LAT Continues to Propagate Abortion Falsehoods


A defender of abortion falsely claims in a letter in today's Los Angeles Times (Sat. 11/10/07), "The Bible does mention abortion." The erroneous reader adds that a passage in the Bible, Numbers 5, gives a "a detailed formula designed to end a pregnancy." In fact, the cited passage makes no mention of pregnancy, abortion, or miscarriage whatsoever. The reader's assertions are simply false.

Does the dishonesty at the Los Angeles Times regarding the abortion issue know no bounds? Does anyone at the Times own a Bible? Are there fact checkers at the paper?

Indeed, Numbers 5 is an unusual passage. It deals with an Old Testament practice if a woman is suspected of adultery. The passage underscores the seriousness of the sin of adultery. It has nothing to do with abortion. Through a kind of ritual involving cereal and "bitter water," a priest calls on God for Him to reveal whether or not a woman has been unfaithful to her husband. Yet the passage says nothing about the woman being pregnant, and it does not say that the prescribed bitter water would "cause her to miscarry," as the reader falsely states. To assert otherwise is simply dishonest or ignorant. (If you need more on this, check out this article from Randy Alcorn as well as this article from ChristianAnswers.net.)

We have shown that propagating abortion falsehoods is a regular practice at the Times. We've reported on it here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

The readers' letters were in response to a book excerpt published last week in the Times from author Garry Wills. We dealt with the crooked Wills in this post a few weeks ago.

In critique of Wills, the Times posted a "Blowback" item on its web site. It's by Gregory Popcak of the Pastoral Solutions Institute. It is an excellent critique, but, lo and behold, the Times has not yet published it in its print edition. Why not?

In addition, Steve Wagner at the Stand to Reason blog has posted a great takedown of Wills' excerpt. Check it out.

Finally, as a reminder, Wills is one of these guys who calls himself "Catholic" but reveals himself to be anything but that. I addressed this in my post a few weeks ago. I won't pile on any further, but there was a comment left by reader Brendan at the Stand to Reason blog that I can concur with:

As a Catholic I must note that Gary Wills has been and continues to be an embarrassment to the Catholic faith and Christianity in general. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a man who claims the faith as his own while simultaneously watering it down with heresies, falsehoods, and relativistic nonsense that does nothing but injure the mission of the Church on earth and the salvation of souls. He is in need of our prayers.

Amen, brother.

—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

 "Facts" and "liberal

 "Facts" and "liberal dogma" are like oil in water.

Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar. 

Jeremiah 2:34

Jeremiah 2:34;

Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these.

 

Make of it what you want, but the fact is God was quite furious and the reason God divorced and ended the first covenant with Israel's northern kingdom was because they were murdering their first born children and burning them with fire to the demonic fire god, Molech.

God does take the death of innocents quite personally and this is indeed a sin America will be repaid for.

Archeology in the region has uncovered mass graves of babies which baffled researchers until they concluded these were the victims of the butchery of the rites.
All things mean things, including wishing on fire on a birthday cake which is one of several "high days" of power for people. It should not be done. Bless oneself instead.

agtG 248

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

RTL

My father was a physician. One night when I was around twelve, shortly after Roe v. Wade, my dad took me into the area in the hospital where abortions were executed. I saw trash bins half full with fetuses,some of them perfectly formed. My dad's intention was to shock me and he certainly succeeded.It's something I'll never forget.

clooney was just bitching

clooney was just bitching about a ban on flag-draped coffin photos?

watch him bitch about abortion videos

Lake of Fire is a new documentary that shows an abortion

the MSM is very scared - and a media ban is in the works 

Partner with Islam and the NiceBelievers respect police:)

As it has been with the

As it has been with the Constitution, liberals are now "finding" things in the Bible that simply are not there, while ignoring things that are.

"Render unto Cesear..." has become "Pay more taxes."

Etc., etc., etc....

Nothing "dishonest" about it

An abortion is the most accepted interpretation of Numbers 5. It's actually proof that God mandates abortion when the fetus is a product of adultery. To sum up, a jealous and suspicious husband should bring his wife to the local priest, who forces the woman to drink a poisonous "water of bitterness" to bring on God's "curse". If she experiences "bitter pain," if her "belly swells" and her "thigh rots," she fails the test and becomes an outcast. Virtually all Biblical scholars agree that this voodoo ritual and its cloaked euphemisms refer to an induced (not to mention unsafe) abortion. The word "thigh" in the Old Testament usually means genitals, but in this case, it refers to the uterus and its contents. One alternate Bible translation reads, "She will have barrenness and a miscarrying womb." (New International Version)

wow joyce

4000 years before ru486 there was an oral abortifant?  and 'virtually all Biblical scholars agree' no less?  Quite the claims you do no doubt have the back-up for them?

 “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

The answers to your questions are...

Yes, yes, and yes. Or more specifically: abortion has been practiced universally since the dawn of time. "Bitter water" likely refers to ergot, a common abortifacent in ancient times.

Re Biblical scholars, check any Christian or Jewish commentary, especially those by rabbis - Numbers is part of the Jewish  Bible after all, and they know best what it really means. Don't bother with unreliable commentaries from Christian fundamentalists as they ignore centuries of Biblical scholarship. Also, you can simply do a Google search on "Numbers 5" and "abortion" for a basic lesson on this particular passage. You sound oddly confident for someone who knows absolutely nothing about it.

Dear 'choice joyce'

Your response is emblematic of the brute dishonesty that's displayed by so many defenders of abortion.

1. "An abortion is the most accepted interpretation of Numbers 5."

Uhhh. No, it isn't. The Numbers 5/abortion canard is a modern scam perpetrated by skeptics, "liberals," and abortion defenders.

2. "Virtually all Biblical scholars agree that this voodoo ritual and its cloaked euphemisms refer to an induced (not to mention unsafe) abortion."

"Virtually all biblical scholars"? Really? How about citing a couple of ancient sources to buttress your assertion?

Finally and most importantly:

3. First-century Jews were unequivocally anti-abortion.

-- The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50) says, "A woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures."

-- The Sibyline Oracles includes among the wicked those who "produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away" as well as sorcerers who dispense abortifacients.

-- 1 Enoch (first or second century B.C.) says that an evil angel taught humans how to "smash the embryo in the womb."

-- Philo of Alexandria (Jewish philosopher, 25 B.C. to A.D.41) rejected the notion that the fetus is merely part of the mother's body.

-- Josephus (first-century Jewish historian) wrote, "The law orders all the offspring be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus." A woman who did so was considered to have committed infanticide because she destroyed a "soul" and hence diminished the race.

(Source: "Answering the Theological Case for Abortion Rights" by Scott Klusendorf.)

You may also want to read this and this. They provide helpful information as well.

Thanks for reading my post.

We are not discussing Jewish approval of abortion

We are discussing whether Numbers 5 is talking about a "God-induced" abortion as a punishment for adultery. (As in Christianity, there's a range of "official" opinion about abortion, but most rabbis agree there is no Torah prohibition on abortion - e.g., see Rabbi Balfour Brickner, National Director of the Commission on Interfaith Activities, or here)

Here's a few sources to support the Numbers 5 and abortion link:

Deborah Pardo-Kaplan (page 2)

An interesting discussion on a blog (go halfway down the comment) explaining how the original Hebrew encompasses an interpretation of abortion. 

discussion showing that most scholars interpret Numbers 5 as a possible induced abortion. It also points out, that regardless of denials of that interpretation, the fact remains that if the woman is pregnant, the potion will cause a miscarriage.

Why would God induce a

Why would God induce a miscarriage when the mother, if guilty, was going to be stoned anyway. And there is that pesky 6th commandment in Exodus 20 that sure is a sticky wicket for your feeble excuses for infantacide.

You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.

most abortions these days

most abortions these days are done for convenience - just not ready for a baby - plenty ready for unsafe sex however!

conception is the fun part

aborted babies never get to find out of course

they do know what's like to get sucked through a hose and dumped in the trash tho - so mommy can keep gettin it on without any annoying baby distractions:) 

Partner with Islam and the NiceBelievers respect police:)

joycie you answer

a request for back-up with 'google it' and re-assertion?  You made the claim, I have only asked you to back up your claims.  Nice try at shifting the burden it doesn't fly.  You may wish to answer Dave's post as he has given you some specifics to deal with.

check any Christian or Jewish commentary,Don't bother with unreliable commentaries from Christian fundamentalists as they ignore centuries of Biblical scholarship.  You have another massive assertion to prove here but i believe you most likely define unreliable as someone who disagrees with you.

 “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

No, "unreliable" means...

They ignore evidence, and the findings and consensus of Biblical scholars. E.g., conservative Christian "scholars" defend the historicity of the gospels, even their "inerrancy," even though this is no longer supportable. It has been amply demonstrated (mostly by Christian scholars trying to find evidence for their faith) that nothing is known about the historical Jesus, or even if he really existed, and that the gospels are theological and allegorical, not historical.

}}---> Joyce?

When did we debunk the writings of Flavius Josephus?  Maybe you can rewrite him, but why would you?

In the 18th century!

The Josephus passages have been thoroughly discredited, and almost no scholar disputes that the main passage referring to Jesus was interpolated at least in part. Wikipedia gives a good overview, with various sources. One of the best and most thorough debunkings is by Earl Doherty, author of The Jesus Puzzle (Chapter 21, pp 205-222). See here for an Internet summary. There are many other good debunkings by scholars, including Charles Guignebert, G.A. Wells, Robert Price and others.

}}---> Joyce

Let's be honest.

You have a dog in this fight.  Let's see it.

just ask why joyce doesn't

just ask why joyce doesn't respect the baby's choice

the baby is always innocent 

Partner with Islam and the NiceBelievers respect police:)

Wrong, wrong, wrong

cj: "The Josephus passages have been thoroughly discredited ..."

No, and you are being dishonest. The passage we are talking about has not been discredited at all. You are referring to an entirely different passage of Josephus that has to do with Jesus.

Nice try at deception, but it's not working here.

Also ... you conveniently ignored my list of ancient sources. Where are yours? You have none.

Buh-bye.

Rather than arguing over

Rather than arguing over which human (and thus imperfect) commentary is the correct one, why don't we just open the Bible and see what it says?  You are clearly one of those who conveniently takes verses of the Bible out of context in order to form a narrow intepretation that allows you to practice or believe in your pet sin.  Amos 1:13 thoroughly destroys your argument that abortion was a sanctioned ritual in the Bible.

Also see:

Genesis 1:28; Genesis 4:1, 17; Psalm 127:3, Psalm 139:13-15; Amos 1:13; Psalm 22:10-11; Galatians 1:15; Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Matthew 19:18; Psalm 106:35, 37-38; 2 Kings 17:17-18; Luke 6:36, Matthew 7:12; Isaiah 1:13-17; Matthew 19:13-15; James 3:9-10; Luke 17:2; Luke 1:41, Luke 18:15.

Those should give you enough context to demonstrate that your interpretation of Numbers 5 is based on folly.

As you seem so fond of saying, go look these verses up on Google if have the courage.  Or go borrow a Bible from a Christian (since you obviously have never read it) and ask him to look them up for you. 

God's Word needs NO CONSENSUS.

Forget 911, I dial 10MM.

I've read the complete Bible several times

How many times have you read it?  I also own six versions of it. I wrote this article about abortion and the Bible, which deals in context with every single passage in the Bible that relates to abortion, miscarriage, and the value of newborns. 

Re your  Bible quotes, all people have a high regard for life, children, and the fruits of pregnancy, generally speaking, and of course this is reflected in the Bible. That says nothing about the acknowledged existence and need for abortion in certain circumstances. The passages I deal with in my article are proof positive that abortion itself is neither ignored nor prohibited by the Bible. The question of whether abortion is considered desirable or moral is a separate issue, although certainly the Bible treats abortion or miscarriage as a desirable event for one's enemies.

}}---> Sorry Joyce

But your article has been thoroughly discredited by scholars.

Turns out you're not a historian.

LOL

That's funny, thanks.

Choice - were did you find

Choice - were did you find that misleading article you linked to?

when is there ever a "need"

when is there ever a "need" for an abortion?

it's always an option - never a need - even to save the life of the mother... 

Partner with Islam and the NiceBelievers respect police:)

The fact that you own six

The fact that you own six versions of the Bible, and state that proudly, shows your lack of scholarship.  James 1:8 says "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."  I suppose you'd be exempt from this verse because (presumably) you're a woman and you'd interpret that verse to be exclusionary?

Let me ask you a question - which version that you own is the Word of God?  Can you tell me?  And if not, then how do you know any of them is the Word of God?

Forget 911, I dial 10MM.

Odd question...

Obviously, none of them are the word of God. If God dictated a Bible, you'd think it would have been saved as an extremely precious document and we'd still have it today, or at least an accurate exact copy. Instead, we have a complete mishmash of different versions in various original languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic), and no extant texts, only later versions, all exhibiting variances from each other, many of them major.  The Bible is just an amalgam of various books, written over almost a 1000 year period, by different communities, traditions, and peoples, with different agendas. Plus the books to be included in the Bible were decided by committee. Not exactly an unbiased or "inspired" process. I'm not sure what the most "accurate" version is, but the RSV relied on the earliest ancient copies and original languages and seems like one of the best in my opinion.

The Bible is just an

The Bible is just an amalgam of various books, written over almost a
1000 year period, by different communities, traditions, and peoples,
with different agendas.

 

Yet, as former Atheist Josh McDowell puts it, the Bible speaks harmoniously/clearly on "controversial" subjects.

this actually proves the

this actually proves the Bible for me - how else could all of these writings from all of these cultures and languages over thousands of years still add up to the same thing

only the word of God could do it

the Holy Spirit

in the beginning was the word - and it was not "written down" as modern book publishers and other money changers understand the concept...

Redaction

you must be an expect in redaction.  You also seem to be in agreement with Marcus Borg and John Dominec Crossen who both exhibit extremely poor reasoning.  Sorry but marbles in a pot don't determine truth.  I base that on your incredible assertion that we know almost nothing about Jesus when you know as fact that there are more manuscripts describing the life of Jesus than any other figure of antiquity.  Misleading is not a convincing argument.

 “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts