Home › Blogs › Wayne from Jeremiah Films's blog ›

Larry O’Donnell argues for God’s Judgement on Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) on Abortion

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 12:49

Communion is a Christian scriptural practice based on 1 Corinthians 11:24 “and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” For those who do not believe in Jesus by their own belief does not believe in communion. And if one does not believe what the scripture says about communion then its practice is an dishonest act to pretend to be something they are not.

Those who do should take time and consider 1 Cor. 11:26-29 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly.”

I do not know exactly what Larry O’Donnell believes, He has made the statement on National News that ‘Roman Catholic bishop who barred Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) from taking communion a “political hack.”‘ This is in issue to Partick’s pro-choice positions … there are many scriptural references against the choice to kill an innocent child because it is not loved. While what is in Partick’s heart is only known to God and himself his public actions are know to the world.

Psalm 139:13-15

“You did form my inward parts, you knit me together in my mother’s womb…you knew me right well; my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret…”

Jeremiah1:4-5

“Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb, I k(Living Bible Version)

Proverbs 24:11-12

“Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die. Don’t try to disclaim responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it.”

Proverbs 6:16-17

“The Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood.”

Matthew 5:21

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill…”

Psalm 127:3

“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is His reward.”

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Why

Submitted by John Smith on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 13:12.

does the OT require two different punishments for causing a miscarriage and causing a death? If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed. It is almost as if it considers an unborn child to be of a different status that one that has been born. Hmmm...

Also:

Matthew 19:6 (NKJV) "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

When are you people going to be consistent? If the bible demands that bishops tell elected politicians how they should vote on abortion issues, then it follows that the bible demands that the bishops tell elected politicians to ban divorce in all cases.

Especially given that the prohibition against divorce is in Jesus's own words in the NT - whereas you can only come up with the prohibition against abortion by inappropraite interpetation and stitching together of bits and pieces of the OT - you know, the book that was superceeded by the NT.

The Old Testament and abortion

Submitted by Joseph Hertzlinger on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 02:32.

The passage authorizing lenient treatment for the accidental death of a fetus immediately follows a passage authorizing lenient treatment for the accidental death of a slave. This is consistent with the pro-life cliche that abortion is analogous to slavery. Obviously, God intended them to be banned at the same time.

Besides, literal interpretations of the Bible only apply in universes under 6000 year old.

Your Question on divorce was put to Jesus

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 13:36.

Matthew 19:3-15

"does the OT require two different punishments"  ... there is only one hell. causing a miscarriage is causing a death ... It would be called a premature birth if there was no death. Any and all punishments from the State are given to the State in Roman 13. The punishments in the OT are over 2009 years old. It is foolish to argue history which when scripture is not taken in whole it is out of context.

 

You should read your Bible before you lecture the

Submitted by John Smith on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 13:44.

rest of us based on it.

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion.

One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used here

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 13:56.

(King James) 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life" ("fruit" refers to the child and the "mischief" is clearly referring to harm to the child)

Consider what Walter Elwell wrote about this particular difficulty:

         "...the Hebrew of 21:22 literally reads “and hit a pregnant woman so that her child(ren) come forth, and no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined.”  Here the King James and New International translations are helpful.  The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used here.  Our text portrays a woman being struck and then delivering prematurely. 

         The very passage used by some to support abortion, in fact, goes in the opposite direction. In this case the woman is accidentally struck, but if she or the child dies as a result, then the guilty party could be sentenced to death.  This is the only instance in the Torah where involuntary manslaughter calls for the death penalty.  Generally, the guilty party was to receive refuge from “the avenger of blood” and was not to be put to death (Deut. 19:4–10). Injury to the unborn is the only exception.  The reason seems clear enough: God places high value on the unborn.  The law always expresses concern for those least able to defend themselves."

 

In other words

Submitted by John Smith on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:10.

nothing to see here, move along, despite the fact that the plain meaning of these passages in every translation you can find contradicts your point.

 

Your words are cause and a term for death -

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:31.

Were they poorly choosen?

If you intended premature birth that would be different. I know of nobody living because of a successful abortion, I do know of living people because of a successful premature birth.

Do you not see a difference?

Is there a number of killings that you believe is acceptable? or is all murder wrong? Hitler caused death . do you think he should participate in Communion?

What do you believe a loving act would be if you see somebody doing something that will cause him to suffer?

Yes, legislating from the bible

Submitted by John Smith on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:39.

is a poor choice. A very poor choice.

As is using "Hitler" in your argument - see Godwin's Law.

Yes, all murder is wrong, but abortion is not murder. Read your bible.

 

 

Your own strawman.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:54.

Already posted the folly of arguing Before Christ law in 2009. Romans 13 clearly places power in the State.

 

Surviving birth by abortion is an accident

As is using "Hitler" in your

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:56.

As is using "Hitler" in your argument - see Godwin's Law.

It's particularly ill-suited for this argument (as Hitler and the Nazis--like all of the fascist movements--were rabidly "pro-life" in the way the contemporary pro-life community defines it).

Totally misleading argument. Here's why:

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:26.

 

"The reason seems clear enough: God places high value on the unborn.  The law always expresses concern for those least able to defend themselves."

 

Part of the mother's body

Traditional Judaism regards a foetus as a being that is developing towards being a person.

The easiest way to conceptualise a foetus in halacha [Jewish law] is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being - but not quite.Daniel Eisenberg, M.D.

In Judaism a foetus is not considered to be a person until it is born.

Before that it is regarded as a part of the mother's body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and some status.

During the first forty days after conception, it is considered 'mere fluid'.

From an ethical point of view, then:

  • a foetus is not a person

  • but a foetus should nonetheless be protected to some extent because it is growing towards full personhood

  • so a foetus should not be destroyed or harmed except for very good reasons

The high status given to a foetus is demonstrated by the fact that Jewish law permits desecration of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a foetus.

According to the Halacha or Jewish Law a foetus is considered part of the mother's body and not a full human being. The book of Exodus (21:22) says...

When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life...

"Other damage" is taken in this text to mean "the death of the mother."

This passage is interpreted as saying that causing the foetus to miscarry is a civil wrong that gives rise to the right to financial restitution - which indicates that the foetus is not a person - but killing the mother is murder, because the mother is a person.

The distinguished commentator Rashi wrote:

For as long as it did not come out into the world, it is not called a living thing and it is permissible to take its life in order to save its mother. Once the head has come forth, it may not be harmed because it is considered born, and one life may not be taken to save another.

This passage, too, makes it clear that Judaism regards a foetus as a lesser human being than a human being who has been (at least partially) born.

But although the foetus has no personhood and therefore none of the rights and privileges of a human being, it must still be protected as a potential human being, and not casually harmed or destroyed.

The Talmud (commentary on Jewish oral traditions) gives other examples on the status of the foetus.

The first involves the sale of a cow, which is subsequently found to be pregnant. No payment is made for the sale of the foetus to the buyer and the foetus belongs to the buyer.

The second example concerns the conversion of a pregnant woman to Judaism. Jewish law regards the conversion valid for her future child as well, requiring no separate conversion for it after birth.

 

Saving the mother's life

Jewish law permits abortion to save the life of the mother - in fact it insists on an abortion if this is necessary to save the mother.

This is because the mother's life takes precedence over the life of the foetus.

The danger to the mother must be clear and substantial, and the abortion cannot be done in the very last stage of pregnancy.

The Mishnah states that where there is danger to the mother's life, an abortion can be performed at any stage from conception until the head of the infant emerges:

If a woman has (life-threatening) difficulty in childbirth, one dismembers the embryo within her, limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life. However, once its head (or its 'greater part') has emerged, it may not be touched, for we do not set aside one life for anotherOhalot 7:6

 

Saving the mother 'from' the foetus

A related (but subtly different) argument operates not on the priority of the mother's life or personhood, but by classifying the foetus as a 'rodef', a 'pursuer' who is threatening the life of the mother. The foetus may therefore be killed in such a case in order to prevent the mother being killed.

The great Jewish commentator Maimonides (who was also a doctor) wrote:

It is a negative commandment (Deut. 25:12) not to have pity for the life of an aggressor (rodef). That is why the Sages ruled that if a woman is in hard travail the embryo is removed, either by drugs or surgery: because it is regarded as one pursuing her and trying to kill her.Maimonides, MT, Hilkhot Rotzeah 1.9

This argument justifies destroying something of high value (the foetus), because it is (actively) endangering a person's life. The humanness of the foetus is devalued because the foetus is threatening a life.

 (link)

More have pro-life opinions.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:45.

Educated theologians would agree with a loving pro-life God. Well Christian theologians anyway.

Islamic theologians believe in killing.

Obama of course believes in the choice to kill unwanted children.

What matters of course is what God believes is sin.

Go though a stop sign and go before the judge and tell him you do not believe in Stop signs and millions of people around the world do not and stop signs do not appear in the constitution. None of that would have any effect on the judge.

 

Do you believe in a murderer punished in his/her lifetime?

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 15:14.

 

That must be a capital punishment for a murder, right?

So you want to push for a legislation punishing aborting mothers and their helpers to death?

 

Or do you NOT support capital punishment? If so, what punishment do you support? serve for  LIFE in prision? Thatshould be applicable for abortion too, no?

And as these chnages in law (out lawing abortion-- let alone death/life sentences)  doesn't seem to happen, even under your republican majorities, what would you do as a righteous living and praticing christian? Eye for an Eye? Since "What matters of course is what God believes is sin", you can implement Bible suggested punishment on the sinners in this life, and allow yourself to be punished as per the current laws of the society, knowing tat you will be judged for righteous action by God.

 

 

Are you offering a strawman?

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 15:21.

You want to punish moms now?

You are not for punishing moms...

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 15:28.

 

who commit murder? no even if it is a mom killing her adult son if not an infant or a fetus?

What is so hard for you to understand here as a clear minded christian who earlier stated that abortion is murder, an embryo is a person, and even more valuable than a person(as s/he cannot defend oneself)?

 

 

There are people who tell the Mother it is OK.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 15:45.

Even in the Senate, They are told life is meaningless.

When slavery was legal, we did not punish slave owners when it ended. When we passed the 14th Amendment we did not punish those who following the laws of the State. It is a basic principle of law that one is punished only for laws that exist when the act was committed.

 

I feel pity for them. They need to be forgiven.

 

So don't you think that Obama and the Congressmen and women

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 15:54.

 

need to be forgiven in this life (by loving christians like you) and the next (by your loving God) as well? Hey, the aborted fetus babies go to Heaven and play rigth beside god's throne!

 

I would not put them the death.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 16:09.

I wonder if you are trying to make a connect that not having communion as a punishment - It is not. Maybe it will help them get right with God.

They do not need to be concerned about humans sending them to hell. It does not happen that way. So "they" do not need to be forgiven by me or the church. Carries no weight with God.

Obama, lawmakers, pro-choicers etc

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 16:29.

 

...are no more "guilty" than moms who abort--about whom you said "I feel pity for them. They need to be forgiven."--they are all involved in murders, killing defenseless 'children'.

The 911 terorists were also told-- like the moms who were told that "life is meaningless" and its ok to abort--that murdering civilian Americans is no crime in the eyes of God, so will you also feel pity for them, they don't need to be forgiven like the moms? Are you for a death sentence for KSM? He will be judged by your god anyway in the next life, so why don't you be true to your christian values and support life and not demand a right to take a life created by God?

 

Terrorists committed a crime.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 16:31.

n/t

Thanks for poving that killing children is not a crime also

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 16:45.

 

End of stupid discussion

 

Roe vs Wade is the law we are under.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 16:52.

I never said it was against the law. It should be but it is not.

So you are all for a law punishing aborting moms to death...

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 17:12.

 

or life imprisonment (if you are against a death penalty, based on your religious values) GIVEN that the new law is applicable to abortions that happen only AFTER the law is passed.

 

I support a law which makes it a crime to drown one children in

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 17:34.

Drowning one children in a car by driving it into a lake is murder, even if the Mom no longer loves them. I do not support a law that because mom's are drowning themselves while the kids drown that we should use state funds to provide a mom with a car she can lock the children in and use a remote to drive the car into the lake to drown the children.

I do not think the punishment of the State should be based on Old Testament law. You seem to think that a Christian should use Old Testament laws after the birth of Christ. You are suggesting the only choice is between death as a penalty or allow people to do anything they want. Or between strict legalism and complete immorality.

 

ACTS 15 5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." ... 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

"Islamic theologians believe in killing." Wrong!

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 16:12.

 

Islamic view on abortion is similar to christian view. Enjoy:

 

The Islamic view is based on the very high priority the faith gives to the sanctity of life. The Qur'an states:

Whosoever has spared the life of a soul, it is as though he has spared the life of all people. Whosoever has killed a soul, it is as though he has murdered all of mankind. --Qur'an 5:32

Most Muslim scholars would say that a foetus in the womb is recognised and protected by Islam as a human life.

The Qur'an makes it clear that a foetus must not be aborted because the family fear that they will not be able to provide for it - they should trust Allah to look after things:

Kill not your offspring for fear of poverty; it is We who provide for them and for you. Surely, killing them is a great sin. --Qur'an 17:32

The same (and similar) texts also ban abortion on social or financial grounds relating to the mother or the rest of the family - e.g. that the pregnancy wasn't planned and a baby will interfere with the mother's life, education or career.

 

I believe that the value of life is the same whether this embryo is the result of fornication with relatives or non-relatives or valid marriage. In Sharia life has the same value in all cases. --Sheikh M. A. Al-Salami, Third Symposium on Medical Jurisprudence

It's important to note that many scholars believe that life begins at conception, and that all scholars believe that an embryo deserves respect and protection at all stages of the pregnancy.

(link)

Speaking as a Jew

Submitted by Joseph Hertzlinger on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 02:27.

That attempt to convert me to Christianity did not work.

There are a wide variety of candidates for the beginning of human life in Jewish tradition. It might begin at conception, forty days later, eighty days later, at the beginning of labor, at birth, eight days after birth, or thirty days after birth.IOW, Jews are not commanded to believe life begins whenever the NY Times Editorial Board says.

Pro-choice activists used to compare war and abortion. For once I agree with them. The analogy fits Jewish law. The Talmud prohibits non-Jews from performing abortions. That does not make sense under the assumption that a fetus is not a human being or that abortion is some kind of emergency amputation. It does make sense under the assumption that abortion is analogous to war. (Most nations restrict the ability of noncitizens to make war.) The war--abortion analogy also agrees with the fact that a fetus who is endangering the mother is regarded as a pursuer.

Post started out as one ...

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 03:28.

Related to Catholics reemergence into politics. No intent to discredit Talmud.

There is no mention of abortion in the Christian bible

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:06.

 

The diverse Christian views on the topic of abortion are more a cultural interpretation over 2000 years.

No mention of the trindy.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:18.

We use the "word" to descript what exsists in description of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. The word Eugenics is also not used in the Bible; but the creation of a new word does not create a loophole. If it smells bad, it is not a rose.

Abortion fails the love test: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

OK then, show a passage which clearly

Submitted by John Smith on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:33.

references the concept of abortion, since you say it is unfair to insist that the actual word be found. 

BTW, the trindy - or the trinity, even - rarely come up in political discussions.

 

Translate abortion.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 15:07.

If you want me to explain why it is wrong without the use of the word

 

The catch all is the Ten Commandments;

"Though shalt not kill" The word kill comes from the word Ratsach can also be translated to murder. It is a act of a planned killing, but not used in context of a punishment or in war.

"Though shalt not kill" The

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/23/2009 - 15:37.

"Though shalt not kill" The word kill comes from the word Ratsach can also be translated to murder. It is a act of a planned killing, but not used in context of a punishment or in war.

It is not applicable to animals as well, right? I mean animals other than humans of course. You are asuming that the Bible clearly states that a fetus at any stage is a human, a person. Please quote suitable passages.

Btw,

St. Augustine believed that the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present. Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Gregory XIV also believed that a fetus does not have a soul until "quickening," or when the fetus begins to kick and move.

although Church teaching has for a long time stated that a foetus becomes a person when the egg is fertilised, distinguished theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas said this didn't happen until between 40 and 80 days after conception

A companion to bioethics By Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer

I don't care. The government has no business enforcing morality.

Submitted by Einzige on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 00:10.

The end.

You're saying the government has no business stopping theft ...

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 01:48.

Murder, fraud.

No business in having a police force or jails or courts.

No business stopping crualty or abuse.

All these things are wrong because of morality.

Without the Government in the business of enforcing morality you have Sudan.

 

That's perfectly fine for me.

Submitted by Einzige on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 02:03.

As long as it's not thieving from me, the rest of the State can go to Hell in a handbasket. I happen to think that our alternative communities - such as the entire Internet - are now developed enough to take over the reigns that the State formerly possessed. You don't. And that's fine. I know what side I represent - the historical conservatives, those who genuinely believed in a smaller government. You're a liberal. And that's fine, too.

What are you conserving?

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 02:17.

I'm conserving the rule of law and the constitution. Yes I am an interventionist but that is a bit different than a liberal.

"Conserving"? No. I am *preserving* the right of self-ownership.

Submitted by Einzige on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 02:42.

Our entire capitalist order is predicated upon this basic fact: I possess myself before I possess anything else in this world. If a woman chooses to exercise this right in a way that conflicts with your Christian morality, so be it. I am extremely weary of being lumped together with the theocrats and populists.