Wednesday, January 27, 2016

CMP facing indictment for its planned parenthood film project, nothing from DG Hart yet about that?

It's turning out that the group that secretly filmed discussions at a Planned Parenthood have come under indictment.  For a survey of the issues at hand ...

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-faqs-grand-jury-indicts-filmmakers-who-secretly-recorded-planned-parenthood
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/01/david_daleiden_and_sandra_merritt_s_undercover_videos_have_created_massive.single.html

One of the things that comes to mind is that last year DG Hart over at Old Life raised a question about whether or not the deceit inherent to the project wasn't able to boomerang against it.

http://oldlife.org/2015/08/journalists-and-saints-together/
...
None of this means that Daleiden doesn’t deserve some credit for exposing a truly despicable aspect of American society. But if he is going to claim either the mantle of journalistic ethics or Christian morality, can’t we/I question that?
http://oldlife.org/2015/08/if-you-can-deceive-planned-parenthood-why-not-a-gay-couple/

It looks like it could, and that it could even be official.

For those Americans who are persuaded that, so long as the living things that could be identified as human aren't American citizens (at least not yet), we can choose to pre-emptively kill them for the sake of preserving long-term consumer options, then the question might not be whether or not it's okay to kill pre-emptively but whether that use of pre-emptive lethal force is the celebration of an individual opportunity to abort a fetus or a national opportunity to invade Iraq.  It could be construed as might makes right in both cases. It may be that what unites Americans left and right is a basic agreement that "we" get to use lethal force pre-emptively when it suits us in ways we don't permit others to, whether this might be at an individual or a corporate (in all senses of the term) level.

4 comments:

chris e said...

Of course - if you want to take a historical view of this; whilst a majority of the early church fathers saw abortion as sinful, they didn't see it as murder - in fact they were more likely to compare it to sins like contraception (there's probably an interesting case to be made that contraception was seen as analogous to magic). Though of course abortion seems to have been conducted - if at all - much earlier anyway - most early christians bought into the idea of ensoulment.

The locus of the judgement that this act was sinful was centred on the selfish nature of it - rather than the taking of a life.

Similarly the OT scriptures wouldn't offer much support for the modern view - which doesn't mean it renders it invalid, but does mean that one has to adopt a view of revelation that supports it.

Wenatchee the Hatchet said...

yes, given debates about the nature of how humans gain their souls there's room to make the case (as I've seen at least one humanist in favor of abortion do) that Thomistic explanations of ensoulment leave wiggle room for abortion not being murder even if it were frowned upon for other grounds.

I'm guessing you saw this:
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2015/12/ht-jim-west-richard-goode-piece-on-how.html

http://bibleresearchtoday.com/2014/12/09/the-dark-reality-of-infanticide-behind-matthew-121/

Even in ancient Israel infanticide of unwanted or illegitimate children was part of the background of Joseph's narrative in the Gospels.



chris e said...

I was actually thinking more of Exodus 21:22-23:

22 "If people are fighting and 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. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life"

Which at least in the Hebrew makes it clear that the serious injury clause applies to the woman rather than the fetus (it is also grouped in with a bunch of laws regarding 'property' including slaves).

There is a parallel clause in the code of Hammurabai:

"If a man strikes a woman causing her fruit to depart, he shall pay ten shekals for her loss of child. If the woman should die, he who struck the blow shall be put to death.""

Wenatchee the Hatchet said...

yeah, I figured the Ex passage was more what you were thinking. The parallel clause from Hammurabi's a nice touch. :)