The following is a reader submitted essay from a website I follow. I know the creator of the site personally (just barely) and have followed it for years. He's an educator, encourages (pleads for) sharing links and postings, and readers comments are only identified by initials, I think I am in the clear posting the entire essay. I think it fits nicely into the RFM milieu. For a freebie that someone slipped under the electronic door, I think it is very well done.
=============================================

Those who oppose abortion almost universally do so on the basis of a religious belief (and almost as universally claiming Christianity as that basis). Except for Roman Catholics, quite often those are the same people who insist on Biblical literalism. However, the view that life begins at conception is Biblically unsupportable, as both the Jewish Bible (the Christian Old Testament) and the New Testament universally view "breath" as the designator of life. And I say this as a devout Christian (but not a "fundamentalist"). Indeed, religious fundamentalism is quite clearly among the things that Christ unequivocally and repeatedly condemned and which also, not coincidentally, led directly to His execution. Setting aside the constitutional issues of "establishing" a religious belief opposing abortion, it is worth examining the actual biblical legitimacy of the anti-abortion position.

One must start in analyzing Christian beliefs (and any alleged biblical basis of those beliefs) with some undisputed fundamentals. First, Jesus was a Jew and a devout one at that. He revered the Word of God as then manifest in what we now call the Old Testament, and knew it deeply and intimately—indeed, if one accepts that Jesus was divine as well as human, more deeply and intimately than any human who had ever lived or who ever will. Second, the early Christian Church viewed itself not as a new faith or even a new sect, but as fundamentally Jewish. They continued being observant Jews until well after they were ejected from the Temple and Jewish community. Even then, and even now, Christianity remains pervaded with Jewish tradition, ranging from Christian reverence for the Old Testament to male circumcision, and a host of things between. This is crucial because what Jewish tradition and the Old Testament say about things is not only material but highly pertinent, particularly if one is interpreting or seeking meaning in the Old Testament, or basing claims of belief in the Old Testament. And for those asserting biblical literalism and inerrancy, the Old Testament is essential. Finally, notwithstanding the puzzling reverence many folks have for the King James Version of the Bible, the Bible was not written in 17th Century English—which is, of course, why it is the King James "Version" of the Bible. King James did not author the Bible; his effort was simply an attempt to translate the original Hebrew and Aramaic (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) into what was then contemporary language so that it could be more widely read and understood.

So what does the Bible actually say about when life begins? Interestingly, what it says is not far from the "viability" standard set in Roe v. Wade, though it is expressed in terms that the scientific understanding of the day would understand. Biblically, life begins and ends with the presence of breath. No more, no less. Indeed, this concept is reflected in Hebrew in the word "Ruach" (or alternatively spelled, "Ruah") which means "the spirit of life" or "the breath of life," and sometimes simply "life," "breath," "spirit" or "soul." Some older commentators translate it as the "vital principle which resides in and animates the body." Interestingly, it also means "wind," which is also used often in the Bible to demonstrate the presence of works of God.

This concept is most dramatically illustrated in the story of the Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37, where God brought together dry bones, and put sinew and flesh on them. But they were not alive until they were given "breath" from the wind. The same concept is found in Genesis, where the "breath of life" is mentioned repeatedly (Genesis 1:30; 2:7; 6:17; 7:15; 7:21-22). The idea is found throughout the Old Testament—breath as the indicator of life. For example, see Job 12:10, 33:4; Psalm 104:24, 29; Psalm 135:15-17; Psalm 146:3-4; Ecclesiastes 3:18-19, 11:5, 12:5-7; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 10:14, 51:17; Habakkuk 2:19; Wisdom of Solomon 15: 10-11; Ecclesiasticus 33:21; Letter of Jeremiah 6:24-25; 2 Maccabees 7: 23; and 2 Esdras 3:4-5.

In the New Testament, Jesus' death is indicated in the Synoptic Gospels by declaring that He "breathed his last," per Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37, 39; and Luke 23:6. At the other end of the New Testament, in the Revelation to John, we see breath as the force that resurrects the prophets. That's Revelation 11:9-11.

That a pre-birth fetus is not considered "alive" is also evident in Exodus 21 (at 22-25), where, immediately before the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" instruction is given, an injury to a pregnant woman that results in a miscarriage is merely fined. And, in Numbers 5:11-31, an induced abortion is prescribed as a test for married women who are suspected of an adultrous pregnancy. And that belief regarding the beginning of life remains the predominant Jewish view today—that life begins with the first breath.

All of this leads, of course, to at least a brief mention of Biblical "literalism" which, like Constitutional "originalism," is often highly selective and non-contextual, and also often entirely disregarded when it yields an undesired result. Here, literalism leads unequivocally to the conclusion that opposition to abortion is simply not based in the Bible because the Bible makes clear that life does not begin at conception but at birth, when "breath" occurs. Given the penchant of fundamentalists, both literally and figuratively, to "thump" the Bible to support their beliefs, for those persons to claim that life begins at a time earlier than "breath" is to take a position that is unquestionably directly contrary to biblical teachings, and is hypocritical at best.

The Roman Catholic position is more nuanced because it is not grounded biblically at all and does not pretend to be because Catholics are not biblical literalists. Rather, it is based upon an inferred value of the sanctity of life from Jesus' teachings (which is an unquestionably fair inference, and also supports Catholic opposition to the death penalty), coupled with a simple declaration at some point in church history by someone that life begins at conception. The exact source of the Catholic dogma on life beginning at conception does not seem to be known other than that it appeared in catechisms as at some point in the first century. However, that position is, as shown above, not based upon biblical tradition or text; it is simply an accepted facet of Catholic faith. Given that the Catholic Church's declaration of beliefs being not biblically supportable was a major reason for the Protestant Reformation, it is historically surprising that this particular facet of non-biblical Catholic declared belief is so predominant among the "more Protestant" denominations than those that are "less Protestant."

The point of this long explanation is twofold: (1) to show that biblical literalists are hypocrites when it comes to abortion and when life begins; and (2) to suggest that for non-Catholics, unless their belief is based upon the acceptance of Catholic dogma (which for Protestant fundamentalists it almost certainly would not be), there is decidedly something else going on. And there is, but that is the basis for another long essay at some point and a topic about which there has been plenty written recently by others.

Let’s simplify things. Some people see abortion as murder. I fall in this category. If our mothers aborted us in the womb none of us would be here. But I’m not an absolutist. I’m amoral. I perfectly know the world isn’t black and white, it’s grey. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Abortion is going to exist whether it’s legal or not. Now a woman can go to a legal, professionally ran, safe facility or a seedy, illegal chop shop ran by criminal elements. So the lesser of the two evil is to have a safe facility.

Therefore I’m pro choice. I will let the mother own the karma.

I disagree with your assumptions but very much respect your logic and conclusion.

It's a strange world we are entering where a woman can buy a bag of weed but not get an abortion.

The law seems to ebb and flow, oscillating between order and chaos. Women are empowered by MeToo, then disempowered by women making false accusations. Illegals stream into the country due to perverse incentives, then comes the crackdown on immigrants. Abortion was legalized assuming it would be a rare thing. It's not rare so the law does what it does. The protests make me wonder if we are headed to a failed state. The harassment of judges is a worse harbinger than overturning Roe v. Wade.

>>The harassment of judges is a worse harbinger than overturning Roe v. Wade.

You've got to be kidding. Jesus.

>> The harassment of judges is a worse harbinger than overturning Roe v. Wade.

The judges are free to drive several hundred miles to buy a home in a state that aligns with their thinking. /s

Perfectly said.

>If our mothers aborted us in the womb none of us would be here.

If everybody was celibate, none of us would be here.

If everybody was gay, none of us would be here.

If everybody used reliable contraception, none of us would be here.

But not everybody has an abortion every time they get pregnant, nor is celibate, nor is gay, nor choses to use contraception.

And they aren't threats to the survival of the species. Only one of those actions is likely to become illegal in parts of the US. So far. Homosexuals should be a little nervous. I think there is zero chance celibacy will be outlawed.

Interesting, but I dismiss any opinions of religion on this topic. Religions involved in this issue have mostly been the same ones involved in suppression of women in general. Not only that, they don't deserve a seat at the table in science. They might as well be arguing over angels on a pin.

I don't encourage religious "pick the interpretation" justifications. This is such an important issue that impacts my ability to have full rights over my reproductive decisions alone. People who pick a human acorn over me as a full grown oak tree, especially on moral grounds, frighten me. It's just a short slide from concluding women are being casual about abortions to viewing them as sluts.

I do realize that unfortunately, millions of people are completely dedicated to supporting whatever their religion wants to do. In those cases, maybe essays like that are helpful to help them cherry pick with an empathetic mind.

The author's point is that the Biblical literalists are being hypocritical because the literal reading of the Bible says life begins at first breath.

As the author says, the abortion debate is not about Biblical literalism. In the author's words. "there is decidedly something else going on."

Indeed. The author is right. There is a lot more going on.

Religious lunatics in Oklahoma passed a total abortion ban starting at fertilization, literally when the sperm meets an egg.

This backward medieval action imposed on women by a religious minority should scare the crap out of everyone, but no.

I also heard that it is illegal in 5 states to get a divorce if pregnant. One of my pet peeves is religious people who have been divorced a zillion times ragging about abortion and LGBTQ issues when it's pretty clear what the Bible says about divorce. The scriptures are dangerous tools used to manipulate believers, mostly resulting in creating world class hypocrites.

Think about life in a Brontë novel.

The only choice you had — if you were allowed to make it at all — was to decide whom to marry and presumably procreate with. Premarital sex was forbidden, and, if made public, along with the natural consequences thereof, would ruin you for life.

Once married, your identity ceased to exist apart from your husband's and you were considered to be legally dead. Your were under his total domination and control, and everything that was once yours was now his. Along with marriage came the explicit right to sex on demand without the right of refusal. Many eighteenth and nineteenth century women remarked that their lives were little better than that of slaves. Your "job" was to produce a male heir and run the household. That's all. If you were lucky, you could marry a man who would allow you some sense of individuality and show you some kindness — but not all women were so fortunate.


If you husband predeceased you, you were expected to spend the rest of your life in mourning. A widow who remarried, especially a young widow whose husband was killed in action, was considered to be only marginally socially acceptable as it would be publicly known that she would have sex with more than one man during her lifetime.


By the late Victorian era, there were entire books devoted to the subject of distracting and avoiding sex with your husband. You were breeding stock and that's all. Being eternally pregnant without end was just your fate. If you died giving birth or faced complications or medical problems from multiple pregnancies, it was just chalked up to fate or "God's will."


In other words, your body never belonged to you.

It belonged to first your family and then to your husband.


This is the world the fundies want to go back to.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2022 04:25AM by anybody.

It's worth noting that domestic and domination come from the exact same root. That which which is under my dome I control. The Russian word for home is "domo", same Indo-European root as domestic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_woman

The idea that Eve, from the biblical story in the Book of Genesis, was the prototypical fallen woman has been widely accepted by academics,[4] theologians and literary scholars.[5] Eve was not expelled from Eden because she had sex outside of marriage; rather she fell from a state of innocence because she ate forbidden fruit from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is, Eve and then Adam reached for knowledge, but in reaching for it, they disobeyed God and lost their original innocence, as shown by their sudden awareness of and shame at their nakedness. The temptation offered to Adam and Eve in the story was to know what God knows and to see what God sees. It was a temptation based on covetousness and a desire to be like God. (See: Prometheus) Thus, theologically speaking, there is a metaphor that is related to the Fall of Man from a state of grace as well as to the expulsion and subsequent fall of Lucifer from heaven.

The term "fallen" was nevertheless most often conflated with sexual "knowledge" (i.e., experience), particularly for women at a time when the social value of their sexual inexperience was insisted upon. As the term narrowed to imply any socially unauthorized sexual activity, including premarital or extra-marital sex, whether initiated by the woman or not, it concealed the different reasons for such a "falling" out of God's and society's favor. "Fallen" was therefore an umbrella term that was applied to a variety of women in a variety of settings: she may have been a woman who had had sex once or habitually outside the confines of marriage; a woman of a lower socioeconomic class; a woman who had been raped or sexually coerced by a male aggressor; a woman with a tarnished reputation; or a prostitute. Furthermore, prostitution was defined in a range of ways and the "reality was that hard economic times meant that for many women, prostitution was the only way to make ends meet. Many ... were only transient fallen women, moving in and out of the profession [of prostitution] as family finances dictated."[6]

In some cases, a woman may have been regarded as fallen simply because she was educated, eccentric, or elusive. Whatever the case may be, female fallenness as it appears in each of these renderings was the result of a woman’s deviation from social norms, and in turn strongly linked to moral expectations. In the mid 19th century, for example, "For middle-class men seeking to establish a different basis for authority, from that which had been used by the nobility, moral authority became the key issue, evident in the power exercised by a man over the nuclear or bourgeois family and in his ability to regulate women's sexuality through her protection and containment in the domestic sphere."[7]

Female dancers and performers have been regarded as deviating from social norms that expect women to stay away from the male gaze, and hence have been described as belonging to the class of "fallen women". In Europe, women dancers were not socially acceptable and in Arabia, "the unveiled ghawazi, who performed publicly for men, were not respected".[8]