Hambo’s Unrestrained Opinion on Abortion

One of the many admirable qualities of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else, is that he always has something to say about the latest headlines. You can observe this in the latest post at Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry, titled Texas “Churches”: Abortion “A Moral and Social Good”. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

What is abortion — a hideous evil or “a moral and social good”? Well, that depends on your starting point, God’s Word or man’s word! Sinful human beings, who are in rebellion against God and ignore his Word and look to their own selfish, dark hearts for “truth,” will affirm darkness instead of light, death instead of life, and call good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20).

How’s that for a powerful beginning? Then he says:

The state of Texas has been in the news recently because lawmakers have enacted a “heartbeat bill” that bans abortions after a heartbeat can be detected (usually around six weeks’ gestational age). This is, of course, a good step in saving unborn lives, but it doesn’t go far enough as every person is fully human from the moment of fertilization, not just when a heartbeat can be detected. But a coalition of 25 “churches” in Texas believes the opposite and is fighting to [Link omitted!] “eradicate stigma around reproductive freedom in Texas . . . one congregation at a time.”

You like the heartbeat rule? No? There are many different ideas out there. Your Curmudgeon expressed his own views in Egnor Rants About Abortion: When a fetus has a functioning brain (around mid-term) it’s a human. But that’s not important here. We want to learn from ol’ Hambo. He tells us about the pro-abortion “churches”:

Any congregation that wants to join the coalition (so far most of the “churches” are Unitarian Universalist, with some Presbyterian and one Baptist congregation as well) must affirm the following three principles:

• “We trust and respect women.”

• “We promise that people who attend our congregation will be free from stigma, shame, or judgment for their reproductive decisions, including abortion.”

• “We believe access to comprehensive and affordable reproductive health services is a moral and social good.”

Hambo is horrified, and he tells us why:

To this group, “trust and respect women” means “allow women to make whatever choices they want — even murder [Gasp!] — and applaud them for doing so, contrary to the clear teaching of the Word of God (e.g., Exodus 20:13).”

He continues to explain why he opposes those people:

A congregation “free from stigma, shame, or judgment” actually means “we will never judge your beliefs or actions against the authority of the Word of God (Philippians 1:9–11) and allow the Holy Spirit, through the bold, uncompromising preaching of his Word (John 16:7–8), to convict you and draw you to repentance. Instead, we will ‘lovingly’ affirm your sin (Romans 1:32) and allow the unrepentant to continue on a path towards eternal damnation (Revelation 21:8)”

Powerful stuff, huh? After skipping a bit, he says:

On to number three: By “comprehensive and affordable reproductive health services,” they really mean “we believe in the freedom for a mother to murder her unborn child.” Health care does not result in the intentional death of a human being. That’s not health care . . . that’s murder!

Then he declares:

Many, many, many churches, organizations, and individuals across this nation are providing compassionate, practical, life-saving care to mothers, fathers, and babies in need. Instead of advocating the killing of the unborn, let’s base our thinking on the Word of God — not what is “easiest,” most “convenient,” or most socially acceptable — and understand and call out abortion for what it is — a hideous evil.

Hambo goes on and on, and he provides a lot of scripture quotes. You can click over there and read it all, if you like, but we think we’ve given you the general idea — that is, Hambo is opposed to abortion — all abortion.

But now you may be wondering: What’s the connection between abortion and creationism? What occurs to us is that people who disagree with Hambo on the abortion issue are unlikely to be creationists, so they’re unlikely to ever be visitors to his creation museum or his ark. He has nothing to lose by utterly condemning them.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

14 responses to “Hambo’s Unrestrained Opinion on Abortion

  1. Creationists often point to what makes humans of a different kind than other life forms. That’s what shows that human evolution is impossible.
    It isn’t that humans have a heart and circulate blood. It isn’t that humans have a brain, and senses like sight.
    What the creationists point to are things like language, mathematics, music, art, morality, etc. The creationists are not pointing to anything special about a human fetus. How does creationism have anything to contribute to the issue of abortion?

  2. Theodore Lawry

    Deuteronomy 22:21 required stoning to death brides who don’t bleed on their wedding night, and Numbers 15:32-36 has Moses ordering a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath, on the direct orders of God. And yet Ham cites the Bible as the source of morality. Has Ham ever done any work on the sabbath? I bet he has!

  3. Four Bible parentheses in one paragraph. He really means business.

  4. This is why Ham and his tribe must be heard. This is why my first instinct, which was to recommend, nay, demand, that he be silenced, is utterly wrong-headed, completely counter-productive.

    Ken Ham thinks Texas didn’t go far enough. Say it again: a law that makes abortion a crime, no exceptions for incest and rape, and rewards mischief-makers for spying on their neighbours, doesn’t go far enough for Ken Ham. Many a theist, many a Christian, thinks it a travesty, but for Ham it isn’t enough.

    Yes, I admit, I’d like to see Ham tarred, feathered and run out of the US on a rail. I’d like to see him broken and ruined. As a positive step towards that outcome, I’d like everyone to know what he thinks on this subject. If I’m right, it will produce an avalanche of disgust and rage, and I hope it will bury him.

    Meanwhile, in Texas, those with enough money will send their daughters to Canada, and at least some who haven’t will find dangerous, incompetent, desperate expedients run by organised criminals. And some will do even worse to themselves.

    I even caught myself wishing that the legislators who voted for this would find themselves facing that choice. But no. Of course they won’t, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, anyway.

    But I do have to keep asking myself: what the hell is it, with America?

  5. Ham claims to use God’s word as his starting point and therefore he opposes abortion, but it is my understanding that nowhere in the Bible does it say that human life starts at conception, rather that it starts at birth or even later. Yet another example of him adding to the Bible things that aren’t there.

  6. @Bwbach
    Not only is no explicit condemnation of abortion in the Bible, chapter 5 of the Book of Numbers describes a procedure for terminating a pregnancy when a woman has been unfaithful.
    But I must point out how creationists imake fun of “goo to you” and “molecules to man” evolution which deny status as human to early stages of pregnancy.

  7. Quite so, TomS. Of course the object of that procedure is to emphasise the wife’s status as chattel. Her adultery is seen more as a violation of her husband’s property rights and the rights of his heirs than of her chastity; but there can be no doubt that abortion is countenanced in this case by Holy Writ.

    There is no prohibition in the Bible on abortion. None. There is no teaching anywhere in scripture that abortion is murder. On the face of its explicit acceptance in some cases, and its silence on all others, there is no justification for prohibition. Silence means consent; what is not prohibited is permissible.

    As always, above all his other falsehoods, pretenses, untruths and slanders, even above his relentless acquisitiveness, busy avarice and flint-hearted lack of charity, what galls me most is Ham’s monumental hypocrisy. Bible-believer? Ham neither knows nor cares what the text says. He cares only what he, Ken Ham, says. His monstrous hubris drowns out the words he says he calls sacred; but in reality, the only thing that is sacred in Ken Ham’s mind is Ken Ham, Ken Ham’s interests, Ken Ham’s authority, Ken Ham’s profit. He has made himself his own God. If there is a God at all, may He have mercy on Ham, for justice would be ugly indeed.

  8. @Dave Luckett
    But one can be guided by reason and evidence beyond what is explicitly said in the Bible. What tells us that humans are different in kind, and thus not microevolutionary related to other life forms, are the ways that show up only after birth: language, for example.
    This, I observe, is what the creationists insist on. What drives their extra-Biblical statements. What makes them say that they have a better stance on moral issues than do Darwinists.
    No the Bible does not give explicit guidance on abortion, but they know what makes human life is different from other kind of life: language, for example. (Not circulation of blood, or other things in common with many vertebrates, or mammals, or some other taxon.)
    I do not care to discuss abortion, only to point out that creationists cannot claim that creationism provides an answer different from Darwinism.

  9. TomS; If I read you correctly, you appear to be arguing that the Bible’s implicit definition of “human being” excludes new-born infants. I’m not saying you’re wrong about that – for all I know, that may be correct. It’s an intriguing argument, at least.

    Of course the Bible contains a number of instances of God killing newborns, but He’s God and whatever He does is right, as Job is instructed. However, Psalm 137 addresses Babylon: “Happy is he who seizes your babies/ and dashes them against a rock”, which rather implies that infanticide is approved, in some circumstances – for vengeance, for instance. But is it, generally?

    Herod’s slaughter of the innocents – all males under the age of 2 years – in Matthew 2:16-18 would seem to contradict that. The evangelist clearly regarded it as a terrible crime – which it would have been, had it occurred.

    On the whole, I think it would be better to steer clear of the idea that the Bible does not regard infants as human. It is sufficient, to my mind, that the Bible contains no explicit prohibition on termination of pregnancy, and as you have pointed out, a specific instruction to procure one in one circumstance at least. That should be enough to refute Ham’s claim of “Biblical morality” for his pronouncements. He is not expounding the scriptures. Rather, he is adding to them, expounding the word of Ken Ham, and incidentally claiming the mantle of prophecy.

  10. @Dave Luckett
    I’m saying that the creationists are making a point that evolution differs from creationism on the morality of abortion. (And I am avoiding any discussion about the morality of abortion.) I am saying that creationists do not have a definition of humanity which includes fetuses. They make a point of saying that what distinguishes humans as a kind (and not related by microevolution) does not apply to fetuses. Using the creationist criteria, there is no distinction in kind between the objects of abortion and non-human living kinds. And therefore, by the creationist arguments, creationism cannot make an issue of abortion.
    Creationists reject “molecule to man” or “goo to you”. They say that what evolution cannot account for – for example, language – are criteria which do not apply to fetuses.
    The rejection of macroevolution undercuts the possibility for a creationist stand against abortion.

  11. Harvey Richmond

    If abortion is defined as any course of action taken for the purpose of ending the process of human reproduction, that process having already begun, then choosing celibacy to prevent pregnancy is abortion. The process of reproduction begins with meiosis, not with a later event like conception, or the beginning of a heartbeat. The choice of celibacy ends that process.

  12. Charles Deetz ;)

    I don’t think the bible has a unique ‘lock’ on the perspective that killing is bad. It is almost lazy of Hambo to claim that, and to then lean so heavily on it. Worse god kills wantonly and mercilessly, which is easily forgiven because he is outside of the killing rules according to the bible. So while most of humanity thinks killing is universally bad, bible-thumpers think killing is bad unless god does it.

  13. TomS: “I am saying that creationists do not have a definition of humanity which includes fetuses.”

    Oh, quite so. In fact, I don’t believe they have a definition of humanity at all. If they did, they wouldn’t differ so much on what extinct hominins are “humans” and what are “just apes”. Alas, “evolution” doesn’t have a definition of “human”, either, except to say that all members of the species Homo sapiens are human. All other hominins, too? I’ll pass on that.

    But not having a definition of humanity that includes fetuses necessarily implies that fetuses are not included as humans, unless we abandon the idea of defining “humanity” altogether. That decision produces equally vexed results.

    Still, that is the implication of “What tells us that humans are different in kind (…) are the ways that show up only after birth: language, for example.” If humans are not “different in kind” (from animals, presumably) until they can speak meaningfully, the consequences are horrific. In all fairness, creationists don’t think that. I would say, therefore, that there is no point in attributing that definition to them, logical as it might be.

  14. TomS: “The creationists are not pointing to anything special about a human fetus. How does creationism have anything to contribute to the issue of abortion?”
    Capability