Re article by P.Sellick:Ruth did not try to seduce Boaz. Boaz had made his feelings known whilst Ruth was gleening in his field.Boaz could do no more it was know up to Ruth to ask that Boaz be her kinsman redeemer.This is why she lay at the feet of Boaz and the next day Boaz began his duty of kinsman redeemer by going to a closer relative of Ruth who refused to do his duty to her. How Naomi's life was in danger is beyond me.Naomi pressured Ruth into following an Israelite custom which allowed widows to do as she did.Ruth could have asked him at the city gates where the Elders usually gathered and if he refused her she could spit in his face because he refused to be her redeemer.This redeemer,of course, refers to Jesus Christ who is a Christian's kinsman/redeemer.Regards, numbat

I think one detail was left out of your analyses. Maria had a choice. She was asked. And she said yes. It is a beautiful passage and it reflects free will. Yes, the child, all children are a promise. Yes, I also believe that the question about when live starts is misleading. But to compare a couple that "come together in love" to the irresponsible or violent act that some women are capable of doing or suffering is also a simplification. Also to compare the "morning after pill" to the act of abortion of a developed fetus is also a rude simplification. Each case is one. The ethic debate should revolve around when it is legitimate to say yes or no to the coming of a child, considering that it will always be better to give the child a fair option. I've known women who have aborted, for many different reasons. It has never been an easy going choice; it has always left a bitter scar. But in all those cases, the women involved where not ready to become mothers. They could have not bared or loved the child. They could have not said yes. It shouldn't an isolated decision, but it can not be a decision that doesn't take into consideration if the woman is capable of being a mother, a true, responsible, loving mother. Is the fate of a child that is left to be taken care of by the State better than the fate of one that did not have the chance to be born?

“Many will, no doubt, dismiss these opinions by attacking the authority of obscure biblical narratives.” Well I had better not disappoint.

“Thus the immoral act of the daughters of Lot cascaded down the generations into the genealogy of the saviour of the world”. Come on Peter, this story reflects the paternalism of the Bible and your summation reveals a similar streak in you.

A man who has been living in a cave with his two daughters presents himself to the world with them both pregnant and we are asked to believe he was too drunk to know? Okay, the next time a father wants to stand up in a court and plead not guilty to incest because he was too intoxicated to realise that he was impregnating his own daughters, we will give him your number so he has at least one person who might believe him.

Which does leave an interesting question, would you condone them seeking an abortion?

To flag “the absurdity of the chosen childless marriage” and question the use of contraceptives seems to take a rather Catholic position for an Anglican.

This is a most extraordinary article. I have never heard anything like it. I welcome it in the abortion debate, although I'm not in complete agreement.

I completely agree however that "we need a deeper source of wisdom than the utilitarian and the opposition of one set of rights against another." Easier said than done, though - theological source of wisdom is a true source but may not be accepted by many in Australia.

Nonetheless, considering the role of relationships rather than rights, and using narrative as well as science, will take us further towards a more human way to solve the problem of unintended pregnancy.

But I wonder why csteele asks whether Sellars would condone an abortion for Lot's daughters? Is it some kind of attempt at "aha! got you there!"? No, Lot's children, which would also be his grandchildren, are not freaks of nature, and should not be killed. Sellars' comments affirm that children all deserve to be born, no matter what the awful circumstances of conception were. "Abortion for rape and incest" as a rule perpetuates the notion that such women must continue to play the role of the weak and victimised. Have some faith in women - don't assume they need abortion.

On the cheeky implication of questionable human roots for our divine Lord and Savior, I'd have to say "so what?" After all, what should sufficiently scandalize anyone is the premise that God became man at all, warts and all.

What is scandalous is the insistence of proponents for fetal stem cell research to deflect attention away from ADULT stem cell research. Adult stem cell research has had viable results in clinical trials. Fetal stem cell research has had none.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/may/03050103.html
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/08/25/wstem25.xml
"Umbilical Cord Cells Being Used Effectively to Treat Leukemia", Hesman, Tina; “Blood Bank Seeks Role in Stem Cell Research”; St. Louis Post-Dispatch; Aug. 29, 2001
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040505065427.htm
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03112001.html
http://www.bristolnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=TRI/MGArticle/TRI_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031777207894

As for the abortion debate, there is no need to even involve religion. Just ask an embryologist, and maybe some libertarians:

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

The egg cell has 23 chromosomes. The sperm cell has 23 chromosomes. The embryo (from the very moment of conception) has 46 chromosomes. What member of the animal kingdom has 46 chromosomes? Homo sapiens.

One of the sadly effective ways that abortion and embryonic stem cell research proponents have used in the past to bludgeon their arguments across is to portray the opposition has having nothing but the Bible to rely on. Then they build themselves up as scientific and logical -- enlightened.

Personally, I find their insistence on ignoring the evidence presented for adult stem cells, and against embryonic stem cells, most disturbing. I find it shocking that they they ignore embryologists in the abortion debate (embryologists were not apparently consulted when Roe vs. Wade was decided in the US). I find their negligence most unreasonable.

All of this must be very fascinating to someone who will NEVER ever be faced with an unwanted child growing inside you. Yes, for many children are a blessing. But just because often having a child works out well doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to have one. You may involve theology all you like in the abortion debate. Just don't confuse that with the concept of a LEGAL right to choose to have or not have one.