When Is a Baby Not a Baby?

[Hokomai]

I’m not sure of your point but this is usually presented as proof or implication that God murders babies. Context is important. Here is the entire psalm:

By the rivers of Babylon
there we sat weeping
when we remembered Zion.

On the poplars in its midst
we hung up our harps.

For there our captors asked us
for the words of a song;
Our tormentors, for joy:
“Sing for us a song of Zion!”

But how could we sing a song of the LORD
in a foreign land?

If I forget you, Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget.
May my tongue stick to my palate
if I do not remember you,
If I do not exalt Jerusalem
beyond all my delights.

Remember, LORD, against Edom
that day at Jerusalem.
They said: “Level it, level it
down to its foundations!”

Desolate Daughter Babylon, you shall be destroyed,
blessed the one who pays you back
what you have done us!
Blessed the one who seizes your children
and smashes them against the rock.

• [Psalm 137] A singer refuses to sing the people’s sacred songs in an alien land despite demands from Babylonian captors (Ps 137:1–4). The singer swears an oath by what is most dear to a musician—hands and tongue—to exalt Jerusalem always (Ps 137:5–6). The Psalm ends with a prayer that the old enemies of Jerusalem, Edom and Babylon, be destroyed (Ps 137:7–9).
• [137:9] Blessed the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock: the children represent the future generations, and so must be destroyed if the enemy is truly to be eradicated.

usccb.org/bible/psalms/137/
(bolding added by this poster for emphasis)

This is not an example of God murdering babies (I don’t know if that is the point being made); it is the prayer of a captive and the word “children” means the destruction of future generations. Please note that Babylon itself is referred to as “daughter.”

So the psalm is in support of genocide (the enemy truly eradicated, as you put it), rather than in support of the murder of children alone. Am I to think that it is ok because everyone, men, women, and children die?

 

[Hokomai]

LS … it’s what’s called a “strawman” post. I suspect that he’s using a verse from the Bible to insinuate something that it doesn’t really mean, just so he can (supposedly) tear down a pro-life argument.

I am not trying to tear down a pro-life argument. I am trying to say that the psalms are at best mixed in their pro-life attitude, in that they appear to be very pro-choice in relation to innocents who belong to nations in conflict with the author of the psalms. can you disagree? Incidentally, what you accuse me of doing is not a ‘strawman’ argument. A ‘strawman’ argument is one put forward in order that it can then be knocked down. If you are going to attribute unworthy intention to me, please do so with due regard to the meaning of words.

 

[Karenanna]

In today’s confused world, some people think that the child in the womb is a baby if it is wanted, and it is a fetus if it is unwanted.

This presents an interesting question. What is the mother **wants the baby **and the father does not want the baby? Lets face it. It is either a baby, or it is not a baby. The answer is that it is always a baby, regardless of its gender, stage of development, health or disablity etc.

A couple of days ago in my country Australia, there was an abortion in a Melbourne hospital.

There was twin boys involved. One was healthy and the other had a heart defect. The doctor advised the mother to abort the “defective baby.”

The abortion went ahead and the healthy baby was aborted instead. Then the other baby was delivered by emergency cesarean and died.

All the bleeding hearts are sorry for the pain that the “mistake” has caused the parents.

The media reporting on this horror was nauseating.

In another saner case, a pregnant mother in my state was accidentally hit by a drunk driver and her unborn baby died. This child was correctly referred to as an unborn baby by the media, the same media who gave the nauseating report on the Melbourne hospital twin abortion fiasco.

The media gets it right when the mother wants the child and gets it wrong when the mother wants to abort. They want it both ways.

 

[LittleSoldier]

So the psalm is in support of genocide (the enemy truly eradicated, as you put it), rather than in support of the murder of children alone. Am I to think that it is ok because everyone, men, women, and children die?

I’m going to respond to this and then request that you start a new thread dealing with this aspect of the abortion debate as I think this is really veering off-topic.

Our lives do not belong to us. They belong to God and if He wants to take them for whatever reason (the righteous at that time would go to heaven as soon as the gates were opened by the sacrifice of Jesus and until then would be in Abraham’s Bosom) He can take them. We belong to God - He created us and we belong to Him even more than an author’s book belongs to her.

Your argument is with the author of the psalm. He is the one who made the request. You also appear to be taking it literally even though I provided the meaning in my post (below the psalm). Do you believe that Babylon was a daughter? It’s not meant to be taken in an absolute literal way.

I’m sorry but I won’t respond to further questions about this. But it would make a good thread and I would like to see such a thread started.

 

[Hokomai]

I’m going to respond to this and then request that you start a new thread dealing with this aspect of the abortion debate as I think this is really veering off-topic.

Our lives do not belong to us. They belong to God and if He wants to take them for whatever reason (the righteous at that time would go to heaven as soon as the gates were opened by the sacrifice of Jesus and until then would be in Abraham’s Bosom) He can take them. We belong to God - He created us and we belong to Him even more than an author’s book belongs to her.

Your argument is with the author of the psalm. He is the one who made the request. You also appear to be taking it literally even though I provided the meaning in my post (below the psalm). Do you believe that Babylon was a daughter? It’s not meant to be taken in an absolute literal way.

I’m sorry but I won’t respond to further questions about this. But it would make a good thread and I would like to see such a thread started.

I am sorry you will not respond further, but I suppose that gives me the last word! A poster used a psalm to support the pro-life position. I pointed out that another psalm in effect supports the opposite point of view. You responded by saying it wasn’t about killing children (as the words say), it was about the elimination of future generations. I called that genocide, because that is what genocide is. You have now told me it is ok to pray for genocide, because we are all creations of God, and he can kill us if we like. I appreciate the fact that this is a view you hold honestly, but I see it as 1) contradictory to the pro-life message and 2) dangerous should people who think like you ever be in control of weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Karenanna]

Further to my post which refers to the abortion (which involved twin baby boys) in the Melbourne, Australia hospital, I have found this item on a profile website:

lifesite.net/news/horror-32-week-unborn-twins-killed-after-hospital-accidentally-aborts-healt

One of the replies to the article (for the link provided) made the point that since the mother “had the heartache of giving birth to her sick baby”, that the second baby might not have been aborted at all, and that in the case of the second baby it might actually have been infanticide.

Either way what a horror. Either two babies aborted, or one aborted and one allowed to be born early so that it could die naturally, or perhaps even worse.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I am sorry you will not respond further, but I suppose that gives me the last word! A poster used a psalm to support the pro-life position. I pointed out that another psalm in effect supports the opposite point of view. You responded by saying it wasn’t about killing children (as the words say), it was about the elimination of future generations. I called that genocide, because that is what genocide is. You have now told me it is ok to pray for genocide, because we are all creations of God, and he can kill us if we like. I appreciate the fact that this is a view you hold honestly, but I see it as 1) contradictory to the pro-life message and 2) dangerous should people who think like you ever be in control of weapons of mass destruction.

No, it does not give you the last word. There is no last word. What you are doing is taking a thread off-topic and when a poster does not agree to debate with you on the new topic that you have introduced your argument is again posted. You *have *introduced a strawman. You have mischaracterized my position and then trashed it. And then an ad hominem is tossed in right at the end.

The title of this thread is “When is a Baby not a Baby?” and is further clarified in the OP. What you are posting has nothing to do with the topic.

Please start a new thread or return to the topic of this thread.

 

[Hokomai]

No, it does not give you the last word. There is no last word. What you are doing is taking a thread off-topic and when a poster does not agree to debate with you on the new topic that you have introduced your argument is again posted. You *have *introduced a strawman. You have mischaracterized my position and then trashed it. And then an ad hominem is tossed in right at the end.

The title of this thread is “When is a Baby not a Baby?” and is further clarified in the OP. What you are posting has nothing to do with the topic.

Please start a new thread or return to the topic of this thread.

I dispute all that of course, but if you want to PM me and suggest an actual topic for a new thread, I’ll start one.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I dispute all that of course, but if you want to PM me and suggest an actual topic for a new thread, I’ll start one.

I think I already suggested one. I like your idea about pro-life and what I’ll call pro-death implications in the psalms (I’m not calling it pro-abortion because you mentioned genocide and adults and children dying). I think that would make a very interesting thread. I love the psalms although I don’t know them very well. I’m not a bible scholar by any means.

But I think a thread about the psalms and what they say about abortion and death and genocide would be a good thread and I would try to take part. That’s assuming my computer doesn’t crash and I’m beginning to think it’s going to crash at any time. Maybe we could both learn something?

Thanks for your charity. It means a lot to me.

 

[Hokomai]

I think I already suggested one. I like your idea about pro-life and what I’ll call pro-death implications in the psalms (I’m not calling it pro-abortion because you mentioned genocide and adults and children dying). I think that would make a very interesting thread. I love the psalms although I don’t know them very well. I’m not a bible scholar by any means.

But I think a thread about the psalms and what they say about abortion and death and genocide would be a good thread and I would try to take part. That’s assuming my computer doesn’t crash and I’m beginning to think it’s going to crash at any time. Maybe we could both learn something?

Thanks for your charity. It means a lot to me.

One thread, coming up! (after a little research)

 

[surritter]

I am not trying to tear down a pro-life argument. I am trying to say that the psalms are at best mixed in their pro-life attitude, in that they appear to be very pro-choice in relation to innocents who belong to nations in conflict with the author of the psalms. can you disagree? Incidentally, what you accuse me of doing is not a ‘strawman’ argument. A ‘strawman’ argument is one put forward in order that it can then be knocked down. If you are going to attribute unworthy intention to me, please do so with due regard to the meaning of words.

My apologies, then.
Looking forward to a meaningful discussion on the meaning of the Psalms in the new thread.