A question on Abortion

[SPF]

A fetus doesn’t have an independent life before about the 6 th month

A human being that isn't viable is still created in the Image of God and still possesses the same inherent moral worth and value as a fetus that is viable.

Discriminating against humans and calling one that is dependent as less morally valuable and discardable is wrong.

That’s one reason that some Christians object to birth control and tell women to submit to their husbands. That has been a Church teaching for centuries and it’s abusive of women

And women ought to submit to their husbands, that's what Scripture teaches. However, likewise husbands ought to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. And what did Christ do for the Church? He died for her.

And you clearly are continuing to just parrot atheists and don't realize how much better of a place women are in the world now thanks to Christianity.

I've noticed absolutely no difference between what you type and what atheists type, seriously.

 

[Brightmoon]

. I already have said that if the atheists are correct then I’ll agree with them . I’ve always known that I have more in common with a secular humanist than with a fundamentalist. Independent life for a fetus starts at around 6 months . No matter how you spin it that doesn’t change . Before then it’s not capable of independent life it’s part of the woman

 

[chilehed]

Why is that?

Because that's an intrinsic part of what human beings are.

Is it because an embryo has a soul?

The soul is the principle that animates a living body; everything that's alive has a soul. Only human beings have rational, immortal souls; lower animals and plants do not.

 

[nolidad]

So I was just wondering what kinds of responses pro life people might give for the following:

Lets say you're a man, and your wife is raped, and she has a high probability of dying if she carries on through the pregnancy and gives birth.

If an abortion could be conducted in the first few weeks of pregnancy while the baby is still in an embryo stage, where it would not experience pain, would an abortion then be potentially acceptable?

And sometimes I wonder, what if the baby grows up, then spreads genes of that rapist that perhaps promotes rape in future progeny. What are pro life people's thoughts on these two topics?

Having had to live through a similar experience, i can answer on what we believed was the will of god.

first off, abortion is wrong no matter what.

my wife experienced a tubal pregnancy. The doctors told us ( and we went to a catholic hospital) that there was no technology to move the baby to the womb and if we didn't act, the baby would rupture my wife and if not given medical attention both would die .

So no matter what we had to choose- let both die or let just one die. those were our only options unless god would give a strong word from someone that the baby woud be miracuously moved.

We opted for teh abortion and mourned for the baby that we had to give up so my wife could live.

Having said that, what conditions in your scenario would cause your wife to have a high probability of death by giving birth? There are C-sections before the terminus time wherew both wife and baby can live, so what is the missing condition ?

 

[SPF]

I’ve always known that I have more in common with a secular humanist than with a fundamentalist.

If you don't find that concerning, you should.

Independent life for a fetus starts at around 6 months . No matter how you spin it that doesn’t change

If by independent you're referring to when a fetus becomes viable, able to survive on its own (not actually on its own), outside the womb, then yes, that's around 24 weeks.

But viability has nothing to do at all with moral worth and value, those two are unrelated. Our moral worth and value is rooted in the immutable, perfect character of God, whose image we are created in.

I hope you aren't discriminating against humans and asserting that some are less morally valuable than others simply because they aren't as developed. Human development afterall does take about 25 years. Yet at no point during our development are we not a human being, possessing inherent moral worth and value.

 

[Brightmoon]

If you don't find that concerning, you should.

If by independent you're referring to when a fetus becomes viable, able to survive on its own (not actually on its own), outside the womb, then yes, that's around 24 weeks.

But viability has nothing to do at all with moral worth and value, those two are unrelated. Our moral worth and value is rooted in the immutable, perfect character of God, whose image we are created in.

I hope you aren't discriminating against humans and asserting that some are less morally valuable than others simply because they aren't as developed. Human development afterall does take about 25 years. Yet at no point during our development are we not a human being, possessing inherent moral worth and value.

why ? I’m proud of being a New York liberal . I like my non Christian neighbors and don’t think they’re going to hell. I’m a firm supporter of women’s rights and of the right to choose. I like being scientifically literate ! I support gays and their right to not be abused or harassed while living their lives ! I don’t want to be a fundamentalist because I consider that behavior to be toxic in a lot of ways

 

[SPF]

I like my non Christian neighbors and don’t think they’re going to hell.

Do you think hell is something that the Bible made up to scare people? What happens to non-Christians when they die?

I’m a firm supporter of women’s rights and of the right to choose

Yes, you've made it clear that you have no concern at all for the unborn and think the are less than human and it doesn't matter if we kill them or not.

I like being scientifically literate

Except from what I've seen on this forum you actually... aren't. You tend to just parrot what secular educators say, placing Scripture as a secondary authority.

I support gays and their right to not be abused or harassed while living their lives !

Well, I agree that Christians as a whole have really failed in loving and treating the homosexual community with respect.

Anyway, thanks for sharing.

 

[mreeed]

KomatiiteBIF, of course if you want to speak so strictly, yes, God is the only one who can bring into existence from absolutely nothing, and he chose to do this only at creation as far as we would know. For the purposes of this discussion, however, this is mostly just semantics. In this view strictly speaking, perhaps even God did not bring life into existence, but merely fashioned it out of the previously existing atoms and molecules that He created. So what?

Life begins at conception because life begins to develop itself at conception, life essentially being the quality of being able to develop and then sustain oneself. (Within the environment it finds itself in, and notwithstanding God still being the one who 'knits' these things.) Life is a quality of being, not a stage of being. Can we appeal to the dictionary as an impartial arbiter? The dictionary definition of life is not arbitrary, but technical and lasting. Here are two:

• The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
• The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Cookies and embryos are not analagous. There is nothing inside any of the ingredients of a cookie that propels it to become anything other than what it is. Leave the ingredients alone or let the cook abandon the project at any point before completion, and nothing will happen, cookies will never result.

In the case of an embryo, a sperm and an egg on their own, are just that, a sperm and an egg. On their own they cannot develop into anything further, and cannot sustain themselves for any significant length of time, and have no purpose in and of themselves. But once they unite, development happens, and barring intervention, is sustained in the womb, and life begins.

 

[mreeed]

By what logic? That destruction of life is wrong? Well we do that every day when we eat steak and chicken. Or veal and chicken nuggets. We kill innocent babies, millions of them, every day, every hour even, to fill out supermarkets.

So in order to justify your idea, the human non-sentient embryo, a grouping of cells, must have greater intrinsic value, than the life of any animal of the animal kingdom (aside from mankind).

Even though a dog can experience fear and pain and suffering if you kick it, it's life, according to pro life advocates, is intrinsically worth less than the embryo which doesn't experience any of the above.

And this position, I disagree with.

And then there is the comparison between causing an adult or animal suffering, and terminating the life of an embryo at a stage where cannot feel pain. You make a good point here in terms of our conscience in causing another creature distress, and at the least, the way we treat the animals we use for our food, and the extent we truly need to use them as such. While humans have intrinsic worth as made in the image of God, and are not directly comparable to the animals, we should indeed care more about our fellow creatures than we do.

But what does the capacity or awareness of suffering have to do with the value of anything? It may and should factor into our decision-making in a moment in time, but has no bearing on the value of anything involved. The value of a thing is surely inseparable from its function and potential and how replaceable it is. Our function and potential as human beings created in the image of God is limitless, and we are unique and irreplaceable. While God in His mercy has made it that physical death does not need to be the end for people, He has a purpose for life on this earth, and has made it clear that we are accountable for the killing of human life.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because that's an intrinsic part of what human beings are.


The soul is the principle that animates a living body; everything that's alive has a soul. Only human beings have rational, immortal souls; lower animals and plants do not.

This is all subjective. Humans have intrinsic value greater than other animals because that's just the way it is? Lower animals don't have souls?

There's no substance in these words. Nobody has a definition for "lower animals" nor do we experience souls or a lack thereof. It's not like something branded on our foreheads that is distinguishable.

 

[Job 33:6]

KomatiiteBIF, of course if you want to speak so strictly, yes, God is the only one who can bring into existence from absolutely nothing, and he chose to do this only at creation as far as we would know. For the purposes of this discussion, however, this is mostly just semantics. In this view strictly speaking, perhaps even God did not bring life into existence, but merely fashioned it out of the previously existing atoms and molecules that He created. So what?

Life begins at conception because life begins to develop itself at conception, life essentially being the quality of being able to develop and then sustain oneself. (Within the environment it finds itself in, and notwithstanding God still being the one who 'knits' these things.) Life is a quality of being, not a stage of being. Can we appeal to the dictionary as an impartial arbiter? The dictionary definition of life is not arbitrary, but technical and lasting. Here are two:

• The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
• The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Cookies and embryos are not analagous. There is nothing inside any of the ingredients of a cookie that propels it to become anything other than what it is. Leave the ingredients alone or let the cook abandon the project at any point before completion, and nothing will happen, cookies will never result.

In the case of an embryo, a sperm and an egg on their own, are just that, a sperm and an egg. On their own they cannot develop into anything further, and cannot sustain themselves for any significant length of time, and have no purpose in and of themselves. But once they unite, development happens, and barring intervention, is sustained in the womb, and life begins.

What you're doing here is distinguishing between the animated and inanimated, which is great. And so, the question then becomes, what makes human animated embryos more intrinsically valuable than wild life?

Why can we slaughter and eat billions of animals a year (or month?), Where animals experience pain and suffering, but it would be the gravest of sins to consider abortion of a non-sentient embryo?

Also, an embryo kind of isn't self sustaining. The mother sustains it, but it itself, much like the sperm and egg, would perish without being tended to. A cow for example, is far more self sustaining, as are other full grown animals, than an embryo, yet they are viewed as less than an embryo.

 

[SPF]

This is all subjective. Humans have intrinsic value greater than other animals because that's just the way it is?

Ummmm, it’s because this is what Scripture teaches.

I’m confused, you are a Christian, right? Do you not believe that God created mankind as a unique creation, created in His Image, and that he gave the animals to mankind to rule over and have dominion? Remember where he said we could eat them?

Did you ever go to Sunday School? Do you go to Church now?

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, I don't think I'd agree that life begins at conception. I would say that a sperm is alive and lives. And sperm exist prior to conception.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ummmm, it’s because this is what Scripture teaches.

I’m confused, you are a Christian, right? Do you not believe that God created mankind as a unique creation, created in His Image, and that he gave the animals to mankind to rule over and have dominion? Remember where he said we could eat them?

Did you ever go to Sunday School? Do you go to Church now?

Hold on, does scripture say that animals don't have souls?

 

[Job 33:6]

@mreeed

"The value of a thing is surely inseparable from its function and potential and how replaceable it is. "

And an embryo, I would say, is for practical purposes, functionless. As mentioned above, a cow could be said to be more self sustaining than an embryo. So why not place this cows value above the embryo?

The discussion falls toward the question of what an embryo "could eventually become". But I say, who is to say that a cow could not "eventually become" something more as well.

 

[SPF]

Also, I don't think I'd agree that life begins at conception. I would say that a sperm is alive and lives. And sperm exist prior to conception.

Have you not read ANYTHING I’ve posted for you? A sperm is not a human being, a zygote is.

Hold on, does scripture say that animals don't have souls?

No.

 

[SPF]

Also, I don't think I'd agree that life begins at conception. I would say that a sperm is alive and lives. And sperm exist prior to conception.

You’re wrong and you’re running out of excuses for your continued ignorance.


“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.” Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

 

[Job 33:6]

Have you not read ANYTHING I’ve posted for you? A sperm is not a human being, a zygote is.

No.

We are talking about animated life.

Let's look at the quote again:

"Life begins at conception because life begins to develop itself at conception, life essentially being the quality of being able to develop and then sustain oneself."

It's interesting the way this is worded because it suggests that life exists prior to beginning to develop itself. which is to say that life didn't actually begin at conception but rather only began to develop itself at conception.

But as noted above, an embryo at conception cannot actually sustain itself, but rather is completely dependent on a mother for its sustenance.

These really are all just arbitrary terms.

Meanwhile we have someone else who posted earlier who said that the beginning of life has nothing to do with anything physical or material but rather is purely a spiritual or metaphysical concept.

 

[Job 33:6]

Having had to live through a similar experience, i can answer on what we believed was the will of god.

first off, abortion is wrong no matter what.

my wife experienced a tubal pregnancy. The doctors told us ( and we went to a catholic hospital) that there was no technology to move the baby to the womb and if we didn't act, the baby would rupture my wife and if not given medical attention both would die .

So no matter what we had to choose- let both die or let just one die. those were our only options unless god would give a strong word from someone that the baby woud be miracuously moved.

We opted for teh abortion and mourned for the baby that we had to give up so my wife could live.

Having said that, what conditions in your scenario would cause your wife to have a high probability of death by giving birth? There are C-sections before the terminus time wherew both wife and baby can live, so what is the missing condition ?

Thank you for sharing and I'm terribly sorry for your loss.

My concept is purely hypothetical just for the sake of investigating ideas. However my mother had an immune response of some kind that nearly killed her. My scenario is hypothetical but given the complex nature of childbearing, I think it's fair to consider different possibilities.

And the scenario you described in your own personal life is the kind of idea that I think is worth considering. Abortion is a terrible thing, But ultimately the question is if there is ever a scenario in which abortion is the feasible choice. Is there ever a scenario where a choice is needed.

And maybe instead of all out bans on all types of abortions, Maybe there should be room for those 1% of extreme cases where the mother is in danger. And I just threw in other hypothetical concepts related to things like sexual assault just to add to the question of if there should be options. I have a cousin who raped a woman, she abducted her and held her at knife point. And sometimes I wonder, As a married man myself, what if my spouse were sexually assaulted and then later put in a scenario where her life was endangered by the pregnancy.

It's a fair question. And what I found from most people on this topic is that while a lot of people are opposed to abortion, It seems like even the people who are staunchly pro-life also understand that there should be room for those extreme cases. That's the impression that I get from the responses here in this topic.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Only human beings have rational, immortal souls" @SPF

You've never seen a soul, never touched a soul or heard sounds of a soul. And yet you are willing to establish your ethics based on this understanding of souls.