From: nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder? WHERE?
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI
	<1992Jul18.192704.2347@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	<1992Jul18.224034.23029@ncsu.edu>
	<1992Jul20.001531.1356@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <5628@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>
	<NUGE.92Jul24114732@newport.med.ge.com> <-2wx1n+@rpi.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:54:13 GMT

In article <-2wx1n+@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

> nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent) writes:

> >In article <5628@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us
> >(Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

> >> Now, as far as I know, the only biblical reference to it is Exodus 21:22
> >> (I think it's that-- I just moved and my bible is still packed) where the
> >> penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is monetary compensation.  Doesn't
> >> sound like murder to me.

> >  It appears that they considered the unborn as "property." Of course
> >to get to verse 22 you had to notice this (verse 21):

> >  "If, however, [a man strikes his male or female slave witha rod and]
> >  the slave survives for a day or two [before dying] he is not to be
> >  punished, since the slave is his own property."

> >  I think (hope) our standards of morality and "property" have evolved
> >beyond the Code of the Covenant in Exodus. What do you think?

> (Remember this line.)

	Looks ominous....

> Is this more of the "pick and choose" theology?  Lately, I've seen
> quite a bit of an attitude that can be summarized as: If I agree
> with the verse, it's doctrine.  If I don't agree with the verse,
> it's a historical note that no longer applies.  I seem to recall
> Phil Buckland doing a bit of this.

  I say the bible can't be read like a cookbook, taking every word
literally, without regard to historical context or author's intent.
That means interpretation is necessary. If a passage doesn't make
sense in terms of the big picure, I do question whether we need to
take it literally today. Divinely Inspired dosn't mean (to me, at
least) God dictated it, intending the audience to be us.

  I acknowledge that if I wish to convince others of my interpretation
I need to do more the quote the text.

> So do you believe the Bible is Divinely Inspired and inerrant?  
> (This is the teaching of the churches with which I am familiar.)

  In the religious truths the authors intended to convey, yes. In
scientific, historical, and psychological detail, no.

> If this is your belief, what qualifies an individual reader to
> say "This is a pronouncement" and "This doesn't apply"?

  What do _you_ think about the passage above about beating one's
slave to death? And how about all that horrible stuff Loren Petrich
continually quotes from Scritpure in this group (Biblical Satanic
Verses, etc.).

  I'm no scripture scholar, but I'd become concerned if a didn't make
sense in terms of the Christian vision. I'd try to find a new way to
look at it. The section where the Hebrews entered Canaan and promptly
slaughtered the previous inhabitants (as they were instructed to do by
God) is an example of such a passage.

> >> My friend kept on saying, "The Church says... the Church says..."

> >  Yup. Early Church teaching, the Didache Apostolicae (Teachings of
> >the Apostles, ~ 100 AD) says:

> >  "You shall not kill the fetus by abortion, or destroy the infant
> >  already born."

> I think (hope) our standards of morality and "property" have evolved
> beyond the Didache Apostolicae. What do you think? 
  
  Nice turn-around. And a good point, which you explain well below.
Your complaint, however, isn't with me. The only thing I was trying to
prove was that the Church condemend abortion in the early centuries.
That's all.

> In other words, a paragraph or two earlier in this article you
> dismissed a clear Biblical statement with the equivalent of "No
> longer applies".  Then you cite a historical precedent from ~1900
> years ago in support of your position.  Aren't we equally justified
> in saying "No longer applies" to things you agree with as well?

	In support of whose position? I haven't taken a position,
except that:

	1. We shouldn't take every law in the O.T literally for us.

	2. The early church condemned abortion.

> And I'm sure you're aware that many Christian churches do not accept
> the Didache as being divinely inspired.  Some, I believe, even consider
> it heretical.  Since you dismissed a _Biblical_ historical precedent,
> what gives this any weight at all?

   I don't of _any_ churches that _do_ consider the Didache to be
divinely inspired.  (The Catholic Church doesn't) I quoted it to show
what they taught.  Since it probably represents the start of the
tradition of church teaching that "isn't scripture", I suppose the
Fundamentalist Churches may consider it "heretical."

> Maybe they were just wrong.

  It's not taken to be divinely inspired. (Though some of the authors
of the NT may have contributed to it). 

> >> And "Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee" is an argument
> >> for personhood *before* conception, which most pro-lifers would
> >> disavow (I hope!)

> >  This doesn't seem to refer to human or bodily form (which would have
> >to be _after_ "I formed thee"), but to a another entitiy, i.e. a
> >spirit, or even an _idea_ in God's mind.

> Indeed.  And hearkening back to the principle of Divine Omniscience,
> God would know a pregnancy would be aborted before sperm ever met egg.

        Indeed, He'd know the Dahmer murders were going to happen
also. What's your point?

--
Jim Nugent

nuge@med.ge.com

nugentj@med.ge.com
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA