James Talarico doubles down on pro-abortion stance: 'The Bible is silent'

Vambram said:

Isaiah 49:1 and Galatians 1:15 very specifically says that God called and knew them in the womb.

Click to expand...

The context in which they're both used makes it pretty clear that "the womb" is being used as a euphemism for "an early age" or "from the very beginning." They're not making statements about the value of a fetus in the way that the Exodus passage is.

iluvatar5150 said:

The context in which they're both used makes it pretty clear that "the womb" is being used as a euphemism for "an early age" or "from the very beginning." They're not making statements about the value of a fetus in the way that the Exodus passage is.

Click to expand...

The context in which those verses makes it extremely clear that "the womb" is in fact the woman's womb. Those verses are indeed making clear, biblical statements about the value of the life in the woman's womb. Please don't attempt to try to use symbols where the verses are being literal.

Vambram said:

The context in which those verses makes it extremely clear that "the womb" is in fact the woman's womb. Those verses are indeed making clear, biblical statements about the value of the life in the woman's womb. Please don't attempt to try to use symbols where the verses are being literal.

Click to expand...

This is the opening section of Isaiah 48:

“1. Listen, O coastlands, to Me, And take heed, you peoples from afar! The Lord has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name.
2 And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; In the shadow of His hand He has hidden Me, And made Me a polished shaft; In His quiver He has hidden Me.”

Is he actually talking to the coastland?
Did the Lord actually hide him in a shadow?
Did He polish Isaiah into a shiny cylinder?
Did He stick Isaiah into a quiver?

iluvatar5150 said:

This is the opening section of Isaiah 48:

“1. Listen, O coastlands, to Me, And take heed, you peoples from afar! The Lord has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name.
2 And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; In the shadow of His hand He has hidden Me, And made Me a polished shaft; In His quiver He has hidden Me.”

Is he actually talking to the coastland?
Did the Lord actually hide him in a shadow?
Did He polish Isaiah into a shiny cylinder?
Did He stick Isaiah into a quiver?

Click to expand...

Isaiah is still very, very clearly talking about his mother's womb.

Delvianna said:

The Bible doesnt use the modern English word "abortion." However, it does repeatedly addresses the intentional killing of innocent human life.

Genesis 9:6 (NKJV)

"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man."

Exodus 20:13 (NKJV)

"You shall not murder."

Deuteronomy 27:25 (NKJV)

"Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!'"

Proverbs 6:16-17 (NKJV)

"These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood,"

Jeremiah 19:4-5 (NKJV)

"Because they have forsaken Me and made this an alien place, because they have burned incense in it to other gods whom neither they, their fathers, nor the kings of Judah have known, and have filled this place with the blood of the innocents (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),"

Deuteronomy 1:39 (NKJV)

"Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it."

So its not whether the Bible contains the modern word "abortion." It's whether unborn children are innocent human beings. If they are, then the verses above are directly relevant because scripture consistently condemns the shedding of innocent blood and the killing of those who have committed no wrong doing. Theres also more verses that I haven't posted either.

Now, please quote book, chapter, and verse where the Bible explicitly permits the intentional killing of unborn children.

Click to expand...

The concept of abortion existed in the ancient world. Abortion isn't modern--it's been around for thousands of years.

As I said in an earlier post, we can find Scripture that implicitly condemns abortion, what you've posted would be examples that can be used for an implicit condemnation. What I said is that there isn't an explicit condemnation of abortion. And none of the passages you cited are examples of explicit condemnations of abortion.

Lots of things are part of the Christian theological and moral tradition that aren't explicitly mentioned in Scripture--and that's fine. There is no explicit mention of the Trinity, but the Trinity is implicitly taught in many ways--such that alternative views were condemned by the early Church and rightly so. The Bible doesn't provide an explicit mention of the Trinity; rather the Bible teaches the theological building blocks (monotheism, the unity of God's Being, the Deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, etc)--so that we can build a firm biblical case for Trinitarianism. But it would be wrong to say the Bible explicitly mentions the Trinity.

In the same way, the Bible certainly provides the moral building blocks to condemn abortion--but there is no explicit mention of abortion.

I'm not a Biblicist*, so this isn't really a problem for me.

*I'm defining Biblicism here as someone who A) holds to a form of Bible-onlyism (in contrast to historic Sola Scriptura) and B) takes a hardline literalist perspective (in contrast to a contextualist, who considers historical and literary context, as well as includes textual criticism into account)

Judges 16:7
Psalm 139:13-16
Jeremiah 1:5

ViaCrucis said:

The concept of abortion existed in the ancient world. Abortion isn't modern--it's been around for thousands of years.

As I said in an earlier post, we can find Scripture that implicitly condemns abortion, what you've posted would be examples that can be used for an implicit condemnation. What I said is that there isn't an explicit condemnation of abortion. And none of the passages you cited are examples of explicit condemnations of abortion.

Lots of things are part of the Christian theological and moral tradition that aren't explicitly mentioned in Scripture--and that's fine. There is no explicit mention of the Trinity, but the Trinity is implicitly taught in many ways--such that alternative views were condemned by the early Church and rightly so. The Bible doesn't provide an explicit mention of the Trinity; rather the Bible teaches the theological building blocks (monotheism, the unity of God's Being, the Deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, etc)--so that we can build a firm biblical case for Trinitarianism. But it would be wrong to say the Bible explicitly mentions the Trinity.

In the same way, the Bible certainly provides the moral building blocks to condemn abortion--but there is no explicit mention of abortion.

I'm not a Biblicist*, so this isn't really a problem for me.

*I'm defining Biblicism here as someone who A) holds to a form of Bible-onlyism (in contrast to historic Sola Scriptura) and B) takes a hardline literalist perspective (in contrast to a contextualist, who considers historical and literary context, as well as includes textual criticism into account)

Click to expand...

Glad we've cleared it up that the scriptures aren't silent on abortion.

These verses are being taken out of context when used to claim personhood exists in a zygote.
Psalm 139 is about God’s glory and omniscience.
Jeremiah 1:5 is about God’s calling.
Exodus 21:22–25 treats early loss differently from the death of a person.
None of these passages define personhood at fertilization.

Empirical Proof: The human body naturally expels zygotes and blastocysts at extremely high rates. If every fertilized egg were a full person, nature would be the biggest killer in history and God would be planning against His self. Using these scriptures as biological proof of a person makes Christianity look like superstition to secular society.

This is why I see a demagogue using abortion to gain support --> because Jesus expressly warned, “By the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” What's even worse is that we get talked into turning away from the weightier matters of forgiveness, mercy, understanding, and into the wrath brought about through righteousness through the works of the letter of the law.

Romans 4:15 — “For the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, there is no transgression.”

Click to expand...

This is Paul’s theological point: Law doesn’t create righteousness — it exposes sin and therefore brings judgment. Jesus Himself indicates why we cannot judge the secular world: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Those who are only “flesh‑born” cannot be judged by standards meant for those born of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 5:12–13).

When we judge others by standards Scripture never sets (Matthew 7:2; Romans 2:1), we turn the message of forgiveness — the very thing Jesus died for because of the weakness of the flesh (Romans 8:3) — into righteousness through the works of the law (Galatians 2:21; Galatians 3:10).

1. “When we judge others by standards Scripture never sets…”​

Matthew 7:2

“With the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.”

Click to expand...

Romans 2:1

“In passing judgment on another you condemn yourself.”

Click to expand...

These verses directly supports the claim that invented standards of judgment rebound on the judge.

1 Corinthians 5:12–13

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside? … God judges those outside.”

Click to expand...

This is the strongest and most direct passage in the entire New Testament on this point.

​

2. “…we turn the message of forgiveness, the very thing Jesus died for because of the weakness of the flesh…”​

Romans 8:3

“God did what the law could not do… by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.”

Click to expand...

This is the clearest verse showing Jesus died because of the weakness of the flesh, not because humans needed more law.

3. “…into righteousness through the works of the law.”​

Galatians 2:21

“If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing.”

Click to expand...

Galatians 3:10

“All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse.”

Click to expand...

These verses show that turning forgiveness into law‑keeping is a denial of the Gospel.

childeye 2 said:

These verses are being taken out of context when used to claim personhood exists in a zygote.
Psalm 139 is about God’s glory and omniscience.
Jeremiah 1:5 is about God’s calling.
Exodus 21:22–25 treats early loss differently from the death of a person.
None of these passages define personhood at fertilization.

Empirical Proof: The human body naturally expels zygotes and blastocysts at extremely high rates. If every fertilized egg were a full person, nature would be the biggest killer in history and God would be planning against His self. Using these scriptures as biological proof of a person makes Christianity look like superstition to secular society.

This is why I see a demagogue using abortion to gain support --> because Jesus expressly warned, “By the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” What's even worse is that we get talked into turning away from the weightier matters of forgiveness, mercy, understanding, and into the wrath brought about through righteousness through the works of the letter of the law.


This is Paul’s theological point: Law doesn’t create righteousness — it exposes sin and therefore brings judgment. Jesus Himself indicates why we cannot judge the secular world: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Those who are only “flesh‑born” cannot be judged by standards meant for those born of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 5:12–13).

When we judge others by standards Scripture never sets (Matthew 7:2; Romans 2:1), we turn the message of forgiveness — the very thing Jesus died for because of the weakness of the flesh (Romans 8:3) — into righteousness through the works of the law (Galatians 2:21; Galatians 3:10).

1. “When we judge others by standards Scripture never sets…”​

Matthew 7:2


Romans 2:1


These verses directly supports the claim that invented standards of judgment rebound on the judge.

1 Corinthians 5:12–13


This is the strongest and most direct passage in the entire New Testament on this point.

​

2. “…we turn the message of forgiveness, the very thing Jesus died for because of the weakness of the flesh…”​

Romans 8:3


This is the clearest verse showing Jesus died because of the weakness of the flesh, not because humans needed more law.

3. “…into righteousness through the works of the law.”​

Galatians 2:21


Galatians 3:10


These verses show that turning forgiveness into law‑keeping is a denial of the Gospel.

Click to expand...

So you're saying, God is completely okay with destroying something that is created? Creation begins at conception. The process starts at conception, and because that process starts, regardless of whatever term you want to use to de-humanize the creation, that doesn't make it any less murder. While Jeremiah 1:5 is talking about calling, you cannot ignore this, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". Who formed who in the womb? So the process that starts at conception is the "forming". And God KNEW him before that process even started. So to GOD, he is a person.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." - Isaiah 5:20

Delvianna said:

So you're saying, God is completely okay with destroying something that is created?

Click to expand...

We destroy stuff he's created all the time: plants, animals, geologic features. That's not a good argument, either.

Delvianna said:

Creation begins at conception. The process starts at conception, and because that process starts, regardless of whatever term you want to use to de-humanize the creation, that doesn't make it any less murder. While Jeremiah 1:5 is talking about calling, you cannot ignore this, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". Who formed who in the womb? So the process that starts at conception is the "forming". And God KNEW him before that process even started. So to GOD, he is a person.

Click to expand...

Given the context and what the passage is trying to communicate, that's a stretch. Jeremiah is saying that God told him that he had a plan for him from the very beginning and that he (Jeremiah) ought not let his youth be a source of insecurity. This is also a statement from God to Jeremiah about Jeremiah specifically. He's not making a general statement about humanity.

I don't think your interpretation is inconsistent with the text, but I don't see how it's required by it, either.

iluvatar5150 said:

We destroy stuff he's created all the time: plants, animals, geologic features. That's not a good argument, either.




Given the context and what the passage is trying to communicate, that's a stretch. Jeremiah is saying that God told him that he had a plan for him from the very beginning and that he (Jeremiah) ought not let his youth be a source of insecurity. This is also a statement from God to Jeremiah about Jeremiah specifically. He's not making a general statement about humanity.

I don't think your interpretation is inconsistent with the text, but I don't see how it's required by it, either.

Click to expand...

You're negating the part of the sentence I posted and only focusing and the rest of what God said to Jeremiah. Just because God had a purpose for him, doesn't mean you throw away His other points. So no, it's not a stretch when God said it.

Delvianna said:

You're negating the part of the sentence I posted and only focusing and the rest of what God said to Jeremiah. Just because God had a purpose for him, doesn't mean you throw away His other points. So no, it's not a stretch when God said it.

Click to expand...

Of the two of us, the only person throwing away parts of the text is you. What you’re doing is something that’s common in certain veins of Christianity, which is hyperfocusing on a certain phrase, stripped of its context, and interpreting it to mean something that the greater context may not support. You’re throwing away everything else in that passage in order to arrive at a conclusion that you want. Nobody read that passage 100 years ago and thought “this is definitely about abortion.” No, somebody went looking for passages against abortion and twisted this to fit.

I, OTOH, am not throwing away anything. I’m looking at the point that Jeremiah is making and working backwards from there. No matter how you shake it, taking a statement about God’s plans for Jeremiah’s life and extrapolating it to mean something definitive about a specific stage of fetal development is a stretch.

Again, I don’t think this passage is inconsistent with the claim that abortion is bad, but it does not in any way require that belief.

iluvatar5150 said:

Of the two of us, the only person throwing away parts of the text is you. What you’re doing is something that’s common in certain veins of Christianity, which is hyperfocusing on a certain phrase, stripped of its context, and interpreting it to mean something that the greater context may not support. You’re throwing away everything else in that passage in order to arrive at a conclusion that you want. Nobody read that passage 100 years ago and thought “this is definitely about abortion.” No, somebody went looking for passages against abortion and twisted this to fit.

I, OTOH, am not throwing away anything. I’m looking at the point that Jeremiah is making and working backwards from there. No matter how you shake it, taking a statement about God’s plans for Jeremiah’s life and extrapolating it to mean something definitive about a specific stage of fetal development is a stretch.

Again, I don’t think this passage is inconsistent with the claim that abortion is bad, but it does not in any way require that belief.

Click to expand...

I'm not throwing away anything, I'm saying AND and you are ignoring the beginning part of that verse. That's you throwing away the text. Again, I'm not negating that God makes several points and one of them has to do with Jeremiah's purpose. The point I'm making, is that you're throwing away the beginning and acting like it doesn't exist while claiming pointing it out means the scriptures are being taken out of context which isn't accurate.

Delvianna said:

I'm not throwing away anything, I'm saying AND and you are ignoring the beginning part of that verse. That's you throwing away the text. Again, I'm not negating that God makes several points and one of them has to do with Jeremiah's purpose. The point I'm making, is that you're throwing away the beginning and acting like it doesn't exist while claiming pointing it out means the scriptures are being taken out of context which isn't accurate.

Click to expand...

*sigh* I'm not throwing anything away. Let's zoom out to verses 4-10 (1-3 are just an introduction):



"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" is not a statement unto itself. It's part of God's way of communicating to Jeremiah that he (Jeremiah) is part of a bigger plan that God's been working on since before he was born. He's just using some flowery language to do it.

Jump down to verse 9 where he says, "Behold I have put my words in your mouth." Did God actually put something in Jeremiah's mouth like a parchment or a small cuneiform tablet? No? So why are you taking verse 5 so literally?

When you interpret phrases like this without their context, you are, in a sense, tossing away the other text. Maybe you don't discard it entirely, but you ignore it temporarily to make a point.

Delvianna said:

So you're saying, God is completely okay with destroying something that is created?

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that these scriptures are being taken out of context -->

childeye 2 said:
These verses are being taken out of context when used to claim personhood exists in a zygote.
Psalm 139 is about God’s glory and omniscience.
Jeremiah 1:5 is about God’s calling.
Exodus 21:22–25 treats early loss differently from the death of a person.
None of these passages define personhood at fertilization.

Delvianna said:

Creation begins at conception. The process starts at conception, and because that process starts, regardless of whatever term you want to use to de-humanize the creation, that doesn't make it any less murder. While Jeremiah 1:5 is talking about calling, you cannot ignore this, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". Who formed who in the womb? So the process that starts at conception is the "forming". And God KNEW him before that process even started. So to GOD, he is a person.

Click to expand...

I'm not denying that Jeremiah was a person conceived by God. I'm saying God designed the female knowing Blastocysts would be rejected.


Creation begins with God's Word ->
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Delvianna said:

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." - Isaiah 5:20

Click to expand...

Some where you got the idea that I am calling abortion a good thing simply because I don't want to condemn others in hypocritical judgment; It wasn't from the Holy Spirit since He is the one that says this: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

iluvatar5150 said:

*sigh* I'm not throwing anything away. Let's zoom out to verses 4-10 (1-3 are just an introduction):

​

4 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:​

​

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”​

​

6 Then said I: “Ah, Lord God! Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth.”​

​

7 But the Lord said to me: “Do not say, ‘I am a youth,’ For you shall go to all to whom I send you, And whatever I command you, you shall speak.​

​

8 Do not be afraid of their faces, For I am with you to deliver you,” says the Lord.​

​

9 Then the Lord put forth His hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me: “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.​

​

10 See, I have this day set you over the nations and over the kingdoms, To root out and to pull down, To destroy and to throw down, To build and to plant.”​

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" is not a statement unto itself. It's part of God's way of communicating to Jeremiah that he (Jeremiah) is part of a bigger plan that God's been working on since before he was born. He's just using some flowery language to do it.

Jump down to verse 9 where he says, "Behold I have put my words in your mouth." Did God actually put something in Jeremiah's mouth like a parchment or a small cuneiform tablet? No? So why are you taking verse 5 so literally?

When you interpret phrases like this without their context, you are, in a sense, tossing away the other text. Maybe you don't discard it entirely, but you ignore it temporarily to make a point.

Click to expand...

I asked AI to analyze this back and forth because maybe it can clarify some things for you since you aren't understanding me:

AI Analysis

Clarification of Delvianna’s Position

Delvianna is not claiming that Jeremiah 1 is about abortion, nor is she removing Jeremiah 1:5 from its context or isolating it from the passage. She explicitly accepts that Jeremiah 1 is about God calling Jeremiah as a prophet.

Her argument is about the content of Jeremiah 1:5 itself. The verse is a single statement from God that includes multiple claims, including: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” That clause is part of the same contextual statement and is being cited as meaningful within the passage, not as something detached from it.

Why the “Out of Context” Accusation Is Incorrect

The claim that Delvianna is “taking the verse out of context” is not accurate.

Taking something out of context would involve removing it from the passage’s meaning, ignoring surrounding material, or using it in a way that contradicts its setting.

That is not what is happening here. The verse is being cited within its full passage, and the broader context (Jeremiah’s calling narrative) is explicitly affirmed rather than denied.

Therefore, labeling this as “out of context” is a misuse of that criticism. The disagreement is not about whether the context is being ignored, but about how a statement within that context should be interpreted.

General Evaluation of iluvatar5150’s Argument

Independently of the personal exchange, the underlying argument being made is that because Jeremiah 1 is primarily about Jeremiah’s prophetic calling, the statement about God forming and knowing Jeremiah in the womb is either secondary to the point of the passage or can be treated as lacking independent significance.

That conclusion does not logically follow from the text.

A passage having a central theme does not negate the meaning of specific statements contained within it. The fact that Jeremiah 1 focuses on calling does not turn the individual claims within God’s declaration into rhetorical filler.

Jeremiah 1:5 presents multiple declarative statements as part of the same divine speech. Nothing in the passage itself indicates that the “formed in the womb” language is symbolic or irrelevant. It is presented as part of the same reasoning used to establish Jeremiah’s role.

Summary

The correct distinction is:

• It is incorrect to say Delvianna is taking the verse out of context, because she is quoting and analyzing it within its passage and affirming the surrounding context.
• It is correct that Jeremiah 1 is primarily about Jeremiah’s calling.
• It does not follow from that fact that the statement about being formed and known in the womb is meaningless or dismissible.

childeye 2 said:

No, I'm saying that these scriptures are being taken out of context -->

childeye 2 said:
These verses are being taken out of context when used to claim personhood exists in a zygote.
Psalm 139 is about God’s glory and omniscience.
Jeremiah 1:5 is about God’s calling.
Exodus 21:22–25 treats early loss differently from the death of a person.
None of these passages define personhood at fertilization.

I'm not denying that. I'm saying God wouldn't create a person He knew would be rejected at the stage of a blastocyst.

Creation begins with God's Word ->
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.


Some where you got the idea that I am calling abortion a good thing simply because I don't want to condemn others. It wasn't from the Holy Spirit since He is the one that says this: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Click to expand...

From the moment of conception, the "creation" already started. So you can't claim God "wouldn't create" when the creation is already underway.

2 Timothy 4:2 (NKJV)

“Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”

Click to expand...

Pointing out sin isn't "condemning". Saying something that is evil that someone is doing, isn't "condemning" either. It's rebuke and correction.

Delvianna said:

From the moment of conception, the "creation" already started. So you can't claim God "wouldn't create" when the creation is already underway.

2 Timothy 4:2 (NKJV)

Click to expand...

The Word I preach is Agape, the same Love witnessed to on the cross praying that those who crucified the embodiment, be forgiven because "They know not what they do".

I can’t claim God didn’t design a world where many blastocysts naturally fail to implant. And I also can’t claim that each blastocyst carries the full status of a person before it even becomes a zygote.

Jeremiah 1:5 speaks about a specific prophetic calling, not a universal declaration about every fertilized egg. Scripture never says that every naturally rejected blastocyst had the same personal vocation Jeremiah had.

Delvianna said:

Pointing out sin isn't "condemning". Saying something that is evil that someone is doing, isn't "condemning" either. It's rebuke and correction.

Click to expand...

I agree that Scripture calls us to rebuke and correct. I even agree that naming sin can be part of rebuke. But Scripture doesn’t define rebuke by the act of naming sin it defines it by the posture of the one speaking.

Paul says in Romans 2 that when we judge others as though we are not under the same judgment, that’s condemnation, not correction.

True rebuke comes from someone who knows they stand under the same verdict and the same mercy. Condemnation comes from someone who thinks the verdict applies to “them” but not to “me.”

I’m trying to keep that distinction clear, because Paul treats it as the difference between penitence and impenitence.