Trying to follow

Creative

Just thought this was kind of funny

Blog Action Day Tomorrow!

Blog Action Day 2008 Poverty from Blog Action Day on Vimeo.

I think this might be the most specific verse in the Hebrew Scriptures related to the issue of abortion:

Exodus 21:22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Apparently, there has been much scholarly discussion and debate in recent years about this text and it’s implications on the issue of abortion. My personal perspective, upon reading it, is that it gives some indication that the treatment of the death of a fetus is different then the treatment of “serious injury” to the mother. With scholarly academics expounding on both sides of the issue, it’s hard to come to an adequate conclusion based on that evidence.

I think we should all be willing to accept questions or challenges to our own viewpoints. I am willing to accept challenges to my current thoughts. I first came across this verse when I still held an anti-abortion view. So, I’m curious what your impression of this scripture is. Try to be as unbiased as possible.

I recently read The Church of 80% Sincerity by David Roche. I picked it up after reading a chapter in Anne Lamott’s book Plan B about Roche and how he had inspired her. His book was extremely interesting and touching as he walked through his life and reflected on how he’d come to create his “Church of 80% Sincerity”. It is a real church, to him, it more or less exist in his head, and the heads of others who’ve come to embrace the lessons and rules of living that he found have helped him to both cope and thrive in life.
Roche has a sever facial deformity. A bit of what he talks about centers around how that has impacted his life, but much of it is in a sort of retrospective fashion. He actually never talked about his face (beyond a brief physical explanation) to any friends, including a spouse, until he was forty-something. He grew up with what he’d described as a surprisingly normal childhood. His parents were very encouraging and he learned from them not to say anything about his deformity, because they never did.
What built up though, was years of unprocessed thoughts, deep feelings of pain and questioning that he could share with no one. And what is conveyed through the story, is that they are the same depths of insecurity that we almost all have. Roche points out that the out front physical deformity he carries serves as a mirror to the many inward insecurities that so many face.

It’s a great book and you should read it.

(this is my first shot at this, so I hope there is no misunderstanding)

There is a large group of people in our society, who would consider themselves Christians and/or Republicans. I’m going to try and articulate some of their beliefs, as I understand them. Point out if I’m misrepresenting.

• They believe war/violence is acceptable at times when the threat is severe enough (Iraq, Afghanistan, amongst others).
• They believe in Capital Punishment; that some crimes warrant that person being killed.
• They believe abortion is murder and is the cause of death of thousands of innocent lives every year. They describe it even as a genocide or a holocaust.

I’m I on track so far? I hope I have not misconstrued anyones perspective, this is, to my understanding, what a lot of people believe. There is one last point that I have heard articulated from this same group.

• They take great efforts to separate themselves from the “radicals” and “extremist” that have bombed abortion clinics or tried to kill abortion doctors in the past. In other words they make efforts not to be affiliated with those people or those crimes.

My question, to this group, is why do the people above get written off as “radical”? If you support violence for severe situations, wouldn’t infanticide clearly warrant violence, even a war against the perpetrators (abortion doctors and clinics) to stop the evil from taking place? Wouldn’t this be the same appropriate action as war in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Iran? Wouldn’t this meet the same criteria? It would seem that these group members aren’t “radicals” at all, they are simply following a consistent ethic of their beliefs.

This isn’t meant to be an attack, simply an area that I have a hard time understanding where this group stands and why. Please, someone, Enlighten me.

This isn’t a post of my thoughts, more an inquiry of yours. What was your take on the debate, either yesterdays or any of the previous ones…

Discuss.