Evil cleric says "Abortion is a blessing"

St. Michael, ora pro nobis.

Well, actually, Rod, not that many people do *want* to be under the spiritual authority of someone like this -- which is why the Episcopal Church has lost more of its members, and continues to lose them faster, than than any of the other mainline Protestant denominations, all of which are in steep decline, due precisely to this sort of thing.

The Presbyterian Church, for example, recently debated a measure to remove monogamy in marriage as a criterion for ordination, in order to allow for the eventuality -- the inevitability -- not too long from now of ordination of gay clergy in open or polyamorous gay "marriages."

The kicker is that most of the increasing few who are left in the mainline denominations will be gone a generation from now, once outright atheism becomes mandatory for members in good standing of the liberal-progressive gauche-bourgeoisie.

I write this as one of the increasing number of disaffected and disheartened members of mainline denominations who have not become "unchurched," but rather, who have been "dechurched" as a result of morally-cretinous swill like what you cite in your post.

The only consolation I can take is that my Methodist and Episcopalian grandparents died before being subjected to this, which would have broken their hearts to pain of death had they been around to see it, anyway.

I can only imagine how many Catholic grandparents are having their hearts broken right now by Barack Obama -- of all people -- being made an honorary doctor of philosophy -- of all things -- by Notre Dame -- of all places.

A good example of the attitude that made me reconsider becoming an Episcopalian. I think there are circumstances where abortion is allowable as self-defense, but it is always regrettable and never, ever, a blessing to end a human life.

Re: That aside, I think it's a little strong to call this woman "evil."

If she really does consider abortion a positive good then I can't think of any other word but "evil" for her opinion here. I too can allow that there may be circumstances (albeit not many of them) where abortion may be a necessary evil. Such is the bitter reality of living in a fallen world. But no amount of necessity ever renders evil good.

John D @ 8:57 PM writes: "Funny, I consider those clerics who speak against same-sex marriage to be evil. They do harm to others and our country (unpatriotic too!). It is evil and un-American to be against equal rights for all. That aside, I think it's a little strong to call this woman "evil.""

I don't. I think "evil" is a pretty accurate word to use.

This woman is not just supporting, but openly pronouncing as good, the deliberate putting to death of innocent babies. Let's be honest with ourselves---that's what she's advocating. She is asking the babies to suffer a (lethal) consequence of the situation the parents put themselves in. How is that justifiable ? Indeed, how is that distinguishable from the "morality" of the Communist or the Nazi ?

What makes matters worse is that she is apparently doing so under color of the authority of her church. It is not just as a person who happens to be a member of her church, but as one who has accepted a position of authority and prestige within it that she is saying the things that she says. In other words, she is attempting to put the weight of her entire religious organization behind her words.

One more thing, sirrah. You state that, in your opinion, the opponents of same-sex "marriage" are evil. I'm not a theologian by any means, but how can you possibly claim that that is a worse sin (IF sin it is !) than causing the death of an innocent life ? How can any act of mere speech or thought be equatable to an act of commission that causes the death of a child ? Or perhaps you have forgotten the commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" ?

Unfortunately, sirrah, I fail to see where in the Decalogue the commandment "thou shalt not oppose gay marriage" is listed. I think that this creature represents monstrous evil. I also find it difficult to believe that a religious organization that places such a person in a position of authority can seriously claim to call itself Christian.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

A formless clump of cells without a functioning brain is not an innocent baby, no matter how much you wish it so.

The banality of evil is the phrase that comes to mind. It is such a perfect example of the party line in your average women's studies department. Any one of my profs at college could have delivered the sermon and I would bet that most of them were agnostic or atheist. And I am a strong supporter of women's rights as well as of freedom in general. It's just that I count unborn girls among that number and I hold the sanctity of life higher.

There are a number of things I liked about the Episcopal church, but in the end I turned out to be too Catholic, despite my disagreements over dogma.

Your Name @ 9:35 PM writes: "A formless clump of cells without a functioning brain is not an innocent baby, no matter how much you wish it so."

Your error, sirrah, lies in the fact of your failure to understand that said "formless clump of cells" will, in the ordinary course of development, become an innocent baby. There has yet to be a single instance where a Human egg and Human sperm have combined and then developed into a horse.

Developing into the tail end of a horse, however....that's possibly a different story.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Poor use of definite articles notwithstanding, do we know whether Ragsdale means that the abortion in isolation is a blessing, the abortion as a necessary evil is a blessing, or the option of an abortion is a blessing?

The latter I'm on board with. That I live in a free society is a blessing, although what I choose to do with my freedom may not be.

The median sounds like a semantics argument. If an action, however abhorrent, transforms a terrible situation into a not-quite-as-terrible situation, then one could argue that the action is a blessing. After all, blessings make people better off, and going from terrible to not-as-terrible makes a person better off, so an abortion could be considered a blessing. I don't agree with this terminology (it shows a misunderstanding of basic logic, if nothing else), but I wouldn't categorize Ragsdale as evil because of her vocabulary.

The former is pretty terrible, and I agree that believing it would make Ragsdale evil. But I don't think she considers the act of aborting itself a blessing. Even under the most extreme pro-choice position, a fetus is a piece of nonliving tissue that can be discarded with as little moral relevance as an apple core. But would anyone really consider throwing away apple cores to be a "blessing," in and of itself? I think it's more likely that they mean that disposing of trash (and I mentally cringe at equating fetuses this way) is a "blessing" under certain circumstances. Which sounds more like the median interpretation of Ragsdale's comments.

Your error, sirrah, lies in the fact of your failure to understand that said "formless clump of cells" will, in the ordinary course of development, become an innocent baby. There has yet to be a single instance where a Human egg and Human sperm have combined and then developed into a horse.

Lord Karth, a surprisingly large number of "formless clumps of cells" become nothing at all. There's a reason why most women wait until their second trimester to announce a pregnancy: roughly 33% of pregnancies in the first trimester end in a natural miscarriage. And those are just counting the pregnancies that the woman was aware of...

Tony, a surprisingly large number of human beings die from death . . . and yet for some reason the zealots keep outlawing murder. Go figure.

Abortion, frankly, is built on a bunch of lies.

I'm not a theologian by any means, but how can you possibly claim that that is a worse sin (IF sin it is !) than causing the death of an innocent life ?

Because he's a swipple (or a SWPL liberal). It's what they do, Karth. Bird's got fly, fish's got to swim, swipple's got to get offended. In fact, they live to get offended. They enjoy it more than life, and they love it when they find some darling minority on whose behalf they can get offended.

As one of the faithful Episcopalians all I can say is damn this women and EDS. EDS is totally in class by itself as far as Episcopal seminaries go, they are not merely liberal, but in another realm of insanity entirely.They also recently had a speaker promoting polyamory and group marriage,of any grouping of consenting adults. Thankfully they are having money trouble and the future doesn't look bright for this school. She is beyond the typical liberals of my denomination, I know personally and is a ghoul. She is so extreme that she is likely to give,even them pause. Most liberals I know, view abortion as sad and tragedy, even if they are pro-choice. To me this appointment is sign of how out of touch the leaders if my church are, with the rank and file,even many of the liberals.She isn't merely pro-choice, but anti-baby and child. It is amazing how out of touch they are, year after year more people leave and these assholes who run the church and its institutions can't seem to figure out why the church is falling apart or pat themselves on the back, as collapse being the cost of being prophetic or something. Orthodoxy is looking mighty fine at this point.Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy,Lord have mercy!

I am proudly pro-choice, but I do not consider abortion a blessing. I wish it never had to happen, but I don't get to decide that.

For millenia, a woman's womb was a baby farm to be used as the man (the woman's and child's legal owner) saw fit. The blessing is that this is no longer the case.

Your Name, google abortion by week of gestation. About half done before, half after 8 weeks. Now google fetus/embryo by week of gestation.

Not formless at 8 weeks, but with a head, a funny face with wide-set eyes, arms and legs, webbed fingers. Moving.

How you define a brain as functioning is up to you of course, but I've seen an 8 week embryo extend its legs and leap its length in the womb.

Know what you kill.

Every abortion is a tragedy.

Kids don't grow up playing "let's have an abortion." Women don't say to each other "won't it be great when we get unexpectedly pregnant and can finally have an abortion" or "remember when I got my abortion, that was so awesome!"

People celebrate their blessings. No-one wishes anyone "Happy Abortion Day!"

By Dean Ragsdale's lights every amputation must also be a blessing, after all piling one tragedy upon another makes the second one a blessing.

And why on Earth, John D, should your philosophical or theological musings on personhood carry force of law? Advances in science have made it fairly easy to determine if a thing is alive, and if it is, is it human? You are just joining the long line of people who denied personhood to specimens of Homo sapiens sapiens on various grounds. They offered similar caveats about not owning slaves and not killing natives. They insisted chattel slavery was a morally neutral labor arrangement and that it was more evil to deprive a person of his right to property than to engage in a morally neutral labor arrangement.

Oh dear, Franklin, that isn't a good argument either. John D could just as easily ask you why your theological musings should carry the force of law. Or do you claim to draw the line at "scientific" awareness of life? If so, would you have have supported first-trimester abortions prior to the invention of ultrasound, when the quickening was considered the "scientific" and religious point at which life began?

"Alive" and "human DNA" is also not a good argument for fetuses being human, as it proves too much. My kidney is alive and chalk-full of human DNA, but it isn't a human. And the fact that a fetus can eventually become birthed-- unlike my kidney-- is not a good rejoinder, as me and I agreed.

Of course, you may be able to come up with an additional carve-out that somehow excludes my kidney, but let's be honest about what you're doing: deriving reasons to support the conclusion that you already believe. Logic should be a process of beginning with no conclusions and deriving a morally appropriate answer, not beginning with a pre-established answer and coming up with arguments that support it. Such "back-end" processing always results in specious reasoning, as you pointed out regarding slavery.

"When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion - often a late-term abortion - to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing."

I was born with a badly deformed club foot. Happily this was corrected by reconstructive surgery when I was too young to remember, and apart from an annoying feeling in my right foot, and difficulty walking for miles at a time or standing up all day without proper shoes, I'm perfectly fine. (Of course, even if the outcome was worse, somehow I suspect I'd be better off alive.)

When my mother was pregnant she had a high fever for about a week; it's conceivable the fever caused my club foot. I'm told that the doctor who helped fix this birth defect also told my mother that, had she been my mother's physician during pregnancy, and had she known about the fever, she would have counseled an abortion. My mother was then and is now only moderately religious, and had no particular objections to abortion. If that doctor had offered such advice, my mom probably would have gone through with it, and I would have been killed in the womb.

A question for Rev. Ragsdale and people with similar opinions: was my case an "anomal[y] incompatible with life?" If the answer is "no," and if my mother had an abortion, would *that* have been a tragedy, or would it still have been a blessing? If I should have been aborted (a blessing), then perhaps my life is cursed? (Hey, that could explain a lot of things.....)

A common response by intelligent defenders of abortion implies that it's somehow a mistake to identify myself with the fetus in my mother's womb decades ago. But that response seems incoherent.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

"When we are talking about abortion we are not talking about a "formless clump of cells". We are talking about a formed fetus which does not have a functioning brain."

No, you condemn the abortion of a formless clump of cells, too. And shame on Rod for inciting pointless and powerless anger--not one comment here will affect Rev. Ragsdale. Don't you people ever read the Bible on how to respond to these kinds of issues?

Oh my stars and garters, Tony, you aren't so clever by half!

First, I did not make any argument, I merely asked questions and made observations about John D's argument. So quite frankly, I'd thank you not to lecture me about logic if you don't even comprehend what an argument is.

Second, I would merely propose that since there is no consensus in our current society about the beginning of personhood, and since it is a longstanding principal of our legal tradition that the law should err on the side of caution, this would indicate we must treat every living human being as though he or she were a person, regardless of their actual personhood. (Your little sideline about quickening and ultrasounds is especially silly, considering the way my religion has developed its position on abortion along side these same scientific advancements. Life issues apply to that which is alive. Duh!)

Third, I don't need any additional carve-out to exclude your kidney from the conventional definition of life. Until your kidney possesses real potential for producing another kidney, it is a mere replicator.

And finally, you just aren't nearly as clever as you think you are. Until such time, you might find something better to do with your time than miseducating yourself and others in comboxes.

Have a great day!!!

“…not one comment here will affect Rev. Ragsdale.”

Probably not, but apart from salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ, His finished work on the cross and bodily resurrection, “… the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death,” (Rev. 21:8).

For the likes of unrepentant abortionists and those, such as Ragsdale, who encourage this murderous trade, as one preacher put it, “there will be a pay day some day.”

LM

No, she is not evil. We are all evil. And on the eve of Holy Week, we would do well to remember that.

But is she tragically, utterly wrong. And as a faithful Episcopalian, this is horrifying to read.

I sincerely hope that this woman is insane. It is the only possible excuse for her.

Matt Stokes,

Do you really think that we cannot make distinctions between levels of wrongdoing? If I steal a pack of Post-Its from work, does that really make me the equivalent of Ted Bundy? I absolutely agree with Solzhenitsyn that the line between good and evil runs within individuals, not between them, but it does not follow from this that all sins are equal.

Too many Christians have bought in to this peculiar idea that because we are all fallen, we are all equally fallen, all potentially guilty of every terrible crime, and it sometimes seem like they take a sort of perverse spiritual pride in this breast-beating. I find it tiresome, perverse and pompous, and corrosive of accurate ethical evaluation.

the regulars here know about my position on abortion already and why I'm for it. So I'll spare you reading it again (if you want to the comments are there in the archives). I actually (mostly) agree with Rod on this one. The woman herself may not be evil, but what she said sure is. At best, abortion is a sad and bitter, but ultimately (sometimes) necessary act. You don't enter into it willingly and you sure as all the hells don't consider it a blessing. Something the would-be parents need to learn from? Absolutely. The most painful experience they will ever know? Probably. But NEVER is it a blessing. It is a loss of hope and a loss of life. No one with any compassion or sympathy could ever call it a blessing.

As an evangelical who has belonged to mainline churches for decades, I thought I'd seen and heard everything. But this woman's sermon tops anything in my experience. The good news is that the rank and file in each of the mainline denominations don't buy her viewpoint (thus the decades of pitched battles in those denominations, plus a continuing exodus from those denominations). Its mostly among the clergy, church bureaucrats and theology profs that you find the really extreme liberal viewpoints. Even in the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ, there are pro-life caucuses that carry on the good fight. God bless them.

As a member of the Pres. Church USA currently attending a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, my hope is that this woman and her ilk will eventually be marginalized and the mainline denominations will once again get back on track. In fact, I think the vast number of mainline members have already tuned out the church leadership. Almost nobody in the pews pays attention anymore to the nutso proclamations coming out of the church bureaucracy.

Hello Tony,

Lord Karth, a surprisingly large number of "formless clumps of cells" become nothing at all. There's a reason why most women wait until their second trimester to announce a pregnancy: roughly 33% of pregnancies in the first trimester end in a natural miscarriage. And those are just counting the pregnancies that the woman was aware of...

The infant mortality rate before the modern era was even higher than that.

But to follow up on your follow up:

I suspect you would argue that the fetus is 100% human, regardless of whether it is ever birthed. Which is an acceptable position to take. My sole contention is that the "potential baby" argument does not track with statistical reality, not that there aren't other arguments that would support your position.

Is not a baby merely a potential adult?

Oh, and I have a question for Bill or anyone else who knows - why is it that these mainline protestant denominations have such liberal leadership if the "rank and file" are not equally as liberal? Are the liberals in the majority, or just a very vocal minority? And if they are the majority, why don't the more moderate/conservative members join the leadership and effect change? Is it because those who feel called to ministry tend to defect to more conservative denominations?

Well Franklin, I'll ignore your irrelevant personal attacks-- somehow made in defense of your logical skills-- and focus on your good point:

Second, I would merely propose that since there is no consensus in our current society about the beginning of personhood, and since it is a longstanding principal of our legal tradition that the law should err on the side of caution, this would indicate we must treat every living human being as though he or she were a person, regardless of their actual personhood.

This is more or less where I come out as well. Except that there's a competing interest on the other side of the equation, which is the right to bodily integrity. (Aside: you do believe that there is such a right, correct, except that it's trumped by the fetus's right to life?) So yes, one could argue that the law should err on the side of caution of the fetus. But one could just as easily say that the law should err on the side of caution of the right to bodily integrity.

I would agree that life is more important than bodily integrity, if for no other reason than that the former enables the latter. Once we're dead, we don't really care what happens to our bodies (well, not nearly as much anyway). But the violation of the right to bodily integrity is certain, and the violation of the right to life isn't.
So that doesn't get me anywhere either.

In other words, "legal default caution" doesn't really counsel for any position here. Or more accurately, it only supports the position one already believes; it doesn't lead an undecided to one camp or the other.

Amy, I think, gets the closest to what's evil in this woman's words. She's preaching utilitarianism under the guise of Christianity. I don't think utilitarian thinking is evil of itself, but when you cast it as the product of divine law instead of human thought...that's way evil.

Mike

In response to R.M. Lender:

Is not a baby merely a potential adult?

It is, which is why a baby does not have all the rights that adults do. The packet of rights that inure to adults qua adults includes voting, informed consent, relative autonomy, etc. Babies don't have any of those rights.

I'm being purposely obtuse, of course. I sense that your real point is this: if a fetus is not a "human," why does "humanness" magically begin after birth? In other words, if abortion is legally permissible, why not infanticide?

Assuming there were a schism in public opinion about the humanity of babies, this would be an excellent place to apply Franklin's default legal caution. We don't know when life begins (under this hypo, it's apparently not even at birth), so we err on the side of caution and assume it begins at birth. There's no competing interest in bodily integrity one the baby is born, so there's no reason not to follow caution.

There you go again, lumping the gays in with the evil.

Methodist Searching,

I don't need to address her points 'thoughtfully and respectfully', any more than I need to thoughtfully and respectfully address the thoughts of the Ku-Klux-Klan. All I need to know is that they are the enemy, and between them and me there is no room for truce, and no room for compromise. This woman is every bit as evil in her values and behavior as the German Lutheran pastors who supported Hitler. I have a special loathing for her as a pro-life Anglican, since I see her as the vanguard of those who are corrupting and destroying the Episcopal Church.

You'd do better to stop 'searching' and accept the truth about abortion, as it was laid down by the Apostles in the Didache. As Chesterton said, 'the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to close it again on something solid.'

"And, as a woman, she knows how it feels and is speaking from her heart in a mode of sympathy for pregnant women. "

As a woman who has been pregnant multiple times and has been quite distressed over at least one of the occasions, I can still say it's evil to call it a blessing when one human dies in an attempt to resolve another's temporary difficulties.

lumping the gays in with the evil.

Understanding evil as the utter absence of moral good, deliberately killing a baby is always and everywhere evil.

Committing homosexual acts does not rise to the level of evil because there is a measure of moral good in expressing human affection even when the expression is intrinsically immoral.

SAW, all evil is immoral but not all immorality is evil.

Martin, you wrote:

"NT Wright’s explication of scripture on the new creation (beginning with Christ’s Kingdom of Heaven proclamation) is really good. Based on this theology Rod looks like he’ll get a whole galaxy at least. :)"

Where can I read this?

Roland de Chanson: "This is an gross perversion of Jewish teaching."

Can you quote me Talmud on that Rabbi de Chanson?

Let me quote Jewfaq.org, a reasonably well-accepted site from the Orthodox viewpoint:

Abortion

Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

(End of quotation)

Note that the commonplace view of abortion being permitted to save the life of the mother is in contradiction to Jewish teaching. The woman who'd rather die than get an abortion is not following Jewish teaching.

The rabbis have been liberal (so to speak) in interpreting what constitutes jeopardy to the woman's life. Therefore, if carrying a baby to term is likely to make a woman not want to live, her life is in jeopardy. "I can't live with this," honestly stated, is justification for abortion under Jewish teaching.

Hector: I congratulate you on your complete discovery of this truth. I was under the silly impression that there were alot of things to consider and that we should respect everyone as a child of God.

But, like you said, I guess I'm too busy thinking and need to follow directions more often.

"Hector: I congratulate you on your complete discovery of this truth. I was under the silly impression that there were alot of things to consider and that we should respect everyone as a child of God."

So since there are "alot" of things to consider, does that mean that one should consider "nazism?" Adolf Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews...what is the appropriate response to that? Do we "consider" his point of view or do we condemn the desire to murder millions of innocent people?

Tertius, thank you for posting that quote and the link to the rest.

What an appalling statement. What about *my* right as a pro-life woman to seek doctors during my three pregnancies who don't think the child in my womb is expendable? I never did go to a pro-abort ob/gyn, and I never will; people who think it's a good idea to kill unborn children oughtn't, in my opinion, be their doctors (since an ob/gyn is the doctor for both the mother *and* the child).

But in a sad, twisted way, I can understand where Ragsdale is coming from more easily than I can understand some other pro "choice" people.

Ragsdale says: abortion is good! Yay abortion! Killing babies is good! etc.

Other pro "choice" people say: Abortion is terrible, sad, a tragedy--but for reasons we'd rather not specify. It does kill *something* but again, we'd rather not specify. Still, it should be perfectly legal and the federal government should pay for it and doctors who don't want to do it should probably not work as ob/gyn doctors and pro-lifers are shrill and Obama's commitment to abortion is one of the best things about him and...

At least the first viewpoint is coherent. Evil, but coherent.

To Amy's very good question:

The liberal elites continue to control many mainline denominations, despite more traditional folk in the pews, for a number of reasons. For one, it takes a lot of free time to influence one's denominational policy. In the PCUSA, you have to attend a meeting of your local presbytery (here in the West, often 300-400 miles from home) or get elected to attend the General Assembly meeting (often several thousands of miles from home). Despite my interest in the issues those meetings addressed, with my demanding job and three kids at home I simply couldn't spare the time or money to go. By contrast, pastors, church bureaucrats and church college profs often (usually?) get time off to go, and sometimes their travel expenses are often paid. And the folks who typically go from local congregations are often retired "activists" who have time on their hands and are in cahoots with the elites.

Also, keep in mind that there has been a recurring pattern in the mainline churches in the past several decades: national governing body (liberal-leaning) passes resolution that waters down ethical standard. Resolution gets referred to the local level, where it typically gets blown out of the water by the rank and file. Issue goes back to national governing body, where elites try again, this time with different phrasing. Process repeats over and over ad nauseum. At some point, the rank and file tire of the battle and simply tune out the national denomination entirely.

It is not a blessing to live in a society at war with women's bodies. Christianity was from the beginning a pro-woman religion. This denigrates what our bodies are made to do. Give life not death.

This is so sad and evil. What is appalling is that some one would say this from a pulpit. She should tell this to the women in China who are forced into abortions.

It seems to me that the Rev. Ragsdale actually read Numbers 5:11-31. Some of her interpretation and application to contemporary situations is a bit loose, perhaps. Yet when a priest administers an abortifacient, as the passage proposes, she is probably correct that the ritual involves words and advices that, to the categorist, are technically termed blessings.

I leave to Roland the longwinded dissertation on the Germanic etymology of 'blessing', posing as it does an opportunity for extending his range from the Latinate. ;-)

John D,

Reread what you posted. Try to understand what is being said. If you are successful you will realize that your statement "Actually, the Torah is fairly permissive of abortion, and Jewish law permits one until the shoulders emerge" is indeed, as I pointed out, a gross perversion.

I can refer you to some sites which might help you, but I prefer to see whether you can read and comprehend on your own first. Ponder carefully what you have read and then explain your interpretation to us in a followup post.

And I thank you for the undeserved honour of thinking me a rabbi.

Jillian: I leave to Roland the longwinded dissertation on the Germanic etymology of 'blessing', posing as it does an opportunity for extending his range from the Latinate

I bloody well am not longwinded. Bless you! ;-)

"Are you pro-life? Or do you, like Benedict, consider a little mass murder an acceptable price for "defending marriage""

Frank, you're still avoiding the question. How does mass murder make the Pope "happy" and do you have proof that he considers it "acceptable?"

Words mean things, people. If you want your argument to sway anything you can't throw out hyperbole and not back it up.

Pentamom:
Using the words "only choice for the woman" I intended it to mean it may be preceived by the woman as the only choice, not that it is the only choice. Was that any clearer? I understand there are other choices...adoption, or keep the child.

But as I said, among the choices should, IMO, be a safe, clean,legal termination, if the others aren't preceived as possible by the woman.

anon: I have no conclusion on whether abortion should be legal. Really. I think the extremes on both sides are incorrect: that is, I have a problem with abortions always being illegal and with abortions being as easy to obtain as a haircut. I've spent a great deal of time arguing with people on both sides, trying to figure out where I stand, and I have yet to find a single argument in the gray areas that doesn't reduce to a statement of belief one way or the other. Thus my "logical" position is that there is no logical position that isn't premised on a first assumption regarding the value of a fetus-- which, of course, assumes the conclusion. I certainly welcome any attempt to show otherwise.

My kidney is protected by law, both because of the obvious damage done to me by removing my kidney and by my right to bodily integrity. The kidney's "protection" is premised on my rights, not the kidney's-- if I'm willing, it's perfectly legal (and dare I say, moral) to cut the kidney out of me and implant it in someone else. The kidney has no say in the matter.

Now I'm not suggesting that a fetus is like a kidney. I'm merely pointing out that if "things" that are alive and have human DNA are necessarily human, then kidney transplants should be illegal and immoral. They aren't, which means that the "alive/human DNA" distinction does not hold water.

I do not submit to the spiritual authority of any man (or woman). Those who claim to hold the key to salvation are more delusional than those who follow. The sanctity of divination is not to be apportioned to those who fill the offering plate on Sundays. It is inherent in every individual, and beyond the subjective judgment of a self-proclaimed proponent of god.

That being said,

the only way through this dilemma, and to put a stop to senseless abortion is through appropriate education. That means that we have to give up our right to judge and truly allow one to make an informed and independent decision for herself, even if we do not agree. Shrouding Truth in a barrage of irrelevant and weighted facts, or well-intentioned personal insight will only serve to confuse plausible denial with comprehended wisdom. Remember, we cannot bear the consequence of another's responsibility, so it is folly to assume we could positively effect one's decision.

"why are conservatives still in these liberal churches?"

Why are Catholics still Catholic after the abuse scandal, Maciel, and the church's participating in genocide in Rwanda.

Why are the Orthodox still Orthodox after clerics cheered on the genocide in Bosnia.

Why are Anglicans still Anglicans after African bishops endorsed the death penalty for gays?

Because those incidents don't define the faith. Individual priests don't define the faith.

That should be "like her..."

I agree with Tony that this is a very complicated issue, and I find myself in disagreement with people on both sides, and I do consider myself pro-choice.

Perhaps Ragsdale ought to consider this question - if it is a blessing for a couple to decide to abort a fetus because they discover that fetus has severe birth defects, will it also be a blessing when couples who discover through genetic testing that their child is likely to be gay decide to abort that fetus?

These are complex questions, and I do wonder on what moral basis people like Ragsdale will oppose abortion as a form of "eugenics" when it starts to impact on groups whose lives she considers potentially more valuable than others?

Sorry. That should be John D.

Franklin (and everyone else),

Thank you for the kind words, Franklin. I am in a predicament that I think is typical of many people who were raised in mainline denominations. My extended family's religious affiliation was with congregations faithful to different denominations of Anglican Christianity in America -- first the United Methodist Church and then the Episcopal Church. We all joined the Episcopal Church as a way to "stay" Methodist as the Methodist Church dropped more and more of its liturgical ties to Anglican tradition. I grew up in the South, so the Episcopal Church I initially joined was entirely orthodox in theology and practice. But as an adult as I have moved around the country due to my work, I have found it harder and harder to find a church I can bear to attend -- either Episcopal or Methodist -- because, basically, outside of the South and a few scattered diocese here and there, both of these denominations have essentially degenerated in most cases into a mixture of moral therapeutic deism and left-liberal politics without much relation to the Anglican tradition, let alone to Christianity before the 16 century. I feel more and more compelled to convert to the Roman Catholic Church as a way to "stay" Anglican, to "stay" Episcopalian, to "stay" Methodist -- or at least to stay more true to the spirit if not the letter of the religious tradition in which I was raised than it is easy to do anymore in either the Episcopal or the Methodist church. But then there's the clergy sex abuse scandal, which makes me wonder if becoming Roman Catholic would just mean going from the frying pan (the Methodist Church) to the fire (the Episcopal Church) to yet another fire, albeit of a different kind (The Roman Catholic Church). There's also the possibility that my work could take me back to the South -- I'm hoping more and more that it will -- in which case I could possibly find either a Methodist or Episcopal Church to attend. Unless of course those two denominations wither away to nothing -- even in the South -- before I can get back. Doesn't anyone out there have any advice? Besides, of course, going atheist ... which isn't going to happen, in my case, so Christophobes and trolls save your breath.

Alicia:

Perhaps Ragsdale ought to consider this question - if it is a blessing for a couple to decide to abort a fetus because they discover that fetus has severe birth defects, will it also be a blessing when couples who discover through genetic testing that their child is likely to be gay decide to abort that fetus?

These are complex questions, and I do wonder on what moral basis people like Ragsdale will oppose abortion as a form of "eugenics" when it starts to impact on groups whose lives she considers potentially more valuable than others?

Good questions. GLBT people have been increasingly concerned that finding the gene(s) controlling sexual orientation may well lead to abortions that mirror the selective holocaust in India and China where female babies are routinely aborted because of cultural preferences.

I knew of a tank gunner in the Army a few years back who always drew a blood pentagram on the back of the M-1 Abrams he crewed and performed various rituals before going to the gunnery range.

He always shot a perfect score, which got the entire crew an Army Commendation Medal each time.

The TC (a sergeant) was said to have been of the opinion that he didn't care if the kid was sacrificing virgins on the engine deck, so long as he kept shooting the way he did.

*shrug*

I have many pagan/Wiccan friends, but it isn't really my cup of tea.

I do not submit to the spiritual authority of any man (or woman). Those who claim to hold the key to salvation are more delusional than those who follow. The sanctity of divination is not to be apportioned to those who fill the offering plate on Sundays. It is inherent in every individual, and beyond the subjective judgment of a self-proclaimed proponent of god. That being said, the only way through this dilemma, and to put a stop to senseless abortion is through appropriate education. That means that we have to give up our right to judge and truly allow one to make an informed and independent decision for herself, even if we do not agree. Shrouding Truth in a barrage of irrelevant and weighted facts, or well-intentioned personal insight will only serve to confuse plausible denial with comprehended wisdom. Remember, we cannot bear the consequence of another's responsibility, so it is folly to assume we could positively effect one's decision.

I like this for the clarity of its incoherence.

The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. ... I realize this does not comport with many Christian views of abortion and reproduction.

Uh. It's not a great fit with many ultrasound views of reproductive biology, either.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/in-the-womb-2228

Zach,

My contention was not "Rashi was a lousy ultrasound tech," but "Jewish law does not hold that abortion is murder."

See, way up above in this huge pile of comments, I noted that I felt that discrimination against gay people could also be termed evil.

Funny, I consider those clerics who speak against same-sex marriage to be evil. They do harm to others and our country (unpatriotic too!). It is evil and un-American to be against equal rights for all.

The responses I received took as a given that abortion is murder. I attempted to show that is an opinion of one religious tradition, and that Judaism did not hold that abortion is murder.

This was disputed by assertion. "No, you're just wrong." No one has offered a position based in the Jewish tradition to contradict my assertion (which is really that of Rashi and other various rabbis of centuries past).

Tony, thanks for the tempered reply. I apologize for cutting into you a little bit but no offense you were getting a little high on your horse.

first, you may have the right to remove your kidney but that doesn't mean that someone else has the right to demand it be removed. kidney transplant are a bad example because you can live without one whereas no one can live after an abortion. thats why donating a heart from a living person would be immoral.

"My kidney is protected by law, both because of the obvious damage done to me by removing my kidney and by my right to bodily integrity. ....
Now I'm not suggesting that a fetus is like a kidney."

you argue that your kidney isn't human but because of bodily integrity and damage done no one else has the right to demand that it be removed. next you imply that a fetus (unborn child that we can't see) has more dignity/rights than a kidney. Wouldn't that imply that the fetus should also be protected by law? Are the bodily integrity and damage done to fetus any less than that done to a kidney???

the best argument for being pro-life is that abortion is unjust. its a hypocrisy. its jealously securing rights for yourself that you do not extend to others. no matter all of the "analysis" or "nuanced" arguments everyone knows that if their mother had had an abortion they wouldn't be standing there. thats why the american answer to abortion is blame the women and don't talk about it.

anon, I didn't mean to imply I'm on a high horse. That's just my normal writing style. I'm aware, however, of the withering contempt with which some lefties address trads, and I can see how my writing style would push those familiar buttons. I'm working on toning it down. :)

the best argument for being pro-life is that abortion is unjust. its a hypocrisy. its jealously securing rights for yourself that you do not extend to others.

Nestled in this argument is the assumption that a fetus is a member of the "others," by which I assume you mean other people. This is what I meant by all arguments for or against abortion reducing to a statement of belief: you believe that fetuses are people, and thus abortion is unjust. But someone who does not share that belief would find your argument unconvincing.

To be clear: I think the pro-choice side's arguments also reduce to a statement of belief: that the fetus is not human. Anyone who does not share that belief will similarly find their arguments unconvincing.

Roland,

I don't think I so much "regurgitated errors." We seem to be having a disagreement non on the halachic stance of abortion, but over the word "permissive."

Traditional Christianity does not permit abortion and considers abortion murder.
Traditional Judaism permits abortion in certain circumstances and does not consider abortion murder.

I would call that "more permissive." I did not imply, as you seem to state, that Jewish teaching allows for abortion on demand.

The question I had initially raised was that harm to the rights of adult persons was worse than harm to a fetus.

I still maintain that the oppression of gay people is a crime against humanity. Abortion, I equally maintain, is not murder.

John D,

Had you stated your opinion in your first post as you did in your last, I would not have made any rejoinder at all. You are distancing yourself from "Torah is fairly permissive of abortion" and I can not disagree with your correction.

This thread is not about oppression of gay people, but, I agree with your statement on that as well.

We may have further disagreement about what constitutes oppression and murder, but that's all in the give and take of a vibrant democracy, and the latest ruling of the Supreme Court.

Keep the faith. ;-)

The Episcopal group must really be set on destroying itself.

First it accepted artificial birth control. Then the notion of female priestesses. Then a practicing homosexual was made a "bishop." Then a female was made some sort of "primate." Now this... It'll be dead in a generation.

Very sad indeed. It's clear the Episcopal group is not that which is mentioned in Matthew 16:18

Yes, Don Mateo . . . it was when they started calling us females "women" that it all went wrong. As if we were some kind of human! Very sad, indeed. It's a well-known fact that Jesus had no truck with FEMALES.

Sigaliris,

Good grief. I agree with you far more than I ever disagree. But Jesus was a big fan of females (a.k.a. women). Cf. Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary, Martha, Mary, Mary .... (did I miss a Mary?). For all we know there is some damsel named Marie dancing around that goddam Louvre pyramid who is his lineal descendant. (I know you are a science fiction writer. ;-))

I am not sure what you are trying to get at with the distinction between "female" and "women". They have in my experience coexisted in a most agreeable form, best appreciated in their natural glory as conferred by le bon Dieu. Aphrodite rising from the sea foam or Venus on the half shell if you prefer. I love the taste of oysters. :-) If God had not meant man to love them, why did he make them so damn desirable? Sorry, I didn't mean to bring up the "Theology of the Body." I had that figured out nearly half a century ago when I kissed the pretty girl next door in pre-pubescent innocence. It was her fault by the way; I was too shy.

I have always thought of females (a.k.a. women) as human. Otherwise I have a lot more to confess than I thought.

Sorry, Roland, I was being sarcastic, and clearly not doing so effectively. ; ) For some reason, the use of "female" as a noun, in reference to female humans, affects me like fingernails on the blackboard. Perhaps it's because the term is so often used with derogatory intentions. I'd resent it less if it came from you, since you've made it clear you would express only les sentiments les plus distinguees by such usage. (Hope I got that right . . . it's been awhile since I used cette langue si belle.)

Some of the finest things in the Gospels are expressed in Jesus' interactions with women. I still recall a childhood Sunday when my father was denouncing, as was his wont, the stupidity of the sermon, which was on the story of Jesus and the Canaanite woman. "Well, what would you say is the moral of that story?" I inquired, attempting to nudge him into more peaceful waters. "The moral is, of course, that Jesus loves smart women!" he said. This dictum has covered a multitude of sins.

Franklin:

Really? Devoting two paragraphs to how I'm not so clever-- with no reference to anything I said-- is "criticism of claims"? If you actually believe this, then I humbly suggest Googling "ad hominem"

And it isn't a potential infringement on life. It simply is a living human being. Killing it is an infringement, not potentially, but actually.

Weren't you arguing from the presumption that we don't know whether a fetus is a human life, and thus the law should err on the side of caution? If you're going to assert that a fetus "simply is a living human being," then your legal caution argument is irrelevant. If fetuses are humans, then we don't need legal caution to arrive at the pro-life position. And if fetuses are not human, then the legal caution argument runs into the exact limitation I already described.

I will try to compose a longer reply when I have read all the comments and can form a more coherent argument. For now, Mad Jack the cradle Episcopalian votes for calling Ragsdale evil.

Sorry to have offended used witch in reference to the Ragsdale person. I think she is definitely of a lower moral order than the Wiccan couple across the street. She is much, much worse for infiltrating a church and with her ilk turning it into a cauldron of heresy, stupidity, preciousness,amorality and now pure evil. I thought Spong was a low point for the ECUSA, but he has been surpassed. I'm sure when she starts selling her story she will be just like him and trumpet her title and wear clericals for the book jacket photos. What a disgusting parasite on Christianity.

Tony,
Thank you for your comments. I have enjoyed reading these posts. I’d like to discuss the whole kidney thing. You’re correct that we don’t seek to protect our kidneys, notwithstanding the fact that they are full of human DNA. However, I see the unborn as something different from a kidney. While I concede that we don’t say “you can’t kill things with human DNA” (and you offered some good examples), I do believe it’s reasonable to state we don’t kill unique (i.e., individual) members of the human race. How does this hold up? Well, a kidney, skin cell, etc. isn’t a “unique member” of the human race. Skin cells, etc. are a part of a member of the human race, but not a member in an of themselves. In contrast, an unborn is (i) human (the DNA makes that determination easy) and (ii) a unique member of that race or species. An unborn is unique because its DNA is different from, although based on, its parents’ DNA. It is a member because it’s not a part of a whole; rather, it is a whole. Now, some may object to this last point. After all, the unborn is different from you or my cousin Julie because (a) it’s completely dependent on another person (indeed – someone who may not have chosen that condition – think of the rape scenario) and (b) the other (i.e., pregnant) person (we’ll call her the “caregiver”) will be physically impacted, potentially in very negative ways, as a result of the presence of the unborn. In that sense, I suppose the unborn is not unlike a 6 month old baby in this hypothetical. In a plane crash (think of Tom Hanks in Castaway), I survive and make my way to a deserted island. I also find a 6 month old baby that is unrelated and unknown to me who also survives. As the baby’s caregiver, I am required to engage in physically demanding and dangerous activities (climbing coconut trees more frequently than otherwise, perhaps obtaining food I wouldn’t need but that the baby needs from dangerous parts of the island, sharing precious water resources, etc.). I will do this for perhaps several years (indeed, perhaps much longer than 9 months) until we are either rescued or the child becomes more self-sufficient. I don’t believe I should be permitted to abandon or kill that baby. Nor do I think others would normally disagree with that assessment if the story is presented outside the abortion context. For the same reasons, I believe the unborn are unique, individual members of the human race and I don’t believe mothers should be permitted to abort their babies. (part II to come)

" yes it's true that I personally would not be here had my mom had an abortion."

Don't you contradict your first paragraph with this one sentence. From the a legal perspective, the concept of a soul is a religious belief and can't be used to determine personhood. So the only other determiner would have to be the physical body which is biologically, genetically and logically unique at the moment of conception.

in reality, the way we determine legal rights has little to do with justice and is based more on sentimentality. if abortions were done out in the public on tv everyday, it would be severely restricted.

"In other words, your assumption that "we" were all fetuses is predicated on your belief that the soul enters the body at conception"

No its not. Its predicated on the fact that we are all atleast bodies and in the eyes of the law that is all we are. So again soul is irrelevant.

"Also, I don't think people are required to support circumstances that lead to their births."

that is the rub!!! no offense, but that is the false liberal selflessness. it doesn't matter whether you do or don't support circumstances that led to your birth.....because you are already....BORN. it has no implication for....you. the argument is couched in that you are giving something up but in reality it never applies to you. it only applies to people we will never know. if in the middle of our lives human beings went through a transformational phase where they were comatose and dependent on someone elses help for 9 months to live but then came out of it to live 30 more years, the people yet to undergo the transformation would be a lot more prolife than those after it and the morality of aborting would be the same.

"What if my mom were raped? Would I be required to approve of rape?"

moral decisions are made in space and time. if your mother decided to bring you to term after being rape then that is a separate moral decision that she made.

Hector,

I hear where you are coming from and I congratulate you on having found a happy spiritual home in an Episcopal church in among the least likely places in which one would expect to find orthodox practice.

The problem, though, is that your congregation remains an exception that proves the rule.

One ought to be able to rely upon orthodoxy at any Episcopal church anywhere in the country.

But we both know one can't do that.

Visiting a new Episcopal church is like spiritual potluck -- you never have any idea what you're going to get until you're there in the pews, sometimes stuck there having to endure nonsense of the sort that Rod called our attention to in his post.

And even if what one finds is adherence to the liturgy, one has no idea at all if the vicar "means it" or not, let alone whether one's fellow communicants do.

With its degree of theological variance and inconsistency within and among congregations, there is no basis for trust in the Episcopal Church as a whole, and therefore no basis for community.

As a result, perhaps the most beautiful of all Christian liturgies becomes a mere rorschach blot that provides a basis for whatever emotive musing one chooses to indulge.

And that's just not good enough for me -- though I admit that I might feel differently, if I were permanently settled in a place with a congregation like the one you describe.

Re: How much blood could have been spared throughout history if only Clement had granted that annulment as easily as the Roman Rota does today.

Actually, Roland, such annulments had been granted in similar cases before, and it was not uncommon practice to do so at the time. Henry's previous marriage was clearly incestuous according to Judeo-Christian law, in the same manner as the marriage of Herod Antipas, and was therefore no marriage at all. Indeed, witnesses at the time claimed to have seen a document approvng the annulment, all drawn up according to canon law, which Clement came very close to signing. In the last analysis, Clement refused to sign the annulment because of political pressure from the king of Spain. It was a purely political decision, not a theological one, and thoroughly unworthy of a man who claimed to be the sole vicar of Christ on earth.

I'll say again: God would have spared Sodom for the sake of five righteous men, and he will similarly spare the Episcopal church for the sake of the faithful in it. Maybe not today, nor tomorrow, but eventually, the nonsense of the apostate clerics will be swept away, their horrid legacy will be purged, and the Anglican church in North America will be revitalized- most likely by immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean. Something similar is happening in England- it's no accident that some of the most intelligent and thoughtful defences of true Anglicanism are coming from a Pakistani and a Ugandan bishop. Maybe this new institution won't call itself the ECUSA, but who cares, it will _be_ the heir of whatever was good in the Episcopal Church.

Athelstane,

Hector is partly right, though he makes a mistake saying "according to Judeo-Christian law." The operative law here is Canon law, which at the time held that anyone closer than eight degrees of kinship could not marry.

This is not "Judeo-Christian law," it is Catholic doctrine (let's not conflate the two).

That it is not Jewish can be shown by Rhode Islands permitting uncle-niece marriage among Orthodox Jews only (this is undoubtably religious discrimination, but not my battle). Several states have, at times, permitted this, even though it is a close relationship that goes against the Canons of the Catholic Church.

Cher Roland, I didn't want your kind benison to go unremarked. It was not only appreciated, but I think it may have been efficacious. ; )

I thought you might like to know that I saw the Other Benoit--le Seizieme--saying Mass in memory of his predecessor on TV today. He did not look altogether well and was coughing a bit. So, knowing that you have expressed some affection for him, I prayed for him in your honor and added your name to his. I hoped this would not be lese-majeste since we seem to be tutoyer-ing now! (And please excuse the lack of proper accents. I haven't taken time to learn how to make my keyboard behave.)

Hi Sigaliris,

Hope you're doing well. Interesting post of yours above.

"Speaking as a writer of science fiction who has read quite a bit about genetics, I'm willing to issue a prediction: it's not just probable, but certain that more accurate prenatal testing will lead to widespread abortion of fetuses considered defective.

"Will conservatives welcome genetically gay and lesbian children into their families? That remains to be seen, but I would bet money against it.

"I just thought I'd share this glimpse of the future with you so you can start the hyperventilating early."

May I congratulate you on your prescience? Your analysis is spot on. I will go a bit further and say that the next big issue will be insurance companies mandating genetic testing during pregnancy and refusing to cover handicapped babies not "selectively harvested"

I don't know about conservatives welcoming gay children, but Christians of all stripes are bound in love to accept all whom God creates. In our three pregnancies, we put our money where our mouths are and refused even the AFP test.

Of our three children, our first (9 yrs old) has Autism. Given the chance to screen for that, were it available, we would change nothing. He is our greatest blessing!

Great post. (Hope I didn't hyperventilate!)

God Bless.

Sorry for being so long-winded, but i forgot to mention that a Texas science fiction writer, Elizabeth Moon, has an adopted son who is autistic, and she has written a thoughtful novel, "The Speed of Dark." It's told from the point of view of an autistic man who faces a choice when a "cure" becomes available and his employer demands that he submit to treatment that will alter his sense of himself, or be fired. You might find it interesting.

Re: We believe the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in teachings on faith and morals.

Maybe, but no such protection applies to the Pope's political dealings, and Henry's annulment was a pure political issue: no moral issue was at stake since annulment, even then, was a recognized judicial process of the Church and similar annulments had been granted in the past (and would be granted afterward).

Re: So, if a Pope is about to make a bad decision or proclamate a false teaching, the Holy Spirit will intercede.

Then in 1527 then Holy Spirit came dressed as an army of German Protestants whom Charles V let loose to subject Rome to the worst sack it had seen since the Vandals.

Re: the Church was protected.

No, the Church was not protected. Its unity was further shattered. Henry would have kept England Catholic, and while I assume his marital life would have fallen out much the same (Anne beheaded, Jane dead in childbirth...), his heirs, especially Elizabeth, would have been raised Catholic.

We have been blessed here at St. David's for the past 14 years by having Rev. Ragsdale as our Vicar. Katherine will always be remembered here for her respect for human dignity and her love of God.

I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, but here goes.

Gerald Nadal,

The annulment wasn't denied for theological reasons, it was denied under political pressure from the king of Spain. Similar annulments had been granted in the past.

The grounds for the annulment was that the dispensation was invalid because the prohibition on consanguinity in Leviticus was a matter of natural law, and not even the Pope could dispense with it. By assuming that the Pope can dispense with the moral law, you're already assuming that he is qualitatively superior to other bishops, which is what needs to be proven.

On the other hand, I'm not necessarily arguing with the decision not to annul. That was the proximate reason for the Anglican church, but not the ultimate one. The ultimate reason was that, like the Orthodox before them, many people in England came to believe (rightly in my view) that the Pope was a bishop among other bishops, perhaps the greatest of all bishops, but certainly not the unique vicar of Christ on earth.