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

iluvatar5150 · Jun 4, 2026

Delvianna said:
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.

Our other disagreements aside, this may be the first time I've seen somebody on this board paste an AI response in a way that has the potential to be legitimately useful and helpful. While I may disagree with some of what it says, applying it in this way is a good idea that hadn't occurred to me. Props for that. Thank you.

Regarding the AI's conclusions:
I take the correction that you're not analyzing the phrase out of context. I do think your focus on it is narrow in a way that's not required by the text, but I see that you're not entirely ignoring the context.

"A passage having a central theme does not negate the meaning of specific statements contained within it."

No, but the central theme does offer clues to interpreting the original intended meaning of a passage. The farther one gets from the central theme, the more risk there is in reading too much into something.

"Nothing in the passage itself indicates that the “formed in the womb” language is symbolic or irrelevant."

But neither does the passage indicate that it's intended to be hyperliteral or interpreted to mean that abortion is bad - that's my point: it's ambiguous. It's consistent with both interpretations and doesn't require either one.

I never said the passage was irrelevant. But even your interpretation makes room for some amount of symbolism or flowerly language here (is "symbolism" the right word?): for instance, what does it mean when it says that God "formed" him in the womb? Did God reach his hands up in there and squeeze the fetus into shape like a potter spinning clay? Did God cause the woman's uterus to make a Jeremiah-spaced cavity into which the fetus was cast? Did he direct the individual DNA strands and T-cells to craft Jeremiah to his exact specifications like one would with a 3D printer? Or did he just set the fertilization process in motion and let it go? When I think of what it means to "form" something, I usually think of the former more than the latter. But that seems a bit silly in this context.

Anyways. I think there are plenty of ways to use to Bible to support the argument that abortion is bad. I just think that many of the passages that have been bandied around here are, at best, far from conclusive.

Delvianna · Jun 4, 2026

childeye 2 said:
Scripture never says that every naturally rejected blastocyst had the same personal vocation Jeremiah had.

Scripture never says it isn't either, so that's not an argument. What scripture does show though via concepts, is that God considers the start of life, as life. Just because pregnancies fail, which God has allowed and also causes miscarriages, doesn't make them not a life.

Hosea 9:16

“Ephraim is stricken, Their root is dried up; They shall bear no fruit. Yes, were they to bear children, I would kill the darlings of their womb.”

childeye 2 said:
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.

Ok, but then how would you be condemning/hypocritical judgement by calling it what it is? Because your last message you're claiming you aren't calling it a good then and then saying you don't want to condemn people. So by your own definition that doesn't make any sense. It's like you're skipping the medium of calling it out for what it is and going straight towards condemnation.

Vambram · Jun 4, 2026

Delvianna said:
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

Amen

Delvianna · Jun 4, 2026

iluvatar5150 said:
"A passage having a central theme does not negate the meaning of specific statements contained within it."

No, but the central theme does offer clues to interpreting the original intended meaning of a passage. The farther one gets from the central theme, the more risk there is in reading too much into something.

But the core theme doesn't override true statements made within that theme.

For example, suppose a father tells his son:

"I've been preparing for this day since before you were born. I've worked two jobs for years. I've saved money for your education. That's why I'm sending you to college."

The central theme is clearly the father explaining why he's sending his son to college.

But that doesn't mean the other statements suddenly become meaningless. The fact that the father's purpose is discussing college does not erase the fact that he also made claims about preparing before the son's birth, working two jobs, and saving money.

iluvatar5150 said:
But neither does the passage indicate that it's intended to be hyperliteral or interpreted to mean that abortion is bad - that's my point: it's ambiguous. It's consistent with both interpretations and doesn't require either one.

There isn't a single verse that's going to tell you killing your unborn baby is bad, when you can get the point from other verses combined. So Jeremiah 1 adds to the point that starting off, God considers an unborn baby a life. On the foundation is where you build from there to show that it's bad.

iluvatar5150 said:
I never said the passage was irrelevant. But even your interpretation makes room for some amount of symbolism or flowerly language here (is "symbolism" the right word?): for instance, what does it mean when it says that God "formed" him in the womb? Did God reach his hands up in there and squeeze the fetus into shape like a potter spinning clay? Did God cause the woman's uterus to make a Jeremiah-spaced cavity into which the fetus was cast? Did he direct the individual DNA strands and T-cells to craft Jeremiah to his exact specifications like one would with a 3D printer? Or did he just set the fertilization process in motion and let it go? When I think of what it means to "form" something, I usually think of the former more than the latter. But that seems a bit silly in this context.

The fact that a statement contains poetic or figurative elements does not mean it stops conveying real information.

For example, if a father tells his daughter:

"I've been shaping you into the woman you are today since you were a little girl."

Nobody interprets that hyper-literally. Nobody thinks the father was physically molding her body with his hands. The point was that the father played an active role in her development. So the analogy I gave can be used for the same meaning as "formed". God used the DNA options of both parents and literally aligned them based on his choices, that's the meaning of the word formed. From the hair color/type to eye color, skin color, etc.

childeye 2 · Jun 4, 2026

Delvianna said:
Scripture never says it isn't either, so that's not an argument.

I disagree.

Delvianna said:
What scripture does show though via concepts, is that God considers the start of life, as life. Just because pregnancies fail, which God has allowed and also causes miscarriages, doesn't make them not a life.

That is not something I disagree with as pertains to biological life. I disagree that every blastocyst rejected by the woman's body is a person that God knew just like He knew Jeremiah.

Delvianna said:
Hosea 9:16

I'm not sure about the relevance of this scripture. If you're saying that God destroys the persons He created before they are ever born, I disagree.

Delvianna said:
Ok, but then how would you be condemning/hypocritical judgement by calling it what it is?

If I talk as if I don't do the same things, the Holy Spirit convicts me of hypocrisy.

Delvianna said:
Because your last message you're claiming you aren't calling it a good then and then saying you don't want to condemn people. So by your own definition that doesn't make any sense. It's like you're skipping the medium of calling it out for what it is and going straight towards condemnation.

Actually, I'm standing as already condemned through the law and I'm hoping on God's mercy.

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Delvianna · Jun 4, 2026

childeye 2 said:
I disagree.

Please quote me the verse/verses then.

childeye 2 said:
That is not something I disagree with as pertains to biological life. I disagree that every blastocyst rejected by the woman's body is a person that God knew just like He knew Jeremiah.

So there are people God doesn't know or formed even if that life stopped?

childeye 2 said:
I'm not sure about the relevance of this scripture. If you're saying that God destroys the persons He created before they are ever born, I disagree.

Read the end of the verse. It literally says, and this is God speaking, he will kill the unborn children in the mothers womb. That's a miscarriage. You can "disagree" but the bible says otherwise.

childeye 2 said:
Actually, I'm standing as already condemned through the law and I'm hoping on God's mercy.

So you steer clear of telling people to stop doing something that's sinful? Because your answer again, doesn't make sense. It's like you can't make up your mind on correction/rebuke vs condemnation.

iluvatar5150 · Jun 4, 2026

Delvianna said:
The fact that a statement contains poetic or figurative elements does not mean it stops conveying real information.

Right, but the question is what information it's conveying.

Delvianna said:
For example, if a father tells his daughter:

"I've been shaping you into the woman you are today since you were a little girl."

Nobody interprets that hyper-literally. Nobody thinks the father was physically molding her body with his hands.

Right. That's been my argument all along.

What I think you're doing is reading "formed" too literally and then inferring too much about what it says about the fetus.

You disagree. I think that's about the long and short of it.

Delvianna · Jun 4, 2026

iluvatar5150 said:
Right, but the question is what information it's conveying.

Right. That's been my argument all along.

What I think you're doing is reading "formed" too literally and then inferring too much about what it says about the fetus.

You disagree. I think that's about the long and short of it.

When it comes to God, he does "form" people in a literal sense, but not a hyper-literal sense. Like I was saying in my last post to you, he chooses hair color, eye color, skin color, etc. That's the point of "form". It's like you're taking it as an all or nothing scenario when I'm saying there is a middle ground here.

iluvatar5150 · Jun 4, 2026

Delvianna said:
When it comes to God, he does "form" people in a literal sense, but not a hyper-literal sense. Like I was saying in my last post to you, he chooses hair color, eye color, skin color, etc. That's the point of "form". It's like you're taking it as an all or nothing scenario when I'm saying there is a middle ground here.

I also think there's middle ground. I just don't think it has to be in the same spot. For example, I don't think "form" is as detailed as that for most people.

Delvianna · Jun 4, 2026

iluvatar5150 said:
I also think there's middle ground. I just don't think it has to be in the same spot. For example, I don't think "form" is as detailed as that for most people.

Alrighty then, it doesn't look like we'll be meeting in the middle.

God bless!

Michie · Jun 4, 2026

4 of the most controversial quotes from Talarico’s now-viral 2022 sermon

Here are four controversial statements that Texas state Rep James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for U S Senate, made in a newly-resurfaced video of a 2022 sermon

www.christianpost.com

iluvatar5150 · Jun 4, 2026

Michie said:
4 of the most controversial quotes from Talarico’s now-viral 2022 sermon

Here are four controversial statements that Texas state Rep James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for U S Senate, made in a newly-resurfaced video of a 2022 sermon

www.christianpost.com

If that's the most controversial stuff they can come up with, I'd say he's doing pretty well. #1 & #3 are correct, if phrased in a way that's deliberately provacative. #2 is factually accurate. #4 is a stretch: Mary gave consent, but I don't see where it suggests that the consent was required.

childeye 2 · Jun 4, 2026

Delvianna said:
Please quote me the verse/verses then.

You misunderstand. I disagree that it's not a valid argument, that blastocysts are not persons being rejected.

Delvianna said:
So there are people God doesn't know or formed even if that life stopped?

I don't believe there is anything, or person that has formed that God did not foresee. I believe He formed the woman's body so that it would reject blastocysts (for whatever reason), but not persons He intended to be born. To rephrase: If God intended and pre-ordained that certain persons would be born, then it would be a contradiction in reasoning to claim He ordained that they would be rejected as blastocysts.

Delvianna said:
Read the end of the verse. It literally says, and this is God speaking, he will kill the unborn children in the mothers womb. That's a miscarriage. You can "disagree" but the bible says otherwise.

Perhaps I'm not being clear, the context is Jeremiah being known before he was ever a zygote which I claim which pragmatically does not infer it's the same for every zygote ever formed. So, with that in mind I said, I don't see the relevance to Jeremiah and subsequently, "If you're saying that God destroys the persons He created before they are ever born, I disagree." For example, God did not create the serpents seed (see the tares and false imagery).

Delvianna said:
So you steer clear of telling people to stop doing something that's sinful? Because your answer again, doesn't make sense. It's like you can't make up your mind on correction/rebuke vs condemnation.

I steer clear of conveying that people can stop being sinful apart from the Holy Spirit.

Romans 6:17
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Delvianna · Jun 4, 2026

childeye 2 said:
You misunderstand. I disagree that it's not a valid argument, that blastocysts are not persons being rejected.

I don't believe there is anything, or person that has formed that God did not foresee. I believe He formed the woman's body so that it would reject blastocysts (for whatever reason), but not persons He intended to be born. To rephrase: If God intended and pre-ordained that certain persons would be born, then it would be a contradiction in reasoning to claim He ordained that they would be rejected as blastocysts.

Perhaps I'm not being clear, the context is Jeremiah being known before he was ever a zygote which I claim which pragmatically does not infer it's the same for every zygote ever formed. So, with that in mind I said, I don't see the relevance to Jeremiah and subsequently, "If you're saying that God destroys the persons He created before they are ever born, I disagree." For example, God did not create the serpents seed (see the tares and false imagery).

God's Word is Agape. I don't ever convey that people can stop being sinful apart from the Holy Spirit.

Okay, well replying to this is going to be going way off topic. Sorry @Michie. I'm just going to leave it.

Michie · Jun 4, 2026

Oh this is typical with some posters. No worries.

Delvianna said:
Okay, well replying to this is going to be going way off topic. Sorry @Michie. I'm just going to leave it.

FreeinChrist · Jun 4, 2026

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for review.

It is against the rules to promote abortion which is a problem whenever there is a thread about abortion.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hosea 9:16​

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hosea 9:16​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

Similar threads

Hosea 9:16

Hosea 9:16