Why I'm Pro-Life

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,083
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
How about this argument?

Definition 1: A person becomes a person at conception: when a human sperm meets a human egg. NB, this is the crux of the entire debate.

Premise 2: The law of God as given to us in the Scriptures is the ultimate standard to which we must appeal in matters of ethics.

Definition 3: Murder is the unlawful (that is, opposed to God's law as given to us in the Scriptures; see Premise 2) premeditated killing of one person by another.

Premise 4: God's Law states that "You shall not murder."

Definition 5: Abortion is the deliberate (and therefore premeditated) termination of a human pregnancy, resulting in the killing of the embryo.

Premise 6: Human pregnancies can only result from a human sperm meeting a human egg.

Intermediate Conclusion 7: All human pregnancies are persons. (See Definition 1 and Premise 6.)

Definition 8: A capital crime is a violation of God's law that, in the Bible, required the punishment of death. Aside: in general, only God-appointed government officials may carry out this punishment of death.

Premise 9: All premeditated killing of one person by another that is lawful requires that the person to be killed either have commited a capital crime or be an aggressor in war.

Premise 10: No unborn persons can commit capital crimes or be aggressors in war.

Intermediate Conclusion 11: All premeditated killing of unborn persons (that is, all abortion) is unlawful. (See Premises 9 and 10).

Intermediate Conclusion 12: Abortion is murder. (See Definition 3 and Intermediate Conclusion 11).

Final Conclusion 13: Abortion is forbidden by God's law, and we should never do it. (See Definition 3, Premise 4, and Intermediate Conclusion 12).

As usual, if you disagree with the conclusion, then you must do one of three things:

1. Show me how a term I use is unclear or equivocal.
2. Show me that a definition or premise is false.
3. Show me that at least one reasoning step is fallacious.

Your Definition 1 effectively asserts, without reasoning, a premise which is at the heart of my uncertainty. My uncertainty stems from being uncertain of the exact point at which an entity along the zygote-embryo-foetus line becomes a person in its own right, and therefore whether personhood appears at conception, at implantation, or at some other time. This isn't so much an assertion that Definition 1 is false, merely an observation that it appears to make an assumption that is critical to the entire argument.

Where Definition 1 to read "A person becomes a person at implantation: when a fertilized egg implants into the mothers womb. NB, this is the crux of the entire debate" the status of abortifacient drugs and intrauterine devices would shift from being murder weapons to morally insignificant. Definition 1 could be tweaked in all sorts of ways to draw different conclusions, and the whole scope of the element of the discussion I personally haven't fully nailed down relates to exactly what form Definition 1 should take.

As an aside, Premise 9 covers specific situations but doesn't cover the possibility that continuing with a pregnancy would result in the untimely demise of the mother, most likely taking the unborn child with her. The child couldn't sensibly be considered to have committed a capital crime or been an aggressor in war (I'm not sure the source of this particular premise) but since their continued development would result in the mother it isn't entirely illogical to regard an abortion in this particular circumstance as an act of self-defense.

My post timestamped 11:34 yesterday was an attempt to get to something coherent and reasoned to slot into Definition 1 in your argument above.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If one does not have a right estimate of conception and birth then one will not see the issues at stake in this debate.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Your Definition 1 effectively asserts, without reasoning, a premise which is at the heart of my uncertainty. My uncertainty stems from being uncertain of the exact point at which an entity along the zygote-embryo-foetus line becomes a person in its own right, and therefore whether personhood appears at conception, at implantation, or at some other time. This isn't so much an assertion that Definition 1 is false, merely an observation that it appears to make an assumption that is critical to the entire argument.

Where Definition 1 to read "A person becomes a person at implantation: when a fertilized egg implants into the mothers womb. NB, this is the crux of the entire debate" the status of abortifacient drugs and intrauterine devices would shift from being murder weapons to morally insignificant. Definition 1 could be tweaked in all sorts of ways to draw different conclusions, and the whole scope of the element of the discussion I personally haven't fully nailed down relates to exactly what form Definition 1 should take.

As an aside, Premise 9 covers specific situations but doesn't cover the possibility that continuing with a pregnancy would result in the untimely demise of the mother, most likely taking the unborn child with her. The child couldn't sensibly be considered to have committed a capital crime or been an aggressor in war (I'm not sure the source of this particular premise) but since their continued development would result in the mother it isn't entirely illogical to regard an abortion in this particular circumstance as an act of self-defense.

My post timestamped 11:34 yesterday was an attempt to get to something coherent and reasoned to slot into Definition 1 in your argument above.
When does God know you according to scripture? By that definition it is very clear
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,083
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
When does God know you according to scripture? By that definition it is very clear

Except it isn't really. If you're talking about verses like Jer 1:5 it doesn't shed any light on it at all - God says to Jeremiah "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you", which suggests God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived. Even if this were clear, and if we wanted to look at passages like Ps 139 about how God formed us in our mothers' wombs that doesn't prove that the unborn child is a person - I already mentioned in my previous post that when God made Adam he was formed from the dust of the earth and only then was life breathed into him. Before life was breathed into him he was a man-sized, man-shaped thing, made by God, but not yet a living person.
 

Ackbach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
158
Location
Rochester, MN
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Calvinist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
So, concerning when a person is a person: shouldn't we err on the side of caution? I don't think anyone thinks that a sperm by itself, or an egg by itself, is a person. That doesn't make biological sense. But if you consider the spectrum, as you put it, from fertilization to any point further on, erring on the side of caution seems quite justifiable.

Also consider the role of the ultrasound in this debate. The pro-death side has had to admit, pretty much, that what's inside the womb (at earlier and earlier moments in pregnancy) is a human being. Which is why they've shifted the debate now, and talk about personhood instead of humanness - a pointless and confusing shift. Taking this technological marvel to an extreme: can you not imagine a completely test-tube baby? Fertilization and nurture completely in the test tube, with no man or woman involved other than donating the sperm and egg? (I'm NOT advocating that this happen, mind you. I'm arguing that it's likely biologically possible, if difficult.) If this is possible, then implantation is irrelevant to personhood. There's no logical point of becoming a person other than sperm meets egg. And, if so, that must be when God provides the soul. I don't see any other logical moment at which this can occur.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,083
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So, concerning when a person is a person: shouldn't we err on the side of caution? I don't think anyone thinks that a sperm by itself, or an egg by itself, is a person. That doesn't make biological sense. But if you consider the spectrum, as you put it, from fertilization to any point further on, erring on the side of caution seems quite justifiable.

Also consider the role of the ultrasound in this debate. The pro-death side has had to admit, pretty much, that what's inside the womb (at earlier and earlier moments in pregnancy) is a human being. Which is why they've shifted the debate now, and talk about personhood instead of humanness - a pointless and confusing shift. Taking this technological marvel to an extreme: can you not imagine a completely test-tube baby? Fertilization and nurture completely in the test tube, with no man or woman involved other than donating the sperm and egg? (I'm NOT advocating that this happen, mind you. I'm arguing that it's likely biologically possible, if difficult.) If this is possible, then implantation is irrelevant to personhood. There's no logical point of becoming a person other than sperm meets egg. And, if so, that must be when God provides the soul. I don't see any other logical moment at which this can occur.

Erring on the side of caution is perhaps more prudent than erring the other way but the idea of the discussion is to try and identify what is correct, rather than which way to err. Erring on the side of caution is a wise thing in general, but falling back on such a statement doesn't clarify anything.

The ultrasound argument is an interesting one, although I remember being taught that one key difference between an embryo and a foetus is that the foetus is visibly identifiable as the species it is whereas an embryo is not. So a human foetus looks like a small human, an elephant foetus looks like a small elephant and so on. A human embryo and an elephant embryo and a chicken embryo will look much the same.

The test tube baby argument would suggest that the most obvious candidates for the point at which personhood begins is either conception (wherever and however such conception occurs) or when the unborn survives on its own. To create an artificial placenta and life support system to mimic the role of the biological mother would certainly muddy some of the waters regarding what counts as implantation (although logically there must be an equivalent of implantation for the unborn to receive nutrients) or the unborn having an identifiable blood of its own (again, hard to comprehend just how this would work based on not knowing what a completely test-tube setup might look like). That said, muddying the waters doesn't mean that there is no equivalent, just that it's harder to spot.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So, concerning when a person is a person: shouldn't we err on the side of caution? I don't think anyone thinks that a sperm by itself, or an egg by itself, is a person. That doesn't make biological sense. But if you consider the spectrum, as you put it, from fertilization to any point further on, erring on the side of caution seems quite justifiable.

Also consider the role of the ultrasound in this debate. The pro-death side has had to admit, pretty much, that what's inside the womb (at earlier and earlier moments in pregnancy) is a human being. Which is why they've shifted the debate now, and talk about personhood instead of humanness - a pointless and confusing shift. Taking this technological marvel to an extreme: can you not imagine a completely test-tube baby? Fertilization and nurture completely in the test tube, with no man or woman involved other than donating the sperm and egg? (I'm NOT advocating that this happen, mind you. I'm arguing that it's likely biologically possible, if difficult.) If this is possible, then implantation is irrelevant to personhood. There's no logical point of becoming a person other than sperm meets egg. And, if so, that must be when God provides the soul. I don't see any other logical moment at which this can occur.

As reprehensible as South Park is it nevertheless captures the wickedness of shifting definitions of "personhood" in the episode where Mrs Cartman seeks a late term abortion of her 8 year old son Eric Cartman - 42nd trimester abortion - because he is not yet a person.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Except it isn't really. If you're talking about verses like Jer 1:5 it doesn't shed any light on it at all - God says to Jeremiah "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you", which suggests God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived. Even if this were clear, and if we wanted to look at passages like Ps 139 about how God formed us in our mothers' wombs that doesn't prove that the unborn child is a person - I already mentioned in my previous post that when God made Adam he was formed from the dust of the earth and only then was life breathed into him. Before life was breathed into him he was a man-sized, man-shaped thing, made by God, but not yet a living person.
Yet in the womb the umbilical sustains life and moves around. It is very clear but if we choose to twist it to make it fit then maybe it isnt
 

Ackbach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
158
Location
Rochester, MN
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Calvinist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Erring on the side of caution is perhaps more prudent than erring the other way but the idea of the discussion is to try and identify what is correct, rather than which way to err. Erring on the side of caution is a wise thing in general, but falling back on such a statement doesn't clarify anything.

Sure, finding what is correct would be the goal. But what if it isn't possible? We are, after all, finite human beings who make mistakes. There are limits to our knowledge, and even to what we can know.

The ultrasound argument is an interesting one, although I remember being taught that one key difference between an embryo and a foetus is that the foetus is visibly identifiable as the species it is whereas an embryo is not. So a human foetus looks like a small human, an elephant foetus looks like a small elephant and so on. A human embryo and an elephant embryo and a chicken embryo will look much the same.

Yes and no. Biologically, as I understand it, once a human sperm meets a human egg, the DNA is determined, and there's no way the result will be anything other than a human being. What you're saying might hold true at a macroscopic level - the unaided human eye, e.g. - but I don't think it holds up microscopically.

The test tube baby argument would suggest that the most obvious candidates for the point at which personhood begins is either conception (wherever and however such conception occurs) or when the unborn survives on its own.

And the latter has been pretty effectively disproven by several arguments. One is, again, the ultrasound, where we have seen babies in utero react in pain, or react to other stimuli. Another argument is John the Baptist leaping in his mother's womb. You could make an argument that John the Baptist was, therefore, a saved individual before he was even born. Finally, children who are born aren't exactly able to survive on their own very long, are they? And yet, no one could possibly convince me that my five-year-old daughter isn't a person. She can read, she's got a charming personality, etc. But she needs to be taken care of, just like younger children do. If you look at the timeline here, you see a gradual shift in the ability of the young person to take care of himself. It doesn't strike me as a terribly rough transition anywhere. Even birth seems a much less big transition than it used to be, thanks to the abilities of doctors in NICU's and so on to help premature babies do just fine. Why should the degree of dependence of a human being on his mother determine whether he's a person or not? For that matter, all human beings are utterly dependent on God for their very existence every moment of every day. God didn't just create the universe and let it go. He constantly upholds and sustains the universe. If He withdraws His hand for even an instant, everything (except Himself) would instantly cease to exist. So we are completely dependent on God all the time. Does that make us less of a person?

To create an artificial placenta and life support system to mimic the role of the biological mother would certainly muddy some of the waters regarding what counts as implantation (although logically there must be an equivalent of implantation for the unborn to receive nutrients) or the unborn having an identifiable blood of its own

Actually, the placenta prevents blood transfer. The mother's blood and the baby's blood are more than distinct: they are separate!
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,083
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sure, finding what is correct would be the goal. But what if it isn't possible? We are, after all, finite human beings who make mistakes. There are limits to our knowledge, and even to what we can know.

I agree. My issue is that in seeking to understand we may err on the side of caution as a practical concept while considering the various options, but "err on the side of caution" does nothing to improve understanding and, if applied too liberally, can lead to a refusal to think/consider/study because it's easier to just err on the side of caution and not worry about anything beyond that.

Yes and no. Biologically, as I understand it, once a human sperm meets a human egg, the DNA is determined, and there's no way the result will be anything other than a human being. What you're saying might hold true at a macroscopic level - the unaided human eye, e.g. - but I don't think it holds up microscopically.

Sure, once the DNA is determined the future path is pretty much set. The result of a human sperm fertilising a human egg is a human zygote which in time will progress (assuming there are no genetic aberrations or interventions to terminate the progression) to a human embryo, then a human foetus, then a human baby. The point is that if you were to take a human zygote and a chicken zygote and an elephant zygote they would all look much the same. As an embryo I suspect you'd struggle to tell them apart, but as a foetus they would be more clearly identifiable. The chances are in many cases you'd need magnification to see them at all.

And the latter has been pretty effectively disproven by several arguments. One is, again, the ultrasound, where we have seen babies in utero react in pain, or react to other stimuli.

The ability to react to stimuli certainly supports the notion of being alive.

Another argument is John the Baptist leaping in his mother's womb. You could make an argument that John the Baptist was, therefore, a saved individual before he was even born.

You could.

Finally, children who are born aren't exactly able to survive on their own very long, are they? And yet, no one could possibly convince me that my five-year-old daughter isn't a person. She can read, she's got a charming personality, etc. But she needs to be taken care of, just like younger children do.

Your daughter may not be able to survive on her own in the modern sociological sense that she can't work for a living, can't earn money, doesn't understand the concept of weekly shopping and budgeting to pay the bills that need to be paid less regularly than income and so on. But I imagine she is quite capable of breathing unaided, her heart beats by itself, and if you were to lock her in a room and go out for the day she'd still be alive upon your return. She'd be hungry, thirsty and probably grumpy (and reasonably so) but she'd still be alive. A baby born after 12 weeks of pregnancy wouldn't survive without constant intervention.

If you look at the timeline here, you see a gradual shift in the ability of the young person to take care of himself. It doesn't strike me as a terribly rough transition anywhere. Even birth seems a much less big transition than it used to be, thanks to the abilities of doctors in NICU's and so on to help premature babies do just fine. Why should the degree of dependence of a human being on his mother determine whether he's a person or not?

The increase in technology that allows ever-more premature babies to not only survive but lead a normal lifestyle certainly challenges the claims that a baby isn't viable until 32 weeks, or 24 weeks, or whatever other figure is used. And it makes little sense to argue that when an unborn child becomes a person in its own right is somehow dependent on available technology because on that basis an unborn child in a wealthy city would become a person much earlier than an unborn child in a remote African village.

For that matter, all human beings are utterly dependent on God for their very existence every moment of every day. God didn't just create the universe and let it go. He constantly upholds and sustains the universe. If He withdraws His hand for even an instant, everything (except Himself) would instantly cease to exist. So we are completely dependent on God all the time. Does that make us less of a person?

That argument doesn't really work because it doesn't distinguish between humans and any other species.

Actually, the placenta prevents blood transfer. The mother's blood and the baby's blood are more than distinct: they are separate!

Sure, I knew that at some point during pregnancy the baby had identifiably different blood to the mother, I didn't know that about the placenta.

We're still no closer to a consideration of just when life begins. Although I'm undecided just when it occurs I find it impossible to support a viewpoint that the unborn is not a person by the time the mother-to-be knows it's there. I find appeals to verses like Jer 1:5 and Ps 139 unsatisfactory for the reasons I've mentioned before but Ex 21:22 seems to make the case very well. In many ways the exact point at which the unborn can be considered a human in their own right is of academic interest although, given the only logical conclusion of life beginning at conception is that abortifacient drugs and intrauterine devices are morally equivalent to murder weapons, there is arguably merit in trying to determine which is the case.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
OPENING POST....


As slavery was the huge moral/political issue for some 200 years in the USA, abortion has become such in our time.

I'm solidly pro-life. It is my top issue in voting and it is a moral position about which I'm passionate. There ARE areas were I "give" a bit (in case of rape, if continuing clearly threatens the physical life of the mother) but I'm pretty solidly pro-life. I "inherited" this, I suspect, from my parents great respect for life that they instilled in me, their great emphasis on protecting the weak, and from my Catholic upbringing. My parents - one a diehard "bleeding heart" liberal, the other a ditto head conservative - both are strongly pro life (although obviously my mom votes contrary to her convictions on this point). As a teen, as a part of my schooling, I volunteered at a Birth Choice center (an amazing experience that had a profound impact on me) and I still contribute generously to some of these organizations.



My primary reasons are two:


1. Human rights. My sister (who has a Ph.D. in biology and does biological research as her vocation) has stressed to me that biologically, it is absurd to argue that the pre-born baby is not a human. She stresses that nothing happens to the DNA as the last bit of the toes exits the birth canal: in terms of species, what is AFTER the exit of the last toe is no different that what was before the crown of the baby's head began appearing outside that canal. While precise definitions of what is and is not "life" and is and is not "human" are not as precise as we'd all like, however we BIOLOGICALLY define such, birth has nothing to do with it. I believe that all humans are endowed with inalienable HUMAN rights simply as a function of they being HUMAN - and chief among these is life (the ONLY right that ultimately matters..... take that away and no other "right" matters at all, applies at all). Now, we can have discussions of self defense, just war, even capitol punishment (and I have related opinions there) but these are all extreme cases usually related to some guilt or physical threat presented by the one permitted to be murdered, and there seems to be consensus that HUMANS are being murdered in these cases. I think we purposely evade this by insisting that the unborn baby is not 100% a "PERSON" ( an argument taken hook, line and sinker from the pro-slavery position where Blacks were 2/3's a person) or when we people talk about the baby as a parasite or fully dependent - all that simply evades the issue that here is a HUMAN - the same species as we. IF we can deprive a whole class, an entire category of living HUMANS - regardless of their guilt or bad behavior or physical threat - deprive them without any due process - deprive them of the most important, most fundamental, most necessary of all HUMAN rights - life - then the most gross injustice has been made and all other innocent humans are threated and weakened.


2. Defending the Weak. The Bible says we are to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, we are to defend those who cannot defend themselves, we are to be caretakers of the weak. Men - in particular - have often identified themselves strongly with this defender and providing role..... women - in particular - have seen motherhood as one of providing and defending role. We can see some of this even among animals. I reject the premise that those with political power may THEREFORE, as a FUNCTION of that power, trample on the rights, the humanity, the life of those less powerful or less independent simply as a function of their superior power to do so. One does not have some "right" to choose to murder simply because one has the political power to do it with impunity, to get away with it because other powerful ones will allow it. Remember what the powerful did in the perservation 0f slavery, in their "pro choice" political point that gave NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER to the one impacted: the Black man/woman. We must not fall to the morality that whatever those with sufficient power do to others is "moral" simply because they have the power to do it - and get away with it. Power does not equal moral. Indeed, it is a sad consequence of sin that the weak, the less-powerful are often trampled on by the more-powerful - and thus NEED our protection, our voice, our intervention. I realize this point makes a few women very uncomfortable.... since nearly the beginning of time, THEY were often the victims of this.... THEY were the weak, the helpless, the powerless and thus the victims of horrible things. Fortunately, very very recently, they have gained some power as the powerful (that's us white, middle class, property owning MEN) granted such. But IMO, because of that history, they ABOVE ALL, should be the MOST pro-life, the MOST sensitive to standing up for those with less power against those with more, they should be the LEAST 'pro-choice' (the powerful choose.... the powerless suffer). And indeed, I think women ARE a bit less "pro-choice" than men (although it's pretty close). We need laws, etc. to protect the weak from the strong, to permit civilization (so that it's not the animal "survival of the fittest", the prevailing of the more powerful over the less so).


Now, I realize...... there are enormous human, personal issues here. I realize discovering one is now the mother of a baby can be unplanned, unwelcomed - and a genuine crisis. And while most sex is consensual (and thus all know a baby can result), it's not always. And I realize that motherhood (before and after birth) has ENORMOUS implications - physically, socially, emotionally; indeed in every way possible - and that can be very difficult. Parenthood (mother and father) are perhaps the biggest and most difficult roles humans ever have. I don't gloss over that. I realize, too, that pregnancy and giving birth can be physically dangerous and are enormous physical efforts (and that - technically, that baby is a "parasite" - a LOT of parents will say that parasite continues for at least 20 years! Maybe a lot longer, lol, not to minimize the reality here). I'm not at all unmoved by those realities. And as I mentioned, I'm at least open to discussions when the baby is a real threat to the physical life of the other and perhaps also in cases of rape and incest. But, the simple reality is: sex tends to eventually result in a baby - and all (over the age of 8 at least - know that), all that is part of the responsibility to which we must rise. AND (most importantly), it means that we - as family and as society - need to "be there" for mothers (and fathers) struggling. IMO, we have far, far too much sense of abandoning parents. We need to "be there" as family, friends, community - emotionally, medically and physically (this is what motivated me so strongly in my years working with abortion alternative centers).

While I do not believe governments' role is religious or even primarily moralistic, it IS in part about protecting the weak, the defenseless, the voiceless (especially those who can't vote - meaning looking for human rather than civil or political rights). Just as I strongly rebuke all those years when the government of the USA lacked the guts, the civility to end slavery, so - for identical reasons - I rebuke the USA government today for lacking the guts and civility to end abortion-on-demand. This is the # 1 voting issue for me; I cannot and will not vote for any who is not clearly pro-life when they are in positions to impact that. And while I think it may take 200 years again (but hopefully not bloody war!), someday we will look upon this ugliness in the same way as we now look back upon slavery (or racism or sexism).




What do you think?




- Josiah




.



Shameless bump




.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I find it odd that a lot of people who are pro choice want to save the fetuses of animals more than those of humans. Has anyone else noticed this trend?

In the USA, destroy the egg of a bald eagle and you get years in prison...... kill an unborn baby and the government will pay you for it. Yeah, there is an irony there but a revealing one.
 

Tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,555
Age
63
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Pro-abortion to me is one of the indicators of where we are at on the time line of 'the last days' and how things will keep getting darker, calling evil good and good evil.

I remember while growing up practically everyone I knew frowned upon abortion. Only the absolute situations would necessitate authorizing abortion. Where now a days contraception by abortion isn't a big deal to most and they don't give it much thought. This is an absolute foreign way of thinking to me considering we're talking about taking the life of an innocent unborn child. :(
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Pro-abortion to me is one of the indicators of where we are at on the time line of 'the last days' and how things will keep getting darker, calingl evil good and good evil.

I remember while growing up practically everyone I knew frown upon abortion. Only the absolute situations would necessitate authorizing abortion. Where now a days contraception by abortion isn't a big deal to most and they don't give it much thought. This is absolute foreign thinking to me considering we're talking about taking the life of an innocent unborn child. :(

Last century, in the first 30 or so years, many Protestants were opposed to divorce. The decline in moral standards started long before abortions were made a state sanctioned and subsidised activity.
 

Tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,555
Age
63
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Last century, in the first 30 or so years, many Protestants were opposed to divorce. The decline in moral standards started long before abortions were made a state sanctioned and subsidised activity.

I agree and that's one of the reasons I'm leaning towards confessionalism. Typically once a denomination lacks up on it's doctrinal stance it becomes a slippery slope from there forward.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,560
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Pro-abortion to me is one of the indicators of where we are at on the time line of 'the last days' and how things will keep getting darker, calling evil good and good evil.

I remember while growing up practically everyone I knew frowned upon abortion. Only the absolute situations would necessitate authorizing abortion. Where now a days contraception by abortion isn't a big deal to most and they don't give it much thought. This is an absolute foreign way of thinking to me considering we're talking about taking the life of an innocent unborn child. :(

I remember my mom and I having a disagreement when I was 17 (very loudly) about abortion. I was against and she was for the woman's right to choose. I was shocked she believed that way because I thought I knew her.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
My mother and father are opposites politically (made for some "interesting" dinners). My Dad a "dittohead" Rush Limbaugh Conservative, my Mom a "bleeding heart" liberal. Regularly, they cancel each other's vote. But on most MORAL/SOCIAL issues, they are the same. Nowhere is that more true than Abortion. My Mom is one of the extremely few Democrats who is pro-life. I came by this value naturally.
 

Tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,555
Age
63
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I remember my mom and I having a disagreement when I was 17 (very loudly) about abortion. I was against and she was for the woman's right to choose. I was shocked she believed that way because I thought I knew her.

Exactly, this is soooooo prophetic! It brings to mind Luke 12:53 "...mother against daughter and daughter againts mother...".
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I agree and that's one of the reasons I'm leaning towards confessionalism. Typically once a denomination lacks up on it's doctrinal stance it becomes a slippery slope from there forward.

Contraception too was opposed by most Protestant denominations until the first quarter of the 20th century. Now the use of artificial contraceptives attracts absolutely no attention in most denominations including some that are confessional.
 
Top Bottom