Roe vs. Wade and the Supreme Court

[hedrick]

A baby in the womb has its own distinct set of genetic code separate from the mother's. That's science. It's not a chair or a lamp or a puppy. It's genetic code for a human that has life and is growing.

My hair and a dead body have DNA as well. There are additional requirements to be an actual person. As I said, this concentration on DNA looks like a heretical kind of anthropology, though I suspect it’s more an attempted scientific justification of a belief that doesn’t actually come from scientific sources.

 

[Lamb]

My hair and a dead body have DNA as well. There are additional requirements to be an actual person. As I said, this concentration on DNA looks like a heretical kind of anthropology, though I suspect it’s more an attempted scientific justification of a belief that doesn’t actually come from scientific sources.

Good that you confirm that the unborn is human. I mean, your hair and body came from a human being, not a chair or a doorknob or a dog.

 

[hedrick]

Good that you confirm that the unborn is human. I mean, your hair and body came from a human being, not a chair or a doorknob or a dog.

Good that you confirm that the unborn is human. I mean, your hair and body came from a human being, not a chair or a doorknob or a dog.

Of course it's human, but so is a dead body or the human hair in a wig. That doesn't have much to do with abortion.

 

[Lamb]

Of course it's human, but so is a dead body or the human hair in a wig. That doesn't have much to do with abortion.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. You agree the unborn is human and that the mother who wishes the abortion is wanting the death of that human.

 

[hedrick]

Well, now we're getting somewhere. You agree the unborn is human and that the mother who wishes the abortion is wanting the death of that human.

It is human, but not a human. Again, the hair in a wig is human, but it is not a human.

 

[Lamb]

It is human, but not a human. Again, the hair in a wig is human, but it is not a human.

No, the hair belongs to a human but is not itself A HUMAN. A baby in a womb is a human being that is growing and can have movement and feel pain at certain points in its lifespan while in the womb.

 

[Faith]

Fetuses feel pain at whichever time isn’t much of a reason to oppose abortion when Plan B and the Pill are considered wrong when they prevent pregnancy and terminate at conception when the embryo can’t feel.

 

[Faith]

Question....


For those who support that abortion is simply the sole choice of the mother.... any or no "reason" is fine as long as it belongs to the mother.... and includes the choice of killing her innocent, defenseless son or daughter... right up to the moment when the last cell on the last toe exits the birth canal (even if the head is pushed so that that toe remains in the canal so that the baby's neck can still be cut).... all that is morally good and right. The position of the pro-abortion camp in the USA, Communist China and North Korea.... then why THAT point in time????? That microsecond...;. that event.... the last cell of the baby allowed to leave the birth canal?

Why is it morally good and right BEFORE the last cell is allowed to exit the birth canal but not a microsecond later? Or one day after that? Or one year after that? What happens as that last cell is allowed to exit the birth canal that makes it morally good BEFORE then but immoral after that?????

Might children be regarded as unwanted AFTER that moment? Even if not so BEFORE that moment? If "wanted" and 'unwanted" is the determining issue for the morality of terminating a human life, then what difference does it make if that last cell has exited the birth canal? Might a mother determine her child is unwanted AFTER that last cell exited the birth canal? What if that happens when the child turned 13? Why is "unwanted" make it morally good at one second before the last cell exits the birth canal but not on the 13th birthday if "unwanted" by the mother is the issue?????

And what if the mother felt she could afford the baby before that last cell exited the canal but then she gets fired from work and now can't afford her baby? If it's okay to kill her BEFORE that last cell exited because she can't afford her, why not a week later when she can't afford her???? If economics is the moral determining factor, why before but not after?

What if someone THOUGHT they were having a boy suddenly discovers at the birth event that well, it's a girl.... can't the mother choose to "terminate" that girl because she doesn't want a girl and didn't know she was having one before then? Shouldn't abortion be allowed for at least some time AFTER birth????? And what if it's discovered the little girl is disabled in some way and that wasn't known before birth.. but is discovered one year later.... and the mother doesn't want a disabled child, why can't she kill her daughter who is not wanted???? She didn't know this before birth, not until a year later, but it's okay to kill someone who is disabled, but why before the last cell is allowed to exist the birth canal (when this wasn't known) but not okay one year later??????


?

The pro choice camp say that nobody can tell them what they can or can’t do with their own bodies. The disabled child in your scenario isn’t a part of her body anymore.

 

[Lamb]

Fetuses feel pain at whichever time isn’t much of a reason to oppose abortion when Plan B and the Pill are considered wrong when they prevent pregnancy and terminate at conception when the embryo can’t feel.

But they're alive and growing and science isn't 100% that they can't feel as an embryo because science is always advancing.

 

[Faith]

But they're alive and growing and science isn't 100% that they can't feel as an embryo because science is always advancing.

True

 

[tango]

Fetuses feel pain at whichever time isn’t much of a reason to oppose abortion when Plan B and the Pill are considered wrong when they prevent pregnancy and terminate at conception when the embryo can’t feel.

Does anyone outside the Catholic church consider the pill to be wrong? What is Plan B? I'm guessing some kind of contraception but not one I've come across before.

 

[Faith]

Does anyone outside the Catholic church consider the pill to be wrong? What is Plan B? I'm guessing some kind of contraception but not one I've come across before.

I‘m LCMS and it’s unclear to me as to whether we can or can’t take The Pill. I’m 61 so it’s no longer an issue for me, anyway, but I would like a definitive answer on it. I was told by one of our seminarians that we can’t, but don’t know if he’s right or not.
Plan B is an oral contraceptive to be taken after intercourse if you believe you’re at risk for pregnancy. The commercials hawk it as a means to prevent pregnancy, but I believe that if fertilization occurs, Plan B will expel the fertilized egg.

 

[tango]

I‘m LCMS and it’s unclear to me as to whether we can or can’t take The Pill. I’m 61 so it’s no longer an issue for me, anyway, but I would like a definitive answer on it. I was told by one of our seminarians that we can’t, but don’t know if he’s right or not.
Plan B is an oral contraceptive to be taken after intercourse if you believe you’re at risk for pregnancy. The commercials hawk it as a means to prevent pregnancy, but I believe that if fertilization occurs, Plan B will expel the fertilized egg.

Sounds like Plan B is what I've always known as the morning after pill. I think you're right in that it's designed to prevent a fertilised egg from implanting and preventing pregnancy rather than preventing conception (and so it's not technically a contraceptive at all).

So much of contraception really depends on what you believe as far as when life begins. If life begins at conception then logically things like Plan B or an IUD must be regarded as murder weapons. If life begins at implantation, or at some other point after implantation, then the moral situation changes because they are nothing more than ways to prevent life from beginning.

With regard to the acceptability or otherwise of things like the pill I can't help thinking that if one contraceptive is allowed it makes no sense to disallow others. Although I disagree with the Catholic church's stance prohibiting all artificial contraception it does have the benefit of being consistent. It doesn't seem to make sense to allow use of one contraceptive but not another.

 

[Josiah]

I‘m LCMS and it’s unclear to me as to whether we can or can’t take The Pill. I’m 61 so it’s no longer an issue for me,

I'm 40 and it IS an issue for me (also a member of the LCMS)

As I understand it, the CTCR some years ago did report that IT concluded that all "artificial" forms of birth control are wrong. This is a long standing position of most Protestant denominations, although some changed in the past 50 years or so. BUT (and I think this is important), this never became official. I doubt 99% of LCMS people even know this commission said this years ago, it's NOT something heard in sermons, Bible studies or much of anywhere else.

IMO, I doubt the LCMS would support anything that intentionally "terminates" a life already begun. But I think the de facto position is that what prevents that is a personal decision.... perhaps (at most) the LCMS unofficially recommends the exclusion of birth control but it's not binding, it's only a recommendation.

While I'm passionately pro-life (a position formed when I was Catholic), I'm not at all opposed to birth control. Indeed, I think this is an important part of decreasing abortion (which is, in fact, simply a birth control option - albeit one AFTER life has begun). To me, LIFE (and the 5th Commandment) is the issue here, so killing that is sinful. Preventing that life, IMO, is not sinful but some would disagree.



.