Abortion is Immoral: Change My Mind

[GodLovesCats]

Dr. Physicist: There is a big difference between the Bible saying nothing about when human life starts (at conception or birth) and Scripture specifically identifying one or the other as a human being. Do you have verses in mind that show SPF his claim zygotes are humans is wrong or assume just because zygotes are not mentioned in the Bible, nobody is human before birth?

 

[mnphysicist]

Perhaps there should be, or st least there should be discussion about how IVF is accomplished. But the fact that there is IVF the way it is has absolutely no bearing upon the morality of abortion. We need to understand the distinction between practice and principle.

IVF requires implanting many embryos, in the hopes that one will take which in some cases will then require abortion for the extra ones. The moral question remains in that scenario... I don't see how you can look at it any other way.

Miscarriages are a natural event. Perhaps there should be more research into what causes miscarriages and more should be done to prevent them. But again, that has nothing to do with the morality of abortion.

No, they are not all natural. We can prevent great numbers of miscarriages, but intentionally choose not to do so. One distinction is omission vs commission, but the ultimate moral issue remains.

I do however agree that a truly natural miscarriage, rather than one brought about due to the actions of fallen man, is vastly different than an abortion of convenience.

Do you have some supporting argument for why you reject P1? I’ve never heard a Christian deny P1 before. Ever.

P1 must be denied if it is dependent upon P2 as a fertilized egg may or may not become a single human being. The Chimera issue throws a major wrench into the works, and as such, ensoulment cannot occur at fertilization, unless a soul splits into 2 unique parts, and/or our souls are prexistent. In either case we end up in a big theological mess. Furthermore without ensoulment, does a human being exist, or is the fertlized egg more like mere animals, like our genetic ancestors Bonobo's or chimps? This too presents a huge mess, albeit we can look to the teachings of Augustine for some guidance.

P1 in isolation is fine and I do agree with it, ie, a living breathing baby is created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. Some Jewish teachings hold that ensoulment occurs at first breath, and there is scriptural support for such... but it is far from explicit. As such, to take a safe path, some will roll the time of ensoulment to a period earlier in the development cycle... but how far back it should go is an unknown. What is interesting is that Augustine held that abortion even if it were in an "animal" or "plant" state pre-ensoulment was immoral. In the mid 80's I knew how he got there, but those memories have long since faded. Which again is why I suggest looking to Catholic tradition to help with your arguments.

 

[mnphysicist]

Dr. Physicist: There is a big difference between the Bible saying nothing about when human life starts (at conception or birth) and Scripture specifically identifying one or the other as a human being. Do you have verses in mind that show SPF his claim zygotes are humans is wrong or assume just because zygotes are not mentioned in the Bible, nobody is human before birth?

No, not a doctor, I chose $ over a PhD thesis, and beyond that, my expertise in a couple of exceedingly narrow areas of physics has no bearing on this discussion. Scientific expertise does not translate across fields nor even in the same course of study for most folks. A single paragraph in a 800 page undergrad quantum physics book became my focus of study for a multitude of years... but a recent undergrad could likely blow me off a race course wrt the other 799.8 pages in the same book, much less other areas of physics.

Getting back to the scripture issue.
Genesis 2:7 makes a compelling case for ensoulment via breathing
But then you have a complication in Isaiah 42:5
And yet there is Ezekiel 37:6 too

And a bunch of others which support the Jewish teachings that life/ensoulment occurs at first breath...

And yet, there is the bit where John lept in Elizabeths womb in Luke 1:41... which poses all sorts of interesting things. How could he understand the spoken word? Would he have needed a soul to recognize Jesus, or could it be Elizabeths heart freaked out a bit which then impacted the unborn John, or could it be a supernatural thing? Its not explicit other than John leaping in the womb. This can give pause to the Genesis 2:7 text.

There is also Psalms 139:15 where things are strange, like possibly a primordial soup? and Psalms 139:14 where in God is working in the womb... and yet only 2 chapters prior, we have a blessing for infanticide in Psalms 137:9

 

[SPF]

IVF requires implanting many embryos, in the hopes that one will take which in some cases will then require abortion for the extra ones. The moral question remains in that scenario... I don't see how you can look at it any other way.

I get that, and the current practice is predicated and rationalized due to the current made up, unbiblical distinction between a human being and a human person. This practice is based upon a false principle. The practice doesn’t determine the principle. In other words, the practice of IVF has 100% no bearing upon the principles we are discussing.

No, they are not all natural. We can prevent great numbers of miscarriages, but intentionally choose not to do so.

Then we should! But the fact that we don’t doesn’t therefore mean abortion is moral. Again, practices don’t determine principles.

P1 must be denied if it is dependent upon P2 as a fertilized egg may or may not become a single human being.

The truthfulness of P1 is entirely independent from the truthfulness of P2. You can’t deny P1 purely because you don’t like what results from the combination of the two independent premises.

The Chimera issue throws a major wrench into the works, and as such, ensoulment cannot occur at fertilization, unless a soul splits into 2 unique parts

It doesn’t throw any sort of wrench. We would simply say, for example, that in the case of identical twins that the older twin came into existence at fertilization, and then the younger twin came into existence slightly after fertilization. In the case of a chimera, that would be a tragic scenario where one of the children died.

Augustine held that abortion even if it were in an "animal" or "plant" state pre-ensoulment

Augustine’s ignorance can be excused as when he lived he didn’t have the benefit of the scientific knowledge we have today

Getting back to the scripture issue.
Genesis 2:7 makes a compelling case for ensoulment via breathing

I always wonder if people actually read this passage before making this claim. This passage says absolutely nothing about Adam coming to life when HE breathed. It says that God, Himself, breathed life INTO Adam. In other words, God made Adam alive. The more accurate picture would be that Adam came alive and THEN breathed.

I am enjoying this conversation and appreciate your comments, but I’m not seeing anything that actually suggests that either P1 or P2 are actually false.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Ezekiel 37:6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah.

This is one of those verses which can be interpreted in totally different ways by itself.

"Upon you" and "cover you" mean the embryo was "you" before it had sinews, flesh, and skin, not just air to breathe. Therefore, "you shall live" coming after the breathing part specifically refers to living outside a mother's uterus, after all of your body parts have been created.

 

[SamsonXX]

Abortion isn't a lesser evil, it's a crime. Taking one life to save another, that's what the Mafia does. It's a crime. It's an absolute evil. Pope Francis

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. Me

 

[redleghunter]

Have you not read Numbers 5?

Then google "wormwood & abortion"

It's a complicated topic.

Not so complex when the Hebrew word for abortion or miscarriage is absent from the text of Numbers 5.

 

[redleghunter]

A baby, who is clearly "fully human" from the instant of conception is certainly the most innocent kind of human being you could encounter in this life.

Good point. Yet you have atheist writers for the Star Trek various series have star fleet captains refuse to remove microscopic life from some planet as it violates the prime directive. Go figure.

 

[redleghunter]

No, not a doctor, I chose $ over a PhD thesis, and beyond that, my expertise in a couple of exceedingly narrow areas of physics has no bearing on this discussion. Scientific expertise does not translate across fields nor even in the same course of study for most folks. A single paragraph in a 800 page undergrad quantum physics book became my focus of study for a multitude of years... but a recent undergrad could likely blow me off a race course wrt the other 799.8 pages in the same book, much less other areas of physics.

Getting back to the scripture issue.
Genesis 2:7 makes a compelling case for ensoulment via breathing
But then you have a complication in Isaiah 42:5
And yet there is Ezekiel 37:6 too

And a bunch of others which support the Jewish teachings that life/ensoulment occurs at first breath...

And yet, there is the bit where John lept in Elizabeths womb in Luke 1:41... which poses all sorts of interesting things. How could he understand the spoken word? Would he have needed a soul to recognize Jesus, or could it be Elizabeths heart freaked out a bit which then impacted the unborn John, or could it be a supernatural thing? Its not explicit other than John leaping in the womb. This can give pause to the Genesis 2:7 text.

There is also Psalms 139:15 where things are strange, like possibly a primordial soup? and Psalms 139:14 where in God is working in the womb... and yet only 2 chapters prior, we have a blessing for infanticide in Psalms 137:9

You are never going to have a good argument for ensoulment after birth for two reasons.

1. Adam and Eve were created adults and all other humans since them were procreated.

2. There’s ample Biblical evidence of God being involved in the earliest stages of development to include knowing them and filling them with the Holy Spirit.

I would also argue that if there is question on “when” then the moral response is to do no harm.

And I believe there is ample evidence that a body without a soul is the very definition of being dead in the Scriptures.

 

[redleghunter]

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. Me

If Captain America was actually German Stanos would still have the infinity stones.

 

[SamsonXX]

And then some.

 

[SamsonXX]

Abortion is the killing of a human being, which defies the word of God?

 

[kcnalp]

It's quite interesting that nowdays we can actually see into the womb and watch babies smiling and sucking their thumbs. I'm convinced that abortion is murder.

 

[usexpat97]

These heartbeat bills seem fair. When your heart starts, you are alive...and when your heart stops, you are dead. Simple enough. Not always true...you can be brain dead...but that is a nice, objective, legal measure.

 

[His student]

Have you not read Numbers 5?
It's a complicated topic.

It's not complicated at all. The taking of human life for convenience is a immoral.

Some try to say Numbers 5:11-31 is about God doing an abortion. One old edition of the New International Version mistakenly states that a miscarriage is in view in Numbers 5:21-22, 27.

But this is not what the passage says. Pregnancy is not hinted at much less mentioned. The only thing that even remotely sounds like pregnancy is the guilty wife’s stomach becoming bloated. Even then it says nothing about her being pregnant.

The passage simply doesn't say that drinking the concoction would cause a miscarriage. While, I suppose that drinking a poisonous mixture could cause a miscarriage -that is not what this passage is speaking of.

This forced interpretation has been refuted many times.

Frankly - it isn't likely that Roe v Wade will ever be completely reversed by even a conservative Supreme Court.

IMO - the only remedy is to chip away at the evil practice of abortion on demand with bills like this one. That's a good thing for the most innocent humans living among us. (Clearly living by the way.)

 

[GodLovesCats]

Abortion isn't a lesser evil, it's a crime. Taking one life to save another, that's what the Mafia does. It's a crime. It's an absolute evil. Pope Francis

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. Me

That is what soldiers do in combat.

Abortion is not a crime when the woman chooses to save herself instead of her baby's life.

 

[His student]

Some Jewish teachings hold that ensoulment occurs at first breath, and there is scriptural support for such... but it is far from explicit. As such, to take a safe path, some will roll the time of ensoulment to a period earlier in the development cycle... but how far back it should go is an unknown

How far back to roll the time of conception is not an unknown.

A Christ rejecting Jew without the Holy Spirit to guide him into truth could believe pretty much anything I suppose.

But any born again Christian who can't determine from the scriptures when Jesus became fully human might as well turn in his Bible.

 

[His student]

....... Abortion is not a crime when the woman chooses to save herself instead of her baby's life.

This is pretty much a red herring of the first order.

I challenge you to provide us with a few modern day instances where an abortion has been needed to save the life of the mother.

 

[GodLovesCats]

This is pretty much a red herring of the first order.

I challenge you to provide us with a few modern day instances where an abortion has been needed to save the life of the mother.

Preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancies are two causes of maternal death. Do I have to explain what those problems are?

 

[usexpat97]

Refusing chemo because it would harm the baby. Refusing drug treatment because the mother already has kidney and/or liver problems, and the drugs stress the kidneys and liver. A hypertensive mother who would probably stroke out during delivery. Congestive heart failure, which pregnancy doesn't help.

And sometimes, it's not the mother's first child. It's possible to have an abortion for selfless reasons, even if you don't agree with it. Not saying that everyone who CLAIMS to be doing it for selfless reasons really is, but....

And if your openly-stated aim is to "chip away" at abortion, then I do not suggest fighting the battle over medical reasons. It also doesn't help your cause against partial-birth abortions, since the reason people out there are fighting to allow those is because you have overtly stated you are trying to chip away at the whole thing. While you are trying to chip away at it, they are trying to hold the line.