I'm just wondering because I've got the little Brown Book here by my bed here and I've looked and I've looked and somehow I just don't see that "Life Starts when the Sperm Meets the Egg" part...
I don't get it.
There are a whole lot of pages here. A whole lot of different ideas. I don't see that one.
Join me for a game of "Where's the Pro-Life Waldo?" Over the Flip.
So using Bible.com I can search the entire book and get it in various different versions.
When I look up "Life" I get this.
Leviticus 17:14 New English Translation. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.it's also in Deuteronomy 12:
Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh. 24 You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.And Genesis 9:
Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4“ Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.So there's a bit of consistency to this particular point. in Biblical Terms: Life is Blood.
But when you talk about embryos all of this gets rather confusing because a basic just fertilized embryo Doesn't Contain any Blood
In the human embryo, the first site of blood formation is the yolk sac. Later in embryonic life, the liver becomes the most important red blood cell-forming organ, but it is soon succeeded by the bone marrow, which in adult life is the only source of both red blood cells and the granulocytesSo all that's a little strange because as I understand it blood doesn't begin to actually form in an embryo until about 14 weeks after gestation. That's a long time after fertilization.
I even asked the question on Twitter and got an answer. Sort of.
@Vyan1 Why does changing the name from baby to embryo or zygote or fetus make you think that murdering the child is any— Freedom? (@montfordgreenwo) July 1, 2014
@Vyan1 thing other than murder?— Freedom? (@montfordgreenwo) July 1, 2014
Well, simply because an embryo isn't a child. I asked about one thing he answered about something different. A child can physically move and think and (eventually) walk and talk on their own as an independent sentient being. An embryo can't. Not even a little bit. Not even for short periods. It's not just a semantic difference, it's a big, huge, enormous biological difference.
It's like confusing an egg with a chicken. They aren't the same. One might eventually become the other, but it's not like anyone would consider smashing an egg to be animal cruelty.
But the difference between the two is something that the Fundies don't seem to want to admit exists.
That difference requres - A Pregnancy.
Involving a Woman. With a Uterus. And other sensitive woman parts. And that woman, has rights. And choices. And decisions, and the FREEDOM to make those choices and decisons, because if she doens't she not free. She's a vessel. She's chattel. An object, not a person.
Without a Pregnancy, and a Woman to be Pregnant, you can't have an Abortion. That's not me saying that, that's the American College of Obstetricians an Gynecologists saying that.
Although widespread, definitions that seek to establish fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy go against the long-standing view of the medical profession and decades of federal policy, articulated as recently as during the Bush administration. In fact, medical experts—notably the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)—agree that the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the woman's uterus. (In fact, according to ACOG, the term "conception" properly means implantation.) A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete.A fertilized egg - and we get plenty of them with Invetro Fertilization that are never used or implanted and I rarely ever hear "moral" objections to that fact - is not a baby. Not even close.
Nor does the Bible in any way, consider the death or loss of an unborn and ungestated child to be "Murder".
There's Hosea 13:16.
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.In this verse it's God's Wrath to "dash the children to pieces" and to "rip open the pregnant women" with swords. It really doesn't sound like God really, truly, seriously, hates the idea of dead. unborn. children. He seems a bit alright with it. So that's not exactly as advertised.
And there there's Exodus 21:22...
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no mischief follows: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.Oh, so the punishment for causing a woman to miscarriage - and presumably lose their child - is to pay a fine to the husband. If the judges agree. Yeah, that's just like the punishment for Murder.
This seems more like a negotiation. Like paying a debt. Like you've taken property away from the Husband and now you're just settling on the price for that property., It's not at all like the other part of Exodus 20 which says..
“Thou shall not murder.It really doesn't seem to me, and gee I could be wrong y'know, that the bible makes a direct correlation between the death of a unborn
When it comes to actual "Murder" this is what the Bible says.
Leviticus 24:17 ESV / 97So what we see, rather consistently, is that the Bible says that the punishment for Murder is Death - therefore one can not say that it similarly says that the punishment for ending a pregnancy - IS. DEATH.
“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 20:13 ESV / 76
“You shall not murder.
Genesis 9:6 ESV / 75
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.
Exodus 21:12 ESV / 72
“Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.
Romans 12:19 ESV / 46
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Numbers 35:30-31 ESV
“If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.
Numbers 35:31 ESV / 16
Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death.
Because it simply doesn't say that. It says that's the start of a negotiation, not a trial potentially ending in Death requiring multiple witnesses. One of these things is not like the other thing.
Now, I point this out not because I believe in abortion, or I like abortion, or I can't have enough abortion.
I think contraception is a good way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and by extension, abortions. I think comprehensive and accurate sex education also helps prevent unwanted and unexpected pregnancies and STD transmission. I think pre-natal care is good at preventing complications during pregnancy and that easy access to child healthcare would go a long way reducing our ridiculous high infant mortality rate, and that improved and expanded options for adoption would also reduce the need or justifications for abortions - but then I rarely see or hear the anti-choice crowd saying much of anything about any of this except to OPPOSE IT ALL.
My point is this. For those who have a honest "sincere" objection to abortion - the claim that that moral point of view can be found within the teachings of the Religion of Christianity is rather dubious based on the available evidence - which would be The Bible.
If you don't morally agree with abortion, if it truly and severely offends you as a practice - fine, I get that. But I don't get that having that position is Justified as a Religious Right!
Because it's simply not a part of anything that Christianity is literally based on- which is supposed to be the Bible. But apparently, isn't.
Now, As i stated earlier the ACOG argues that Pregnancy begins at implantation, as has the American Medical Association.
At its 2004 Annual Meeting, The American Medical Association passed a resolution in favor of making "Plan B" emergency contraception available over-the-counter, and one of the claims in the resolution was that hormonal contraception that may affect implantation "cannot terminate an established pregnancy." Similarly, the British Medical Association has defined an "established pregnancy" as beginning at implantation. The legal definition in the United Kingdom is not clear.Hobby Lobby in their suit - as I have been informed by their supporters - did not seek to ban all forms of Contraception. They repeatedly and very gleefully claim that we who do support the Right of a woman - or family - to make their own reproductive choices were making a mountain out of a molehill because Hobby Lobby's position wasn't against Condoms, and it wasn't against spermacides, and it wasn't even against the kinds of hormonal birth control that would prevent medical conditions such as Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome which Sandra Fluke discussed with congress. [Even if the SCOTUS has now "clarified" and says it decisions is actually against all 20 Approved Contraception Methods, not just the "Fatal Four"]
It would only prevent what they call "abortifacient" drugs and devices.
The problem is that "abortiafacient" is just some shit they made up just like their claim that "Life Begins at Conception" is somehow validated and confirmed within Biblican Scripture when it's just, plain, isn't.
The actual SCOTUS decision states this.
Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Adminstration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.Just as an aside I wanted to mention one other "Abortifacient" method of Birth Control that Hobby Lobby neglected to object to in their case.
The rhythm method is believed to work by preventing fertilization from occurring. For this reason, pro-life advocates view the rhythm method as an acceptable form of contraception. The Catholic Church also condones this method because it doesn’t interfere with conception. However, in this week’s Journal of Medical Ethics , an author argues that the rhythm method could actually be responsible for many more embryonic deaths than some other contraceptive methods.Call the cops, we've got a whole lot of embryo "murders" to prosecute out there.
Professor Luc Bovens, of the London School of Economics and Political Science, uses several plausible assumptions to detail his case regarding the rhythm method’s role in embryonic deaths. He suggests that the rhythm method works not because it prevents conception, but because the embryos conceived have limited ability to survive. These embryos, conceived during the few days before or after the period of abstinence are more fragile than those created in the middle of the fertile period. The uterus is less hospitable to these embryos during this time period as well.
It actually took me a little while - longer than I would have expected - to find the FDA list of 20 approved contraceptive methods, but I found them here.
In short based on this list, Hobby Lobby only objected to paying for Plan B, Ella and two versions of IUD which all would have the potential to prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in the uteran wall.
And they, because they say they consider - for so-called "religious" reasons - that "Life Begins at Conception" that it is their "sincere" belief that these drugs and devices are a form of Abortion not simply the prevention of an egg being fertilized which a condom, a diaphragm or a spermacide would provide.
But the Rythym method, like, isn't. Yeah, alright.
They are now arguing that they're just fine with "Basic Contraception" - they just don't want to have to pay for "Abortion by another name".
Except that in addition to the "Religious objection" being rather dubious their "moral objection" is rather questionable too since their own retirement benefits plan earns dividends from the very same "abortiafacient" drugs and tools that they now proclaim are religiously objectionable to them. Via Forbes.
In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related products.They don't want to pay for "abortifacients" but they don't mind making MONEY from "abortificients". Hmph. That's some very unique and flexible moral timber these people are made of. Yessiree.
Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.
As I suspect many readers will find this as hard to believe and digest as I, the data can be confirmed by reviewing the company’s 2012 Annual Report of Employee Benefit Plan as filed with the Department of Labor.
There just happens to be a relatively simple solution to much this and that was - amazingly enough - provided by Justice Alito himself in the majority opinion.
(2) The Government has failed to satisfy RFRA’s least-restrictive-means standard. HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The Government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests.Yet it occurs to me that this fairly simply solution would have to jump two hurdles. The first would be that it would require an Executive Order by the President authorizing HHS to offer to pay for these additional 4 contraceptive choices on it's own, thereby removing the "moral burden" from Hobby Lobby and their co-plaintiffs.
So just a John Beohner and the GOP are talking about suing the President for his previous use of Executive Orderz and Presidential Privilege, the Right Wing Controlled SCOTUS specifically suggests that he add just one more E.O. to the pile?
Sniff - uh - I think I smell a Rat.
The second problem is this, unlike the previously offered option the HHS gave to non-profit and full-on religious organizations such as churches and church owned and operated schools such as Georgetown, the core of the Hobby Lobby exception isn't just contraceptive drugs in general - it's with a subset of drugs which Hobby Lobby happens to consider to be - in their "religious opinion" - Chemical and Tool based ABORTION.
So if that's the case, how exactly does the Government offer to pay for "Abortion" without running smack dab head first into the Hyde Amendment which for decades has specifically banned the government from spending tax payer money on Abortion"?
In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions with exceptions for incest and rape. It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.I'm just saying - I smell a pack of rats here - and they're swarming.