First let me say this – I love and respect Zeev. However, his interpretation is itself flawed, and his final conclusions, based on unreasonable correlations, are erroneous. While the application of biblical
standards to address societal issues is noble and is exactly how God wants his word applied, the conclusion is of little value if the process is fraught with such significant error.
Assertion 1--"...his holy book... in Genesis, Ch. 1, line 7 it states quite
clearly when "life begins", it says there "Then Lord G-d formed man out of
the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and
man became a living being. Quite clearly life starts with the first breath,
not with conception..."
Rebuttal--The assertion that Genesis clearly claims that all life begins at a
child's first breath because Adam's life began when God "breathed into his
nostrils" is a misinterpretation with a spurious conclusion. Here's why. The
creation passage describes the beginning of life for the very first human,
Adam. By definition, there were no human parents who could have conceived
Adam through sperm and egg. Therefore, God's one-time divine process of
"breathing into his nostrils" was a one-time event that never needed
repeating because, after Adam, human conception was the norm. To draw the
conclusion that life for child in the year 2000 begins at first breath
because Adam's life began at first breath draws an absolute correlation. This
relationship is best described as "comparing apples and oranges". The events
Zeev correlates are distinct. Their conditions do not apply to each other.
In fact, there is ample Biblical evidence that God considers life to begin in
the womb. God clearly references that he considered the prophet Jeremiah,
while he was still a fetus, to be a human for whom he has concerns, plans,
etc. JEREMIAH 1:4-5 "The Lord gave me a message. He said, "I knew you before
I formed you in your mother's womb. Before you were born, I set you apart and
appointed you as my spokesman to the world." In the Gospel of Luke, John the
Baptist, while still in Elizabeth's womb, reacted to news of Mary's pregnancy
with Jesus. LUKE 1:44--"As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my
ears, the baby in my womb leapt for joy."
The logic of the Zeev would dictate that a baby in the birth canal can be
killed without penalty since, because the child's lungs still carry fluid and
have not converted to oxygen, the baby has not yet breathed and therefore is
not yet living. This would be a ridiculous claim. His logic fails, miserably.
Assertion 2-- "That does not mean that the bible does not forbid abortion,
since abortion is a violation of the law commanding "and thou shall
multiply...", but it is far from being murder, it has the same level of
criticality as masturbation (also forbidden by the Bible), since that act
results "in wasting your seed...".
Rebuttal 2—Zeev is off base on three points here:
a) Abortion is a violation of the law "and thou shall multiply". The
implicit assumption is that that act of abortion itself is not murder. This
is akin to saying a murdering leaving the scene of the crime by frantically
running across the street is merely guilty of jaywalking. One must reject the
implicit assumption, based on flawed logic.
b) "...far from being murder, it has the same criticality as
masturbation." Two problems with this claim. First, the claim is based upon
the zeev's fundamentally ridiculous assertion that abortion cannot be
murder because life begins at first breath. That has been logically dissected
as untenable. Second, based on that flawed assertion, abortion is nothing
more than a refusal to multiply and is akin to masturbation. Even if I
accepted that abortion was not murder (which clearly I do not) zeev is
guilty of compartmentalizing sin and making comparisons of degree of
wrongness. The Bible clearly rejects comparisons on the degree of wrongness
of sin. In the New Testament, Paul says in James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the
whole law yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking it all." Here Paul
was refuting the Jewish concept that some sins are worse than others and that
obeying the laws in general makes one "right" with God. The point is
this--sin is sin and saying some are less offensive than others has
absolutely no basis in scripture, whatsoever.
Assertion 3--"If you think that the Federal Government should have an
"anti-masturbation" police, then it should also have an "anti abortion"
police. The question of when life begins is a religious question, and
according to our constitution, the government has no business getting
involved in resolving it or legislating it.
Rebuttal 3—Zeev’s assertion that the federal government is in
violation for writing legislation that has some connection to scripture may
be an innocent misstatement, but it shows he has no knowledge of natural law
or of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Unfortunately for Zeev, our
system of morals on what is generally acceptable societal behavior is
inextricably linked to natural law and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Perjury
is referenced to the Ten Commandments, so is murder, so is theft, etc, etc.
The Constitutional clause on separation of church and state only says that
there cannot be the formation of an official state religion, not can there be
any denial of religious freedom for citizens. The framers rejected England's
positing the Anglican Church as the official state religion. For someone to
contend that and say that foundational principles for behavior with origin in
the Judeo-Christian tradition must be resolutely dismissed is ridiculous. If
that is the position, then enjoying a United States with no legal code at
all. In its entirety, it can be linked back to foundational biblical
principles. |
