MONSTER

Monday, December 3rd, 2012 | Uncategorized

Alison Taylor, the new Anglican Bishop of Queensland and the first [CORRECTION: Second] female Anglican bishop in Australia, riffs on abortion:

The Bible speaks of a world which God has created and which he loves beyond measure, in which all life is to be embraced as a gift from Him. However, it is a world which is fallen, and which longs for the full redemption in Jesus Christ which is to come. Sin and suffering abound in a human condition of great complexity, and at times immensely difficult decisions need to be made.

Like whether or not Allie actually meant what she just said.

What the Bible does not teach, and which has never been a part of Christian doctrine – contrary to the assertion in this month’s TMA letter – is that ‘all human life has absolute moral value’. The latter view is unbiblical because it would be untenable for Christians in situations where complex moral choices must be made, in diverse circumstances ranging from military defence and self-defence to the sometimes conflicting rights of mother and unborn child.

Let’s see.  National defense.  Protecting yourself from someone who wants to physically harm you.  Fileting the kid because you don’t want to have to take a pay cut right now.  Morally, they’re all pretty much the same.  And on the ludicrously small chance that you missed Allie’s lame “theology,” she repeats it here.

Nowhere in the Bible is a foetus accorded the full moral status of a human person. On the contrary, in the sole biblical text on induced abortion, Exodus 21.22-23, an abortion caused by injury to a pregnant woman is regarded seriously but considerably less than murder. Other than what might be inferred from this text, the Bible is silent on the issue of the moral status to be accorded to foetal death, as it is on the question of when an embryo might be said to have a soul that survives death. These two issues, which preoccupy the abortion debate today, could probably not even have been conceptualised by writers living in the Biblical era.

I think it was Andy Warhol who once said, “In the future, everybody will be an Anglican bishop for fifteen minutes.”  It’s not like you have to know any actual Christian theology or anything, like Catholics, Orthodox and serious Protestants do, or be versed in some kind of Christian tradition.

Just memorize a few handy cliches that are useful for just about any occasion and you’re in like Bishop Flynn.  Allie uses two here.  The Scripture writers, who were mere men who had absolutely no assistance whatsoever in writing down the Word of the Living God but it wouldn’t have mattered if they had since they were all blithering idiots who couldn’t find their heads with both hands.

Then there’s the ever-popular “The Bible never said anything about _________” argument, probably the most useful Anglican dodge of all.  If, of course, you overlook the uncomfortable fact that the Bible also doesn’t teach that racism, sexism, “homophobia” and voting against Barack Obama are sins.  But did Allie happen to mention what absolute morons the Scripture writers were?

The Bible was written millennia before an adequate understanding of human reproduction was possible, let alone the possibilities of IVF, embryonic stem cell research or prenatal foetal tests, and the difficult moral dilemmas involved in each of them. In summary, an absolutist antiabortion stance simply cannot lay claim to Biblical warrant.

So what say Allie bottom-lines it for you?  It’s a human being when and if I want it to be and NOT BEFORE, bitches.

What is more in accord with the Bible is that God values all human life but that full human personhood takes time to be created. A foetus is part of the totality of all that is created by God, but it develops as a person only in stages. Decisions with regard to the morality of a specific abortion should to be made accordingly. Baron Habgood of Caverton, the retired Archbishop of York and Primate of England, a prolific writer on public and ethical issues, was instrumental in articulating for a new era this ‘gradualist’ position on abortion.

He wrote in his highly influential book, Being a Person, 1998, p. 250- 251, that ‘the idea of a complete spiritual entity being created by God for each individual in a moment in time makes no more sense than the idea of a sudden transition from pre-humans to humans in the emergence of the human race. Things happen gradually, and time is a dimension of our very being… the lack of personal attributes does not imply that such an embryo is of no significance. It is significant to its parents and to God, but not so significant that its potential to become a person should override all other considerations’.

That’s odd.  For some reason, the German phrase Lebensunwertes Leben popped into my head just now.  Thanks to Tim Fountain.

51 Comments to MONSTER

FW Ken
December 3, 2012

About what other form of murder would such arguments be made? Really, evil like this explains why earlier ages executed heretics. But then, we become no better than this blood-soaked harpy.

Kc
December 3, 2012

A 2 year old is not a fully developed person either….sooooo ….

James G
December 3, 2012

The thing that I cannot wrap my head around is the quote she gave, especially, “the idea of a complete spiritual entity being created by God for each individual in a moment in time makes no more sense than the idea of a sudden transition from pre-humans to humans in the emergence of the human race.”

So, if I understand this straight then the Theory of Evolution is being used to deny one of the few things that I dogmatically have to believe as a Catholic in regards to the origin of life, specifically that God creates each individual human soul as a special act of creation; “…for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God (Humani Generis 36).”

The Anglican bishop is asserting that if our bodies were gradually created by evolution then so too does our soul gradually evolve as the fetus develops. God’s power is determined and limited by nature (as explicated by one theory of nature’s origin); the material is superior to the spiritual.

Wow.

James G

Anne B.
December 3, 2012

I don’t think Allie’s a fully developed person either, given her blitherings. Something’s missing in the cerebral department.

So, do I get to bash her skull in with a brick?

James G
December 3, 2012

FW Ken,

I disagree, burning her as she deserves would only bring us down to her level if we were to accept her first argument that “… ‘all human life has absolute moral value’… is unbiblical because it would be untenable for Christians in situations where complex moral choices must be made, in diverse circumstances ranging from military defence and self-defence…” as correct. If her interpretation is correct than either we would need to accept infanticide or be complete pacifists.

To the contrary, we accept that all life has value while still accepting the propriety and sometimes need for things like capital punishment and defense because we are defending against and protecting others from evil. That she must be stopped by all necessary and available means from spreading further her evils and be prevented from encouraging others in evil seems rather to be our duty.

James G

Katherine
December 3, 2012

May God open her mind to hear His voice. From her mother’s womb He knew her.

Dan
December 3, 2012

Even from a perfectly pragmatic standpoint, this is blithering lunacy. Without a hard-and-fast rule for when life begins, the gradualist dodge could, and certainly would, be used to define away the personhood of every difficult, expensive or unpopular person. We can say that with certainty because it has ALWAYS turned out that way.

Whether the person who you want to deny rights to is undesirable because they are Jewish, Indian, crippled, retarded, Black, lazy, obstreperous, conservative, liberal, old, or just annoying, it’s incredibly easy to simply define away their personhood. And that’s what always happens.

This is the argument for every genocide, democide, slavery, tyranny, and every single evil human society has perpetrated against innocents for the last 6,000 years. “They’re not really human”

I hate to go Godwin, but it is what it is.

Daniel aka Fisherman
December 3, 2012

“A foetus is part of the totality of all that is created by God, but it develops as a person only in stages.”

Ummm. I missed that in the bible somewhere. I believe that this “person”, probably not fully developed herself, blew it on both her premise and conclusion. Her “argument” is totally invalid.

J. Stuart Little
December 3, 2012

Since I was born with a birth defect (a minor one) this lady has essentially said that I should be dead. The rest of my comment is basically the same as Dan’s and Katherine’s above.

I thank God he gave me to the parents he did.

Donald R. McClarey
December 3, 2012

It takes a lot of verbiage to justify murder.

Katherine
December 3, 2012

The only place I hear about “ensoulment” is from pro-abortion liberals. They recycle medieval talking points as if it applied to modern thinking. Join this century, Alison. Take a look at embryology.

[...] it for you?  It’s a human being when and if I want it to be and NOT BEFORE, bitches.Go here to read the rest.  This brings to mind this piece from The Merchant of [...]

Donald R. McClarey
December 3, 2012

The ensoulment debates also never altered the fact that the Church always held abortion to be a hideous crime. From the Didache (circa 60AD):

“And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.”

Allen Lewis
December 3, 2012

These pro-abortion Anglicans are so precdictable. Same old straw men; same old tired arguments that are invalid at their basis; same old wheeze.

They must have some very effective cookie-cutters in the modern Anglican seminaries these days!

ann r
December 3, 2012

I guess she never read the Psalms, especially 139.

bob
December 3, 2012

It’s interesting to hear atheist fundamentalists like this gal bishop. If the Bible doesn’t saaaay I shouldn’t smoke, then it must be okaaaaaaaaaay to smoke, right? Run from there. What monsters this religion produces. A one woman argument against “ordaining” Episcopalians. Any of them. They need catechizing and baptism.

Sheryl D
December 3, 2012

“They need catechizing and baptism.”
No, I think they need exorcism.

Daniel Muller
December 3, 2012

I would like to know whom she is trying to convince. Unfortunately, I think a whole lot of people have already bought what she is selling.

his highly influential book, Being a Person, 1998

Actually, and also unfortunately, I have heard of this book, but “highly influential?” In 1998, when Western morality was already going to Hell? I was alive then, too. Get real.

I think that she just likes the sound of her voice.

Dan
December 3, 2012

And where in the bible, anywhere does it say there’s anything wrong with slavery? Racism? Bigamy? Subjugation of women? The bible rather tends to reflect a world in which all these things are entirely unremarkable.

On the other hand, divorce, unchastity, an homosexuality are all explicitly denounced.

LaVallette
December 4, 2012

Human personhood is a continuum from the beginning at conception to the end at death. At all times everything (DNA, genes and chromosomes) that are required for that person to be is there. All it needs is sustenance, What is so hard to understand about that about that.

As to the Bible references : Jeremiah 1.5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:13: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb”.

Another example of purported Christian leadership rushing to catch up with the amoral secular world for the express reason of appealing to it. Once you become of this world, you cease to hold out any challenge for the world and you finish up in permanent pursuit after it.

Does not encourage one iota of confidence in female (c)hristian leadership. It seems that the needs of the Sisterhood overules even Christian moral teachings and feelings become more important than facts.

Lakeland Two
December 4, 2012

While my better half makes the point in jest if abortion is allowed, it should be allowed retroactive to age 21, I wonder if it’s just a matter of time before his jest follows CJ’s Law.

Fuinseoig
December 4, 2012

“What the Bible does not teach…is that ‘all human life has absolute moral value’.”

So if it is economically attractive for you and me to exploit that bunch over there, go for it! Those cheap sneakers or snazzy new personal technology baubles won’t make themselves, you know! If the natives keep dying unreasonably from disease and starvation, then we just have to import some workers for our sugar cane plantations that won’t die and that we can work into the ground because there’s always more where they came from and the Bible doesn’t say we can’t do it!

Being such a hick, I’d never heard of this “highly influential book”, so I don’t quite understand this bit:

“the idea of a complete spiritual entity being created by God for each individual in a moment in time makes no more sense”

Um…so…the bishop is saying the human soul is not immediately created whole and complete? We grow a soul like we grow a lymphatic system? God doesn’t create the soul, it evolves? Help me out here, guys!

Jay Random
December 4, 2012

Since I was born with a birth defect (a minor one) this lady has essentially said that I should be dead.

I was an unwanted child, born at a time when abortion was still illegal (and therefore, despite the propaganda of the baby-killers, rare), and immediately put up for adoption. So she’s said that I should be dead too.

The 40-odd million who have been slaughtered since Roe v. Wade, the five million or so who have been slaughtered in Canada since abortion became legal here, and all the other millions of the dead around the world — these are my brothers and sisters, and the nearest thing to blood kin that I have ever known. I shall not betray them now. Therefore I shall speak for them, who have no voices of their own, because I was spared the holocaust:

The words out of this woman’s mouth are evil; there is no soundness of them. They are contrary to reason, contrary to fact, contrary to the Word of God. Her nostrils stink with her hatred of Christ and His teachings, and with the worship of death, and with the smoke from her offerings to Moloch. By the terms of the faith once delivered, she is anathema; and any church that will not cast her out, let it be anathema also.

Jay Random
December 4, 2012

No soundness in them. Mr. Johnson, you need a preview function. *sigh*

MBerry
December 4, 2012

I remember watching a British TV show called the Ambassador. The story line revolves around the British Ambassador in Ireland.

In one story a girl is pregnant and is considering abortion. To get one she will have to leave Ireland and go to the UK. Will Ireland let her leave.

The girl’s wayward mother, who had her daughter out of wedlock, comes to help her make up her mind, in favor of having the abortion, and in one of the most chilling lines tells her daughter that she must show the courage that her mother never had to go through with the abortion.

In case you missed that the mother tells the daughter that she didn’t have the courage to kill her.

Allen Lewis
December 4, 2012

This woman is a perfect example of why there should not only be no women bishops, but no women priests at all! She is just another feminist radical who is using the Church to further their agenda of death, destruction, and rebellion.

I agree with Jay Random: Anathema is the correct term for this tool of Satan and the “church” she represents. Whatever it is, it certainly is not Anglican. Richard Hooker would not recognize any of what she teaches.

Katherine
December 4, 2012

Jay Random, I had a discussion with my liberal brother about abortion. I ended it by pointing out that we have a relative, dear to him, and that relative’s wife, both of whom might not exist if they’d been conceived in 1975 instead of 1965. One was born to birth parents, and the other, adopted. I could not, I told him, agree that these two people whom we love should have been killed. My brother had nothing to say to that.

sybil marshall
December 4, 2012

Jay Random, very well put. I too was an unwanted child in a time before abortion became legal, and it is very strange– for great want of a better word– to think of all those brothers and sisters gone down, all gone down…What I say next, I say because it may lessen your pain at having been put up for adoption: it could well be that that was even best for you. The abuse I endured would probably have happened in any case, given larger family history, but was surely worsened by the fact of my unwantedness. I have often wished that I had been put up for adoption, in which case there would at least have been a chance for a normal life. (I understand that that does not automatically result, or result to the degree all might wish, and I don’t mean to dismiss your experience.)……And we can all figure that now that abortion “is an option”– my God, what bone-chilling words those are– even babies who are allowed to live come into the hands of parents– all too many, human nature being fallen as it is– who will sink into an *I (**I**) let you live!* mindset toward them. Think what that will enable in those inclined to abuse, and engender in some of those initially not inclined. Indeed, it already is doing so. Come, Lord Jesus!….Again, Jay Random, thank you.

Ed the Roman
December 4, 2012

” For some reason, the German phrase Lebensunwertes Leben popped into my head just now.”

Ich kann nicht fuer meiner einiger Leben denken an, was koentet es sein. Or words to the efect.

Jacob Morgan
December 4, 2012

Donald beat me to the Didache.

In the old law a person who accidentally caused a woman to miscarriage (by accidentally striking her) was to be punished. How could murder be counted for less than manslaughter? So, yeah it is in the Bible. Not that something bring in the Bible makes much difference to that crowd anyway.

unreconstructed rebel
December 4, 2012

What is more in accord with the Bible is that God values all human life but that full human personhood takes time to be created. A foetus is part of the totality of all that is created by God, but it develops as a person only in stages.

I hate it when people get all lawyerly. It usually signifies that something really bad has happened or is about to happen.

M. L. Martin
December 4, 2012

I’m still waiting for someone to take the final leap and declare that ‘personhood’ is defined by being able to express one’s Will To Sexual Pleasure.

I give it ten or twenty years.

Chris M
December 4, 2012

“They need catechizing and baptism.”
No, I think they need exorcism.

-Interestingly, the traditional rite of baptism includes exorcism..

Mike
December 4, 2012

“It is significant to its parents and to God, but not so significant that its potential to become a person should override all other considerations’.”

Here’s a tip: If “it”–meaning the child–is significant to God, maybe “it” should be significant to us, as well.

Why this woman even wants to be identified as Christian is beyond me. And the fact that a community affirms her as a Christian leader demonstrates how warped, immature, and lost worldwide Anglicanism has become.

Dale Price
December 4, 2012

House chaplains for the Culture of Death.

The resemblance to the “German Christian” movement of the 30s and the present Patriotic Associations in China is purely coincidental.

Whitestone
December 4, 2012

The Bible, the traditional teaching of Judaism and Christianity most certainly do speak clearly and with one voice against abortion and against homosexuality for that matter.

The Bible and the teachings of Judaism and Christianity do address abortion with one unified and unequivocal voice:

- Scripture consistently condemns the shedding of innocent blood.

- Leviticus exacts punishment for causing abortion of an unborn child.

- Both the rabbis and early church condemned and taught against abortion. Babies thrown away by the Romans to die were rescued and reared by early Christians, just as the Church sponsors crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life ministries today.

There is much more evidence in Scripture if one is willing to see it.

Then there is the growing amount of science research/medical/mental health evidence…the increased risk of breast cancer, depression, relational and other mental health problems following abortion/s. One study showed women who had babies after rape actually recovered better, because of bringing a good thing (life, a baby to be adopted) out of a violent act, but that abortion compounded the negative effects of the rape.

We may suffer for doing good, but in the end, it is worth it. Joy and peace are the result of following GOD’s Commandments and His Love, Truth and Life.

We are always fractured, diminished and damaged when we violate God’s laws.

Steve L.
December 4, 2012

Gee Chris, this is becoming same ol’ same ol’

Are you ready,
Are you ready for this
Are you hanging on the edge of your seat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I’m gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust

dwstroudmd+
December 4, 2012

“What the Bible does not teach, and which has never been a part of Christian doctrine – contrary to the assertion in this month’s TMA letter – is that ‘all human life has absolute moral value’.”

I call BS!

Actually, there is an enormous amount of material in the Bible about this issue. I have a 20 page document entitled A Theological Approach to Abortion that covers Scripture and the Early Church that I produced in regard to this matter. I’d be happy to share it with those interested. You can personal message me over at StandFirm and I’ll send you a copy in Word format.

Ed the Roman
December 4, 2012

You are worth more than several sparrows.

Steve L.
December 4, 2012

What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.

But Genesis 4:10 was so awfully long ago and God just has to be relevant, doesn’t he know that?

Martial Artist
December 4, 2012

Alison Taylor:Nowhere in the Bible is a foetus accorded the full moral status of a human person.”

Me: “Nowhere in the Bible is an Anglican Bishop explicitly accorded the full moral status of human person.”

Pax et bonum,
Keith T&oul;pfer

Duane
December 4, 2012

Yet so many of these pro-abortion folks are also anti-capital punishment, which makes no sense to me.

Jay Random
December 4, 2012

Duane —

It makes perfect sense. If you’re opposed to killing people as a punishment, the only people left that you can kill are those who deserve no punishment because they have never done anything wrong.

FW Ken
December 4, 2012

And where in the bible, anywhere does it say there’s anything wrong with slavery? Racism? Bigamy? Subjugation of women

I would suggest looking at the Old Testament passages on the Year of Jubilee, Cities of Refuge, and instructions to extend hospitality. The status of women in the Hebrew community was a long step up from the surrounding cultures and the prohibition on adultery was good for women. In a similar manner, the New Testament and a whole series of papal encyclicals sought to ameliorate the effects of slavery.

But let facts get in the way of the murder of babies

Paula Loughlin
December 4, 2012

She starts out wrong and descends into intellectual anarchy, no surprise there.

All human life does have an absolute moral value. Image of God. The Incarnation. Redemption. The Cross. Salvation. The Four Last Things. All of these and the other stories of our Salvation history would not needed to have been if human life did not have an absolute moral value. It is for the worth of this coin that Jesus paid our ransom on the Cross.

The moral question we are faced with at times is when we can be justified in taking the life of another. The fact that a person is allowed to defend their life even to the point of taking the life of another does not reduce the moral value of that other life. It only means that at that moment you can commit what would normally be a very grave sin without inviting God’s condemnation upon yourself. The decision was made to preserve your own life which is in keeping with Scripture and moral theology.

No such scenario is true of a woman who chooses to abort her child. I do understand she may very well believe this to be so and others would have tried very hard to convince her of this. But from the standpoint of being a killing justified by circumstances, awww Hell No! Or even worse because someone has decided that “personhood” is a gift bestowed upon us by another and not our birthright by virtue of our creation by Almighty God.

If what she blathers is true then I see no reason to object to chattel slavery and to forced marriage and to lynchings. After all if all life does not have absolute moral value that implies that somebody must decide which lives do and do not get that distinction.

I’ll start my list.

Don Janousek
December 4, 2012

Well, I guess that St. John the Bapist leaping with joy within the womb of St. Elizabeth when the pregnant Virgin Mary visited here doesn’t count anymore. Obviously, John was not “fully-formed” at the time.

And when God said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you,” God was just joking or something.

And when David wrote in Psalm 51 that he was “sinful from the time I was conceived,” he had been at the Temple wine again.

What Bible is this Monster using? Those are only three of a multitude of Biblical verses that confirm the personhood of the unborn child.

Methinks this woman’s brain is not “fully-formed.”

Jim the Puritan
December 4, 2012

“Nowhere in the Bible is a foetus accorded the full moral status of a human person.”

Maybe here, for example:

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful,I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

(Psalm 139:13-16)

Another Anglican idiot.

Dr. Mabuse
December 4, 2012

“The Bible was written millennia before an adequate understanding of human reproduction was possible,…”

I remember when I was young being told that people in the past (when the Bible was written) didn’t even know how babies were made. They couldn’t connect the act of lovemaking with the subsequent conception. It reminded me of an old Bill Cosby standup routine, where he spoke of his love for fast sportscars, which was combined with complete ignorance of how to take care of them. He got his latest car to the gas station and couldn’t tell the attendant where to find the door to the gas tank so he could fill it up. “Just pour it over the top, maybe some will get inside!” Funny how this total ignorance of the facts of life existed side-by-side with an intense focus on rules to regulate the sexual impulse. Almost as if they knew that all sorts of family trouble would happen if men and women could just bed-hop without hindrance. But no, it couldn’t have been anything as sensible as that; it must have been just pure vindictive spoil-sportism.

Elaine S.
December 4, 2012

“I remember when I was young being told that people in the past (when the Bible was written) didn’t even know how babies were made.”

If that’s the case, then why did Mary ask Gabriel at the Annunciation, “How can this be since I do not know man?” And going back even farther, how come David decided to have Bathsheba’s husband killed when he found out Bathsheba was pregnant, if no one was smart enough to make the connection between her pregnancy and her messing around with the king?

And going back even farther than that, why did Judah order his daughter in law Tamar put to death (Genesis 38) or Lot’s daughters, despairing of ever finding husbands, get their father drunk and sleep with him in order to have kids (Genesis 19), if none of these people had any clue that sex was what made babies? The people of Biblical times may not have known all the scientific details about fertilization, chromosomes, fetal development, etc., but they weren’t THAT ignorant.

Dan
December 4, 2012

Okay, you’ve got me now. Hebrew shepherds, pastoralists, whose entire existence was for thousands of years based on breeding animals, whose daily, seasonal and yearly rhythms were tied inevitably and invariably to the breeding and reproduction cycles of sheep, goats and asses, didn’t know where babies come from?

They would have to be monumentally stupid.
And dead from starvation.
I’ve met stupid Jews, but they are not the rule. Unlike theologians.

dwstroudmd+
December 5, 2012

If the CoE needed more evidence of the consequences of female bishops than PB Schori, they’ve got it now!

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta