactions. And complexity only separates the bottle of Dr. Pepper and my brain by a difference of degree, not of kind.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
First, most popular treatments of the Big Bang are at best cartoon-like caricatures of what the science says. This is because the concepts are strange from a everyday perspective. But that is what happens when dealing with the universe as a whole.
When you say it takes as much faith to believe in the Big bang as it does to believe in God, have you actually looked at the evidence? Have you investigated the evidence for general relativity and looked at what it says when applied to the whole universe? Have you considered the abundances of light elements and seen how they correspond to the predictions made by a hot Big Bang? Or the nature of the cosmic background radiation and how that matches predictions? I have. I plan to make it my second career. We are now in the era of precision cosmology, so your claim that we are light-years away from understanding is simply false. Our understanding is good enough to have accurate correspondence with data from models of the universe when the current expansion phase was less than a second old. At that time, the temperature was high enough for nuclear reactions to happen in space.
Your question about where the Big Bang came from is a common one. One big problem is that any information from before the current phase of expansion has been probably been destroyed. So testing the hypotheses that are out there isn't possible as yet. I'll try to give some idea of what is known and/or conjectured.
The first thing to realize is that general relativity considers time as part of the universe. When the universe as a whole is modeled it turns out that there is a 'singularity' at the Big Bang and it is impossible to extend the concept of time to 'before the Big Bang'. This come directly out of the math. In essence, asking about 'before the Big Bang' is like asking what is 'north of the north pole'. Time itself began with the universe.
Now, general relativity is certainly not the 'ultimate explanation'. In particular, it doesn't include quantum mechanics. The problem is that there are several different ways of merging the two, none of which is particularly good. They also all give different answers to the question of 'before the Big Bang'. Some agree with general relativity: there simply is no such thing. Others describe a previous, contracting phase for the universe. Some others describe the universe as a 'brane' in a higher dimensional setting and the Big Bang as being caused by the collision of two of these branes. In all of these, there is a Big Bang in the sense that there is a time of very high density and temperature which expands to produce the current conditions.
Which is right? We don't know. My personal inclination is away from the brane theories and towards either the ones saying there is no before or there was a previous contraction. These theories can be tested in other realms to see how they hold up. At the present time, our best theory of gravity is general relativity, though.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:16 am
And I disagree that there has to be cosmic meaning for there to be local meaning. I certainly see nothing in the universe as a whole that suggests that life on this small planet orbiting an ordinary star in one largish galaxy among hundreds of billions is particularly meaningful. But, it *is* meaningful to us, since we live on that planet. Our actions are meaningful *to us* because they affect us. So I heartily reject the idea that these particular chemical reactions do not mean anything. It's just that meaning isn't a cosmic thing; it's a local one.
Again, I deny this conclusion. Since the can of soda is not complex enough to hold a large number of bits of information, there is a huge difference in kind. The complexity is a physical and chemical one, but the very fact that the state of an outside world can be modeled in this complexity is the reason we give it meaning. Spirituality is irrelevant to this: it is a completely natural complexity.
Also, that thought is different from that chemical reaction because of the possibility of having non-trivial information about the universe. The chemical reaction at most codes for pressure, temperature, and a few other gross-level variables. The thought, though, is as a series of chemical reactions and so encodes more information because of how those reactions are distributed in space and time.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I'll steal a phrase from one of my professors:
The fact that a book is only made out of letters doesn't make it meaningless.
When analyzing the brain in terms of chemical reactions, you are making a similar error of levels.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:56 am
TruthSeeker writes: "Believing everything began with a 'Big Bang'. . . "
For the record, the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, who served on the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
For some, that might be a recommendation of the theory, for others a mark against it, but it's worth noting.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
No one has ever explained how mental concepts come from physical phenomenon like synapses firing in the brain. It cannot be explained as an epaphenomenon of physical reality. The mind and the brain remain two different things despite the determination of materialist scientists. Spirituality remains.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Actually, you might be surprised what people have been able to do lately. In particular, it is now becoming possible to read minds from the brain waves. Not detailed as yet, but enough to make the lives of certain paralyzed individuals easier.
Spirits are an un-needed hypothesis.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:43 am
I think you completely overstate the consensus of materialism. Even if thoughts left tracks that were decipherable, that wouldn't explain how that creates consciousness. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n10/fodo01_.html
April 26th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Actually, that wouldn't surprise me. Physical "tracks" of mental thoughts is nothing new. It just doesn't explain how consciousness emerges from the materialistic soup. The mind-body problem is not easily resolved, and there certainly is no materialist consensus on the issue.
By the way, I'm out of town and hope that the rally goes well today. I look forward to hearing the impressions from those who are there.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I Agree with student on all this i have just read.
some believe that there is a "God" and others dont thats just life. You cannot push your beleifs on others its just wrong. Believe what you want to believe but dont try to make anyone believe in something.
Thanks,
FlowerChilddd
May 7th, 2008 at 12:28 pm