http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
This is a pretty interesting take on abortion.
I urge those who are interrested to read the whole thing, because only then will the essay be really be understood.
I thoroughly enjoyed that as it did an okay job at playing devil's advocate.. yet, not to the extreme I'd hoped. I think the beginning and middle of the article treads a dangerous line of thinking before the writer even stops to think of what he's really saying - which carries over into the latter parts of the essay. He does not formulate the "opposing" argument very well, nor does he reflect a clear path between forms of logic. I had a couple problems with the "heel" portion:
1. A fetus is stated as a non-person. The verses used to formulate an argument against an intimate creation of God vs. a non-person did nothing but back-up the belief that God knows us intimately from the time we were first conceived. I believe the Bible clearly points to a knowledgable God and one that is forever interested in us as His people. Even in our sinning, He cares to rebuke us. I didn't quite understand this portion of the essay, so perhaps I was just reading it incorrectly.
2. Taking Bible verses out of context. The same could be said for the verses used in that essay, unfortunately which is great that he mentioned this at the end. Song of Songs is hardly inappropriate content; it merely celebrates beauty and passion in its purest form. It has also been argued that Song of Songs is not about a particular woman, a man nor of sexuality at all. Job's entire account could be pointed out as a depressing, self-centered account of a man with not enough grit nor the know-how to curtail his own suffering. Yet, it exists in the Bible for a reason; one might say to justify our own sufferings and make it accutely aware to us that
God is aware of our suffering and is not entirely mute on the subject. Could it be, also, that they exist to encourage us to persevere in times of trials, rather than dwelling on our own suffering? I'm glad he mentioned quality of life b/c I agree with that.
3. We are not prophets of the Lord; as such, we cannot take ownership over those passages in Jeremiah. In Numbers 11, there is an interesting account where the Spirit of God and the word "prophet" comes into play. In one instance, Moses states that he wishes all God's people were prophets, so that He may put His Spirit on them. When God put His Spirit on the people, they prophesied. Likewise, in the New Testament, we are given the Holy Spirit. When we are born again of the spirit, the Holy Spirit resides within us, which would make us.. prophets, right? I'd love to look up more verses right now, but find a few for me that would argue against that line of reasoning.
4. The verses mentioned in Ecclesiastes: If those Scriptures were interpreted such a way, then why bother with life at all? That is not only a strong case for euthanasia and abortions, but also a case for mass suicide, infantacide and murder as well if it were to be interpreted in this way. Questioning, "Why, God, why" is a common occurence in the Bible. Even Jesus Christ asked, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" Yet, is that really the route you'd want to go with these verses?
5. The inclusion of Exodus was confusing to me. The fact was not reiterated that if the guy caused the woman's miscarriage (thus, murdering the baby), he would still be fined and punished for what he had done. This does not condone abortion on any level because to - even inadvertantly - cause the baby to die was still clearly not a good thing.
It's unfortunate that I partially agreed with his concept on how culturally-intertwined we are in our beliefs. Yet, at the same time, I couldn't respect the lack of a truly formulated "pro-choice" response.
