Should abortion be illegal?

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The question remains exactly when the cells become a human in their own right..
What's your answer to that question, and would you be in favor of prohibiting abortions after that point in time?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Why I'm Pro-Life


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


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).





- Josiah
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
The question remains exactly when the cells become a human in their own right.

Although you've got an appeal to Scripture here it would be more useful to have something that related to more normal human beings - Jesus Christ was very different to most humans, not least because most of us aren't God incarnate.

You just ignored John the Baptist and Elizabeth and the Blessed Virgin...

And the Witness of the Holy Spirit...

Your "bundle of cells" is your self...

"It" is human...

"It" is YOU...

"It" has always been you...

IF you choose to deny that you are created both body and spirit...

THEN you must PROVE when you were not so...

Your assertion that a foetus is not human is not proof...

No matter how often you repeat yourself...

Likewise with your assertion that it is not a person...

Arsenios
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Why I'm Pro-Life


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


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).





- Josiah

Thank-you my Brother...

When I was an atheist, I tried to draw the line for abortion at survivability outside the womb...

I was wrong...

God Bless your defense of the defenseless...

"That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among people,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Children's rights in the womb are not secure...


Arsenios
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
IF we are to make a law against abortion, as we should,
we must also make a corollary of that law
the provision for the adoption of the child
rejected by the mother
if she still does not want the child...

Arsenios

With respect, you're still saying we should do something while providing little to back your assertion.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What's your answer to the question of when you think cells become a human, and would you be in favor of prohibiting abortions after that point in time?
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You just ignored John the Baptist and Elizabeth and the Blessed Virgin...

And the Witness of the Holy Spirit...

Your "bundle of cells" is your self...

"It" is human...

"It" is YOU...

"It" has always been you...

IF you choose to deny that you are created both body and spirit...

THEN you must PROVE when you were not so...

Your assertion that a foetus is not human is not proof...

No matter how often you repeat yourself...

Likewise with your assertion that it is not a person...

Arsenios

I have never made that assertion. I have been looking at different stances to determine which one has merit. As I also said I do not consider abortion to be morally acceptable but my moral issues with it are not a valid reason to make it illegal.

If we want to take a specific stance, and expect others to follow that stance, we need an appeal to an appropriate authority. A personal conviction is all I need to obey restrictions greater than might be considered necessary. If I expect other Christians to follow my conviction I need an appeal to Scripture; if I expect others who don't necessarily follow Christ to follow it then I need an appeal to an authority accepted by them.

An appeal to Scripture should not be adequate to change the law of the land because if we write the laws around our preferred holy texts we lose any right to complain if at some point in the future some other religious group seeks to rewrite the laws around their preferred holy texts. Hence there are many things that we may consider immoral but that should not be illegal.

Hence, to answer the question of whether abortion should be illegal we need to determine, in a sense that is wider than what Scripture says (and many appeals to Scripture remain unconvincing), whether or not the fetus can be considered a person in its own right. If we take a stance that the fetus is a person in its own right the next question is at what point does it become a person in its own right? Is it at conception? Implantation? At the point it becomes feasible that it might live unaided if it were born prematurely?

I must admit I see issues with most widely held answers to that particular question. For myself the answer I find least problematic is at implantation, or arguably when the unborn has its own identifiable blood. This is probably before the time the mother even knows she is pregnant.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah said:
Why I'm Pro-Life


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


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).





- Josiah


.


IMO, if the POWERFUL are going to lord it over the least powerful by dogmatically insisting such is not a human until the Powerful so declare, then, IMO, the Powerful need to supply proof of such. During the days of slavery, there were some among the POWERFUL to insisted that the African was not a human.... they never gave a shred of anything to support that but they didn't care, they were the powerful (and the African, not). But in time, the entirely baseless claim (which they couldn't even attempt to prove, they had NOTHING) was dropped. Then the claim of the POWERFUL over the non-powerful was "they are not fully a PERSON." The advantage: "person" is a legal term, defined by the POWERFUL, the writers of the law. They decided the African was perhaps human (an issue they avoided like the plague) BUT only 2/3's a PERSON (so simply because they defined it as so) and thus could be property and deprived of rights (technically, it was still illegal to MURDER a slave since they couldn't get around that human issue but in reality, the POWERFUL turned a blind eye to other POWERFUL when they murdered an African - a sad reality that continued at least a century after slavery was ended).


IMO, the "burden of proof" belongs to the POWERFUL who insists they have the power to murder at will - for any or no reason - if the victim has not FULLY exited the birth canal. If they claim that such is not a HUMAN - I want to see the DNA proof of that. If they claim such is not 100% a PERSON, I reject that since this is not an objective reality but simply the pure claim of the powerful over the less so. IMO, even if there's only a chance that a pre-born baby or a one year old baby or a red headed woman is 100% human or 100% a person, I think civilization mandates we don't permit the most powerful among us to deprive them of the most essential right of all - the right to exist. I can supply DNA to show my bunny is not a human... no one can supply such that my 7 month old son is not a human, even though I admit he has no political POWER to trample on others (well, as his parents, I wonder....)




.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hence, to answer the question of whether abortion should be illegal we need to determine, in a sense that is wider than what Scripture says (and many appeals to Scripture remain unconvincing), whether or not the fetus can be considered a person in its own right. If we take a stance that the fetus is a person in its own right the next question is at what point does it become a person in its own right? Is it at conception? Implantation? At the point it becomes feasible that it might live unaided if it were born prematurely?

I must admit I see issues with most widely held answers to that particular question. For myself the answer I find least problematic is at implantation, or arguably when the unborn has its own identifiable blood. This is probably before the time the mother even knows she is pregnant.
What is keeping you, then, from approving of some restrictions on abortion?
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The question remains exactly when the cells become a human in their own right.

Although you've got an appeal to Scripture here it would be more useful to have something that related to more normal human beings - Jesus Christ was very different to most humans, not least because most of us aren't God incarnate.
God named John, John leaped in the belly, John was predestined and ordained as to what his role would be in life, unborn human babies are still human.
A man was at a pro-abortion rally (I forget where) and he asked them "at what stage of development would you consider it inhumane and illegal to terminate the pregnancy?" and not one could answer him, instead they said "it's up to the mother", and to which he responded "so you wouldn't believe there is nothing wrong with a termination on the day of birth?" and that said "thats not my decision to make"...
Pictures and videos of the abortion process shows that the fetus opens its mouth in horror (google "Silent Scream") and squirms away from the instrument used to crush it's skull.
This to me is evidence that these are conscious humans fully aware of what's happening.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,204
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,283
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
QAgain the law should be written with leeway for a judge to decide as each case will differ as will the reasons a woman would feel this desperate. As for because I believe it morally wrong it should not be legislated then I say balderdash as that is how most laws were written and I have to follow my moral compass in who I vote for, of course I have to weigh all the issues but abortion is wrong period and should be illegal period.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What penalty ought there be for a woman who decides to have an abortion at 8 months, or 6 months, or 2 months into the pregnancy and ought that penalty be different from the penalty for a mother who kills her already born infant child?
Jail time for sure, nothing is more precious to these degenerates than their sweet time.
They can sit in jail if they terminate their pregnancy themselves, doctor procedures must be approved by the state.
Not ready to parent? Give it up for adoption
Is it dangerous to the mother? There should be proven medical testing to determine the potential of death and abnormal heath risk for that patient
Rape? The rape should be reported immediately and the mother should testify and should be given several options one of course being a state funded abortion on a fixed federal annual budget, this will make the allegations of 'rape' taken more seriously by the state.
I just do not believe it is right for them to use abortion clinics like a bathroom.
Now this is just coming off the top of my head btw so I'm just tossing out ideas.
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,204
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jail time for sure, nothing is more precious to these degenerates than their sweet time.
They can sit in jail if they terminate their pregnancy themselves, doctor procedures must be approved by the state.
Not ready to parent? Give it up for adoption
Is it dangerous to the mother? There should be proven medical testing to determine the potential of death and abnormal heath risk for that patient
Rape? The rape should be reported immediately and the mother should testify and should be given several options one of course being a state funded abortion on a fixed federal annual budget, this will make the allegations of 'rape' taken more seriously by the state.
I just do not believe it is right for them to use abortion clinics like a bathroom.
Now this is just coming off the top of my head btw so I'm just tossing out ideas.

What if the mother crosses the boarder into Canada or Mexico and procures an abortion in one of those countries, ought they to be arrested and tried in the USA if the USA makes abortion illegal?
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What if the mother crosses the boarder into Canada or Mexico and procures an abortion in one of those countries, ought they to be arrested and tried in the USA if the USA makes abortion illegal?
If they cross legally
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,204
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If they cross legally

Let's assume that they do cross legally, as is usually the case today. A USA citizen (or resident) crosses into Canada nd procures an abortion then returns to the USA. The same applies to a USA woman crossing into Mexico and then returning to the USA. All legal with passports and everything.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The trouble with creating exceptions is that we can already see where exceptions have landed us.
Nonsense. If that were a serious consideration, almost no law would be on the books since there is always going to be some exception.

The mature and intelligent approach to such legislation is to take it head on, knowing that there are complications, and come up with the best decision possible. The notion that we should run and hide because lawmaking requires some effort and care OR that we should just throw up our hands and adopt an "Anything Goes" policy is not responsible, not Christian, and not moral.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,283
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Nonsense. If that were a serious consideration, almost no law would be on the books since there is always going to be some exception.

The mature and intelligent approach to such legislation is to take it head on, knowing that there are complications, and come up with the best decision possible. The notion that we should run and hide because lawmaking requires some effort and care OR that we should just throw up our hands and adopt an "Anything Goes" policy is not responsible, not Christian, and not moral.
Right on
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah said:

Why I'm Pro-Life



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 some 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. 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 AND babies.




.



If we want to take a specific stance, and expect others to follow that stance, we need an appeal to an appropriate authority. A personal conviction is all I need to obey restrictions greater than might be considered necessary. If I expect other Christians to follow my conviction I need an appeal to Scripture; if I expect others who don't necessarily follow Christ to follow it then I need an appeal to an authority accepted by them.


IMO, all that is needed to define this as murder is 1) The biology of the victim is human. 2) The killing was intentional. I don't think it is necessary to quote a verse of the Christian Scriptures, "Thou shalt not kill an unborn child."




An appeal to Scripture should not be adequate to change the law of the land


The relevant Scripture however is "Thou shall not kill." As I understand it, the Hebrew word "kill" here means to intentionally murder a homo sapiens. IMO, if one can prove that a baby doesn't become a homo sapiens until the very last cell of the last toe to exit the birth canal - then, as a result, the DNA changes and we now have a homo sapiens (rather than say a frog or bunny rabbit, lol).



Hence, to answer the question of whether abortion should be illegal we need to determine whether or not the fetus can be considered a person in its own right.


I disagree.


"Person" is a LEGAL term defined by law makers (the POWERFUL). It means only and exclusively whatever the powerful want it to mean. The Nazi's could insist it doesn't apply to Jews or Gypsies or homosexuals or Jehovah's Witnesses. And of course, the framers of the US Constitution could determine that the African is only 2/3's of a "person" and thus can be personal property and treated like cattle. This "She may be a human but she's not a PERSON" argument has been used many times in order to deny human rights and abuse (even murder) other humans, and was key to the whole "pro-choice" argument of the slavery defenders in the USA. It's a dangerous argument because it simply changes the discussion from life to power - who has more power than another and thus can do with the less powerful as they please.



f we take a stance that the fetus is a person in its own right the next question is at what point does it become a person in its own right? Is it at conception? Implantation? At the point it becomes feasible that it might live unaided if it were born prematurely?



I disagree.


IMO, the problem for the pro-death crowd is at what point does the DNA of the child change from frog to homo sapiens? What changes at the micro-second that the last bit of the toe exiting the birth canal mean that now we have a human whereas before that second, we had a ____________? Murder - by definition - is the intentional killing of a human. If I kill a bunny, I suppose I need to indicate such was a bunny and not a homo sapiens..... if one kills an unborn child before the last bit of the last toe exits the birth canal, I think it needs to be indicated the victim was not a homo sapiens but perhaps a bunny rabbit.


But of course, for the pro-death crowd, none of this matters. They won't talk about any of this because it's all irrelevant to them. The issue for them is POWER. Who has more POWER than the other - and thus can do to them as they wish?



For myself the answer I find least problematic is at implantation. This is probably before the time the mother even knows she is pregnant.


But of course, the law is the baby may be killed by forcably stopping the last bit of the child from exiting and then by some means murdering her - by twisting the head, snapping the neck, is common. Note that the pro-abortion crowd is opposed to any restrictions because such denies the ultimate power of others over that baby. I think most pro-life folks would be happy with the implantation point because it would eliminate all abortions.



"I'm pro-choice I just think the choice is made in the bedroom" - my mother.



- Josiah




.
 
Top Bottom