discrimination

The Bible, Abortion, and the Politics of Selective Morality

BenjaminLeave a comment

There is no sense in debating the issues of abortion, racial prejudices involving the Palestinian People, and whether or not there is a God or the equal rights movement, in sixty years people will still be debating these issues, why fall in that trap?

© Benjamin H. Groff II — Truth Endures / benandsteve.com

Open antique law book with ornate initial, brass balance scale, quill, and inkpot on wooden table
GroffMedia©TruthEndures 2006

For decades, anti-abortion organizations in America have cited Biblical authority as the foundational justification for their movement. Through protest signs, political speeches, church campaigns, and fundraising letters, they represent opposition to abortion not merely as a political issue, but as an unequivocal mandate from God. However, this essay contends that such appeals to scripture are selective and may overlook significant biblical passages that both complicate and, at times, directly challenge the certainty and absolutism with which many modern anti-abortion groups present their views.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter once suggested that there was no sense in debating the issues of abortion, racial prejudices involving the Palestinian People, and whether or not there is a God or the equal rights movement. Barry Goldwater overheard him saying that in 60 years, people will still fight one another over these subjects. Putting together an argument to be sure to use them as political hay, so there is no use in my falling for their trap! And he was right. Regardless of what is decided today, others will continue to argue for the rights of these regardless of what is decided now. Today is never definite.

Still.

The verses ignored in these debates are violent, uncomfortable, and inconvenient to absolute arguments.

One of the most often mentioned passages is Genesis 2:7, which says life begins when Adam receives “the breath of life.” People who oppose abortion interpret this verse in various ways, but critics say it suggests personhood starts at birth, with breath, instead of at conception. This view is very different from modern political claims that life begins at fertilization.

Exodus 21:22-25 discusses a scenario in which a pregnant woman is injured during a fight and consequently loses her fetus. According to scholars such as Phyllis Trible and John J. Collins, the punishment prescribed for this loss differs significantly from that for killing a person, indicating that the biblical text assigns a different value to fetal life (Trible, 1978; Collins, 2004). 

Historians, including Jonathan Klawans and Christine Hayes, also contend that ancient Hebrew law did not equate fetal death with the killing of an already born individual, but rather treated it as a lesser offense within its legal system (Klawans, 2012; Hayes, 2001).

Perhaps most controversial is Numbers 5:11-31, called the “ordeal of bitter water.” In this passage, a priest performs a ritual on a woman suspected of adultery. Critics of anti-abortion theology say the text describes a divinely sanctioned miscarriage if adultery occurred. Opponents of modern anti-abortion activism see a contradiction: groups say the Bible always condemns abortion, yet they rarely discuss a passage that seems to permit or even command ending a pregnancy in some cases.

The criticism gets stronger when readers see violent Old Testament passages about pregnant women and children. In 2 Kings 8:12 and Hosea 13:16, invading armies rip open pregnant women. Isaiah 13:18 describes unborn children destroyed during judgment. Critics say that while these verses describe war or punishment, they challenge claims that scripture always treats fetal life as sacred.

To many observers, the issue is not merely theology — it is selective morality.

Critics say anti-abortion movements focus on a few verses while ignoring bigger Biblical themes, like poverty, healthcare, compassion, violence, orphan care, and social justice. Some also say these organizations fight abortion but oppose programs that could reduce unwanted pregnancies, like prenatal care, food aid, childcare, sex education, or affordable healthcare.

Others say the modern anti-abortion movement is political as well as religious. Historians have shown that abortion became a key issue in American conservative politics in the late 1970s and 1980s. It helped mobilize voters and build evangelical political power. Critics believe this history raises questions about whether the movement is based on scripture or on political strategy wrapped in religious language.

At the same time, many people of faith point to scriptures such as Psalm 139:13-16 (“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb”) and Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”) as evidence that unborn life holds deep spiritual value. For them, the abortion debate is not political, but a sincere belief that life is sacred from its earliest beginnings.

This does not mean that the Bible is “anti-abortion” or “pro-abortion”. The scriptures are ancient, complex, and have been read differently by various groups over hundreds of years. Many sincere believers oppose abortion because they value the unborn life. Critics, however, reject the idea that opposition is the only Christian view. People who believe in a sky daddy, and maybe still, in a real Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, or Easter Bunny, according to extreme critics.

Desert camp with large tents, stone tablets inscribed with ancient symbols, and people walking around at dusk.

The larger question may not be whether scripture can be used to oppose abortion. Clearly, it can.

The central issue, therefore, is whether anti-abortion groups sufficiently address the complexity and diversity inherent in Biblical teachings when presenting them as absolute authority in the abortion debate. This raises a broader question: whether these groups offer a comprehensive, contextually nuanced interpretation of scripture, or, as critics argue, oversimplify and selectively interpret biblical texts to serve specific political and ideological agendas. Thus, the debate centers not only on what the Bible says about abortion, but also on how faithfully its teachings are represented in contemporary discourse.

When difficult verses are excluded and uncomfortable passages ignored, faith risks drifting from spiritual truth toward political convenience. If scripture is going to be used to shape public belief, then all of scripture — including the passages that appear to challenge the argument — should be part of the discussion. As the old saying goes, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” People should be trusted to hear the full text and decide for themselves, rather than being instructed only on what they are expected to believe. Yet for some, allowing that kind of open examination may itself be seen as a threat to established belief.

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

When the Press Begins to Look Over Its Shoulder

Benjamin3 Comments

There comes a time when you have to draw a line and decide what you stand for. Because if you don’t stand for something, sooner or later you’ll fall for anything.

Groff Media ©2026 benandsteve.com Truth Endures

This week I made the next announcement:

“I have made the decision to stop any association with content connected to CBS, CBS News, CNN, FOX, and Flipboard. I can no longer, in good conscience, republish material from these organizations. I also can’t promote content from organizations that use media in ways I find troubling.“

A Change in Direction

There are moments in history when small events start to reveal a much larger shift. What has been happening inside major American media organizations lately is one of those moments. Stephen Colbert is a prominent public voice. He finds himself at the center of controversy shortly after openly criticizing corporate decisions tied to network leadership. This situation naturally raises questions. Is outspoken criticism still welcome within the walls of the companies that broadcast it?

At the same time, reports of internal conflict surrounding the newsroom at 60 Minutes have emerged. These reports involve one of the most respected investigative news teams in television. They have only deepened those concerns. Leadership changes have occurred. Public statements from newsroom figures have surfaced. Accounts of staff unease suggest that journalists inside the organization are feeling pressures. These pressures extend beyond the simple business of reporting the news.

This is where the issue becomes larger than one show, one host, or even one network. The concern is about the atmosphere surrounding journalism itself. When reporters start to sense that pursuing certain stories will carry professional consequences, the chilling effect spreads quickly. Investigative reporting depends on courage, independence, and the understanding that truth—not corporate comfort or political pressure—guides editorial decisions.

My declaration about stepping away from redistributing material from major outlets is rooted in this concern. It is not an attack on journalism. In fact, it is the opposite. It is a defense of what journalism is supposed to be. A free press only remains free when reporters and editors can pursue facts without intimidation. They must be capable of chasing stories without fear of reprisal. Reporters should not have to wonder whether the story they are chasing will upset powerful interests behind the scenes.

Journalists should never have to look over their shoulder before telling the truth. If they do, the public will lose more than just a few television programs. They will also lose newspaper columns. We will lose something far more important. We will lose the ability to trust someone. Somewhere, someone is still willing to ask the hard questions.

History teaches us that the erosion of press freedom rarely begins with a dramatic announcement. It usually starts quietly—with a decision here, a resignation there, a story that suddenly feels too risky to pursue. The public does not notice at first. But journalists do. They feel the shift in the air long before anyone else sees it. When reporters question if the truth cost them their platform, the damage has begun. They question if it risks their career or the support of their newsroom. This damage shows that fear is overshadowing press freedom. My decision to step back from amplifying certain media outlets is not born from anger. It is born from concern. A healthy democracy depends on journalists who can pursue facts without fear. If the press ever needs to seek permission to reveal the truth, the public will suffer. This greater loss impacts more than just a television program or a headline. We will have lost our watchdog.

It is up to us. The average Joe. To start doing something. What will you do?

    3 responses to “When the Press Begins to Look Over Its Shoulder”

    1. Hazel Avatar
      Hazel

      It’s one of my concerns, too. The job of journalists and reporters becomes risky now. They’re not safe if they tell the truth, especially since powerful people are involved in it. I don’t know about news these days if it’s true or just be polished to protect someone else. The media becomes chaotic, as well as politics. I don’t understand, and I dislike to hear something disgusting about it.

      Reply
      1. Benjamin Avatar
        Benjamin

        Thank you, Hazel. Many people are torn between speaking up or staying quiet and hoping things change. But dust doesn’t move unless someone disturbs it. Sometimes the only way to slow what’s happening is to challenge it. If my words inspire even one person to act, and that person inspires another, then they have done their job.

        Reply
        1. Hazel Avatar
          Hazel

          Yeah. Hopefully some are courageous enough to speak and make a change. We’ll never know. My pleasure, Benjamin. Healing vibes to you.

    What you leave today becomes someone’s answer tomorrow.

    Marketing to Change Minds

    BenjaminLeave a comment
    1–2 minutes

    By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

    Marketing to change people’s views isn’t a new concept—it’s one of the oldest tools of persuasion known to humankind. It begins quietly, almost imperceptibly, with the notion that a particular group or sect isn’t “right” for the community. That whisper grows into a chorus, spreading suspicion from one group to the next. Before long, it becomes an orchestrated campaign designed to win favor with the majority.

    Sometimes the purpose is simple—boosting sales or swaying public opinion. Other times it’s darker. It aims to destroy a movement or to silence dissent. It can also trample a people beneath the weight of manipulated perception.

    The pattern always begins the same way. A subtle warning disguised as concern. A headline. A slogan. A talking point. Then, as the message gains traction, it becomes sharper, more divisive. The targets shift—left or right, religious or secular, it makes no difference. The goal is control.

    In the coming months and years, we will see more of this calculated persuasion. This is marketing that doesn’t sell products but ideas. It spreads fear and hate. It will portray immigrants as criminals, minorities as threats, and neighbors as enemies. The tactic is old, but the technology behind it is new—and more potent than ever.

    This isn’t confined to one nation. It crosses oceans and borders, infecting democracies and dictatorships alike. It’s a sickness of the mind and spirit, a global contagion that thrives on division.

    To resist it, those who are often isolated in their struggles must unite. Civil rights advocates, faith groups, workers, and artists need to see they are part of the same story. Each citizen must realize their cause is connected. Survival now depends on solidarity. Only by coming together can we create a message stronger than the one designed to tear us apart.

    By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

    Can Your Differences Bring Us Together?

    BenjaminLeave a comment
    1–2 minutes

    What Difference Does It Make?

    Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

    What difference does it really make — who we are or who we love? We accept without question that some people like black hair, others like blondes, and some like redheads. Some are tall, some are short, some are in between. Yet history shows us how quickly an innocent difference can become a target.

    Imagine if tomorrow there was an eruption of public hatred toward blondes. They dye their hair to avoid detection. Or if short people were suddenly ostracized, they try to stay inside except during “short hours.” Many people already camouflage parts of themselves—how they speak, dress, or behave—to stay safe in public. But not everyone can change.

    That’s what today’s reflection is about: What do we do with differences that can’t be hidden or changed? When does society’s discomfort become cruelty? Should people who can’t “blend in” be cast aside, alienated, or worse? We’re at our best when we challenge these questions. We must remind ourselves that our shared humanity matters far more than our differences.

    A Hopeful Call-to-Action

    If differences can be used to divide, they can also be used to unite. Every person you meet carries something unique—something you can’t see at first glance. Rather than asking people to blend in or hide, we can create a world where authenticity is safe and celebrated. Each act of kindness is important. Each open conversation contributes to understanding. Each refusal to judge by appearance fosters inclusivity. These are steps toward a society that values humanity over uniformity. The question isn’t how we can camouflage ourselves—it’s how we can build a place where no one needs to.

    By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2025 

    Branded You Are Now – Marked!

    Benjamin1 Comment

    When the law decides you no longer exist, freedom isn’t about where you live.

    It’s about how far you’re willing to lose yourself to survive.

    2–3 minutes

    Getting Marked – Freedom at a cost

    What if you belonged to a group that the government suddenly decided was a problem?

    Not because of anything you did. Not because of a crime. Not even because of your beliefs. You were placed quietly and without your knowledge. The current leaders decided that the category was “unjust.”

    Illegal.

    It didn’t matter that you’d lived here your whole life. That your parents and grandparents had, too. It didn’t matter your race, your sex, your creed, your record. None of that mattered anymore. The only thing that mattered was that you had been identified.

    The rules you thought protected you suddenly didn’t apply.

    Your home wasn’t yours. Your job will vanish with a keystroke. The bank will empty your account without notice. You weren’t even a “person” anymore, not in the legal sense described by the Constitution you once believed in.

    It happened so fast you couldn’t trace the moment when it began. At first, it was a news story about “reforms.” Then, “temporary measures.” Then, new identification cards, “to streamline services.” People told themselves it was nothing — until the cards became color-coded. Until the colors meant everything.

    Now the world feels smaller every day. Friends stop calling, not because they don’t care, but because they’re afraid to be seen caring. Even strangers look at you differently, as if they’re silently choosing whether to turn away or turn you in.

    You start making plans. Options. But they’re illusions. Leave the country? Borders are closed to you. Fight back? With what? Every avenue seems to end at the same locked door.

    Then one night, in the quiet of your apartment, you find a letter slipped under your door. No name. No return location. Just a single sentence:

    “There’s a way out, but you can’t take anything with you.”

    Your heart pounds. Hope flares in your chest — real, breathing hope for the first time in months. You imagine stepping across a border, leaving all this behind, starting over somewhere no one knows your name.

    But then the weight comes crashing back. You can’t take anything with you. Not your family, if they’re marked. Not your home. Not even the history that made you who you are.

    The choice is yours. Stay and lose everything slowly, or leave and lose it all at once.

    It’s hope. And it’s despair.

    And tonight, both feel exactly the same.

    Will you let this country get to this point? Is the United States already there? Is it too late to turn around?

    By Benjamin GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | 2025 

    The Impact of Discrimination on Society and Human Rights

    BenjaminLeave a comment

    GROFF MEDIA 2024© TRUTH ENDURES IMDBPRO

    Presented by benandsteve.com By: Benjamin Groff II©s

    2–3 minutes
    Discrimination Vs. Inclusion
    Discrimination Vs Inclusion.
    The difference between darkness and light

    Discrimination is an act rooted in fear, ignorance, and an unwillingness to accept the fundamental dignity of all people. It has profound consequences for society. Wanting to deny others housing, clothing, and respect shows a belief that some lives hold less value. Such a stance reveals a deep-seated lack of empathy. It shows an indifference to the struggles of fellow human beings and a troubling inclination toward social division. It speaks volumes about moral values. It reflects the character of those who wish to wield power to diminish the lives of others.

    The wish to remove protections that have given minority groups equal footing within society shows a disregard for historical injustices. These injustices have shaped the need for these safeguards. These protections exist not to give anyone an unfair advantage. They guarantee everyone has equal rights, opportunities, and access to resources without prejudice. Seeking to dismantle these safeguards implies a refusal to acknowledge historical injustices. It also shows a disregard for the ongoing struggles faced by marginalized communities. It shows a yearning for a past where exclusion was the norm. It rejects embracing a future that strives for fairness and justice.

    Moreover, those who advocate for policies that exacerbate the hardships already endured by vulnerable populations are not merely indifferent. They are complicit in their suffering. If making life more difficult for those struggling is acceptable, what does that say about one’s character? It signals a lack of compassion, an absence of moral responsibility, and a failure to grasp the interconnectedness of humanity. A society that pays no heed to suffering undermines its stability, for one group’s oppression ultimately harms the whole. This is not just a moral issue but a societal one that demands immediate attention and action.

    Most revealing is the wish to control who can join legal institutions like marriage. Love and family are not exclusive to a select few but are among the most fundamental aspects of human existence. To decide who can share in these joys is to place oneself in a position of unjust power. It denies them to others. It stems from a belief in personal superiority. It also involves a willingness to impose one’s values on others. This approach restricts their freedoms. It suggests an inability to recognize that love is universal. Love is deserving of legal and social acknowledgment. This is true regardless of the individuals involved.

    Ultimately, seeking to discriminate, exclude, and strip away rights reveals one’s insecurity, fear, and wish for control. A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Those who work to undermine equality and fairness reveal far more about themselves. They show more about their nature than they do about those they seek to oppress. True strength is found in embracing diversity. Morality involves protecting the rights of all. Decency ensures that everyone has the dignity and respect they deserve.