Whoopi Goldberg tries to paint ‘Christians and Catholics’ as lacking empathy regarding abortion

Last week on “The View,” co-host Whoopi Goldberg attempted to make a moral appeal to Christians and Catholics to remind them of what she viewed as Jesus’ thoughts on caring for women who want to end the lives of their preborn children by abortion — and naturally, the sentiment is that the only way to care for women seeking abortion is to essentially forget about the fact that a preborn human is killed by abortion.

These comments came about after the co-hosts discussed Melania Trump’s statements regarding her own support for abortion access. Co-host Sunny Hostin then remarked that although she herself proclaims to be Catholic and “against abortion,” she feels her own religious views shouldn’t inform others’ decisions on what to “believe” regarding abortion. Using Hostin’s statement as a a stepping point, Goldberg attempted to use something referred to by commentator Allie Beth Stuckey as “toxic empathy,” to call out religious parties on their apparent lack of care for women seeking abortions.

Addressing the “Christians and Catholics” watching, Whoopi not only seemed to suggest that there is no real empathy or care being shown to abortion-minded women, but that there is only one human being in an abortion situation that people of faith should be concerned about:

… if you are concerned about what this does to a human being in their life, is this the way Jesus wants you to be? Is this the way Jesus wants you to act? Doesn’t Jesus want you to be able to say to somebody, ’Come over here, I know you must be going through somethin’ tough.’ As opposed to what we’re seeing. This is insane.

Stuckey’s definition of “toxic empathy” used in her new book by the same title is, according to the book’s pre-order website, “a tool of manipulation by left-wing activists who bully people into believing that they must adopt progressive positions to be loving.” Specifically, according to Stuckey, it is often used against Christians. Stuckey says that as Christians, our empathy must be submitted to “God’s definitions of love, goodness, and justice.”

Progressives use catchy mantras to present their perspective as empathetic, like “abortion is healthcare,” “love is love,” or “no human being is illegal,” but in each case, they ignore the other side of the moral equation. For example, abortion is presented as compassionate for the woman, but what about the human life the procedure kills?

This tactic is used to gain support for one set of actions and beliefs while distracting from the other side of the argument that obscures an ugly reality. A common tactic in pro-abortion circles, this sort of “toxic empathy” is used to draw attention to the fear of women dying from lack of access to abortion, women suffering while carrying to term a baby conceived in rape, women suffering while pregnant and living in poverty, and so on, while ignoring the truth about the destructive nature of abortion and how it kills human beings.

Abortion advocates commonly claim that abortion would “alleviate” the tough situations in which many women find themselves — as Goldberg implies. The truth is that abortion doesn’t solve any trauma, rape, poverty, or other stress a mother may be facing or has gone through. Abortion kills an innocent human being that has done nothing wrong. This is the ugly truth that statements llike Goldberg’s are trying to hide. Abortion regret is real and haunts women in the very “tough” situations referenced on “The View.” And pro-lifers offer resources for women who are wounded by abortion.

Meanwhile, biblical principles have always taught that all humans are made in the image of God and are instilled with purpose and meaning from conception. This is seen all throughout the Bible, from Psalm 139 to Jesus’ own conception and birth and beyond. Embracing pregnant women facing difficult situations and offering real and practical aid is the pro-life movement’s foundation and always will be. Just as the Good Samaritan took the time to care for the injured man on the side of the road and tended to his wounds to help him heal, so the pro-life movement reaches out to abortion-minded women with real solutions and hope that doesn’t involve the killing of innocent babies.

Author’s Note: If you or someone you know is in need of pro-life resources or post-abortion healing, click here, or reach out to Option Line or Let Them Live.

Bip[olarBob - as a Seventh Day Adventist, don't you consider Jesus to be the angel Michael? Which is flatly false as per what we learn from scripture?

If you read scripture, especially Mark 16 you will read

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

At one critical point in the Gospels Simon is mentioned as “the Rock”.

note that Peter is the English transliteration of the Greek Petros which is a translation of the Aramaic Kephas.

What Jesus actually said is as follows (in simple English)

“People say I am Elijah or Moses reborn or John the Baptist. Who do you guys say I am?”
SIMON: You are the Son of the living God.
Jesus: That was not from yourself, but my Father (God) who made you say that. Very well, you have named me, Simon, now I name YOU. I name you Rock and upon you, ROCK, I will build my community of faithful. And I will hand you the keys to heaven as my chief servant.

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." (Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)

Just like with Abram/Abraham and Jacob/Israel, Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter for a specific leadership purpose in a covenant.

"The word Peter petros, meaning 'rock,' (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter." (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

Also, you overlook the fact that Just like with Abram/Abraham and Jacob/Israel, Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter for a specific leadership purpose in a covenant.

Besides there is still the handing of the keys in Matthew 16:19 and the parallel in Isaiah 22.

M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ), commenting on the "keys of the kingdom of heaven," "binding" and "loosing" from Matthew 16:19 --

"The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven's power rule in earthly things...Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church....The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1, 8), here gives the primary disciple the authority to teach in his name -- to make authoritative decisions pertaining to Christian life as he applies the teaching of Jesus to concrete situations in the life of the church." (Boring, page 346)

Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) --

"The 'keys' are probably not to be understood as entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and storechambers within the house -- symbols of responsibilities to be exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). 'Bind' and 'loose" are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses." (Beare, page 355-356)

And, BipolarBob, just to pre-empt you trying to repeat the Seventh Day Adventist nonsense that Jesus is the angel Michael because of the meaning of Michael's name -- The name Michael means "who is like God?" - not "one who..."

Michael the archangel is a created being. He is identified as Michael over and over. He never stops being Michael.

He is called Michael and an angel when Satan was first cast out of Heaven where he is fighting him (they are both angels):

Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. Revelation 12:8 But the dragon was not strong enough, and no longer was any place found in heaven for him and his angels.

Contrast that with the scripture that was Jesus WATCHING

Luke 10:18 So He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

at the same point, Note that Michael being an angel does not rebuke Satan directly

Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he disputed with the devil over the body of Moses, did not presume to bring a slanderous charge against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

and contrast this with Jesus rebuking Satan directly

Mark 8:33 But Jesus, turning and looking at His disciples, rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind Me, Satan! For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
Matthew 16:23 But Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Michael is only an archangel, a chief prince. The guardian (angel) over the nation of Israel. Notice that he is still being called Michael at the time of Daniel.

Michael is not YHWH but Jesus is. Michael is not the one whom all things were made THROUGH and all things were made FOR. God made everything and Jesus is God

Ann -- bipolar is, well, bipolar and completely wrong. Even if anyone just reads the text in Matthew, they can see that Bipolar is wrong

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Rock, and on this rock[a] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[b] shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[c] in heaven.”
20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Jesus is addressing Simon and renames him to Rock.

At no point does Jesus turn around and say "I've renamed you to rock and now, look at me, i'm rock"

Jesus also clearly says that on this rock (Simon) HE (Jesus) will build His church - Jesus doesn't say "you are renamed rock and ho-ho, on me I will build my church" - no, Jesus clearly points out Simon.

And we must remember that Simon was not the smartest, not the most eloquent, not the bravest, but a simple fisherman

Jesus chose him for his steadfastness, his "rockiness"

Bipolarbob “Jesus was Jew and the Apostles were Jews.”

Specifically Jesus and the Apostles were 2nd temple Jews

During the 2nd temple period there were multiple Jewish sects:
1. Sadducees - who rejected everything except the Torah
2. Pharisees who had an Oral Torah (which later, in the 9th century evolved to the Talmud) in addition to the Torah
3. Essenes
4. Samaritans
5. Jesus-movement Jews

After the 2nd temple was destroyed ONLY the Jesus-movement Jewish sect survived.

The pharisees re-invented themselves as Rabbinical Judaism - what we call Judaism today.

Rabbinical Judaism evolved out of the Pharisee sect of Second Temple Judaism, while the Sadducees, whose power depended on the temple, ceased to exist, along with other sects of the pre-Rabbinic period.

Louis H. Feldman wrote in ‘Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism in the First Century’, published in *Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism* (edited by Hershel Shanks):
>Most historians look upon the rabbinic period as beginning in 70 and regard the shift from Second Temple Judaism (prior to the destruction of the Temple) to Rabbinic Judaism as a monumental change. The fact is that Judaism could never have survived such a traumatic experience had not alternative and supplementary institutions, such as prayer, the synagogue and the academy, already been in existence.
>Apocalypticism, proselytism and sectarianism, all of which had flourished before the destruction of the Temple, drastically declined.
Lee I. A. Levine wrote in ‘Judaism from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the End of the Second Jewish Revolt: 70-135 CE’, also published in *Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism*:
>The liturgy of the pre-70 synagogue, in Palestine at least, appears to have centred exclusively around the Torah-reading ceremony, and then mainly on the Sabbath and festivals. Only after 70 was prayer developed and instituted on a daily basis. The obligation of daily prayer for all Jews, in private and communally in the synagogue, seems to have crystallised at Yavneh (Jamnia), as did the basic structure of Jewish prayer. The Passover celebration had been intimately connected with the Temple sacrifice. Each household was bidden to participate in the Passover meal in the Temple precincts proper or anywhere in Jerusalem foilowing the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. After 70, this was no longer possible, and so the home observance we know as the Passover seder was created. Much of the Passover hagadah, the service for the seder, took shape at Yavneh under the leadership of Rabban Gamaliel.
The oral law and the Talmud developed in Rabbinical Judaism to manage religious observance when there was no Temple sacrifice or other practices - Regular prayer was instituted instead of sacrifices and shmittah and yovel were suspended. the Rabbis of the Talmud gave precise definitions of the mitzvot and added new ordinances. case in point - the edicts of Rabenu Gershom who outlawed polygamy.

Rabbinic Judaism is the form of Judaism which developed after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. As such, it was derived from one of the two MAJOR movements within Judaism at that time, which were the 1) Sadducees and 2) Pharisees.

The Sadduceean party was centered around, and largely composed of people who were involved with, the Temple in Jerusalem. That party lost power, and influence - and probably most the members - with the destruction of the Temple.

The Pharisaic party was larger in number, more distributed in location, and was made up more of the overall strata of Jewish society of the time - the Sadducees were mostly urban, mostly well off to rich, and mostly somewhat ‘civilized’ in the sense of being pro-Rome.

WITHIN the large Pharisaic party, there were several schools and sects, ONE of which was the early Jewish Jesus-follower movement. (this is actually VERY clear, simply by looking at the topics which were important to Jesus in the gospels, it is clear that he was a Pharisee in philosophy).

The development of all modern forms of Judaism, AND the Jewish portion of the development of all modern forms of Christianity, worked themselves out from within Pharisaic Judaism of the Late Second Temple period.
The first challenge, was working out what to ‘do’ when there is no Temple. Fortunately (I suppose), Judaism had faced this situation previously, after the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple.

That time, Judaism had advanced and persisted largely (it appears) through the efforts of the priestly classes, from Ezra through the Hasmoneans. THIS time, Judaism advanced and persisted through the work of the early scholars and teachers of the Pharisaic movement, which was a largely lay-led (that is, not priestly classes) movement of literary experts on the Torah and Prophets - people who eventually because known as ‘the rabbis’, and the Judaism they forged out of the destruction of the Temple and Judean society through Roman forces is known as ‘rabbinic Judaism’.

The institution of ‘the synagogue’ came out of the Pharisaic movement, as well as the idea of the learned scholar of the Torah and tradition, now known as ‘the rabbi’.

The Jewish Jesus-followers were all Jerusalem based, and they seem to have completely disappeared from history sometime in the late first to late second centuries CE, with the Roman destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem, and Judea in toto - leaving the future of THAT movement entirely within non-Jewish Jesus-followers’ hands, in cities like Antioch and Ephesus and Rome - resulting in the early Christian ‘church’ (ekklesia) which was born in Greek/Roman culture by default.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.