Liberty News Forum - Political News Forum

Conscientious

LNF Staffer3

Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 80
Edinburgh
Gender: male

Re: Can a Christian be Pro-Abortion ?
Reply #10 - Dec 31^st, 2007 at 7:37pm

Dear Mercy for All,

You ask whether I as a Christian have freedoms. Well, yes. And since you ask I quote Jesus own words and those from the New Testament -

1. 'He whom the Son has made free is free indeed'.

and again - (this time, from St Paul) -

Romans 8:21
2. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

3.James 2:12
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

etc.

Regards

Back to top

IP Logged

Conscientious

LNF Staffer3

Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 80
Edinburgh
Gender: male

Re: Can a Christian be Pro-Abortion ?
Reply #11 - Dec 31^st, 2007 at 8:10pm

Dear Mercy for All,

You make some very good points and I want to thank you for this chance of a fair exchange. We both agree that in this imperfect world abortions happen. No matter what we personally think about it they do. The issue we are discussing here is whether a woman can undergo an abortion without the condemnation of man. I believe (and have said so) that each case is for the woman (under God and/or her husband) to decide.

But let me answer (or try to answer) your points -

You ask -

1. Christ is the fulfillment of the law? Are you flexible on that? Or dogmatic? No, I am flexible on this, since I realise there are those who choose to remain under the law. And, for them, it is so.

On rights being counterbalanced by responsibilities you ask -

2. 'Says who' ?

Well, as said before, by the fact that justice is symbolised by balance. That every action does have a reaction. That even in chemistry and physics the outcome of an action has a reaction. That every law has an impact, and that it is the responsibility of us all to obey the law. Penalties exist if we do not. And freedoms result from the application of the law.

What is a just an equitable law if it does not have responsibility to keep it ?

3. Do I believe in Karma ? No, I do not, since I believe in the grace of God - the benefits of which are far greater than any good I may ever do. D

Do I believe my actions can affect outcomes for others ? Yes, most certainly.

Do I believe that at some level I have responsibility for others. Yes, definitely. I accept responsibility because I am at an age where I am accountable for my actions.

4. You ask whether babies incur responsibilities from the moment they emerge from the womb. No, they do not incur responsibilities until they reach the age of accountability. From the time of their birth until they reach the age of accountability their responsibilities belong to their parents/those who care for them.

You ask -

5. What kind of responsibility do they incur outside the womb that they didn't have inside the womb (?)

In reply -

As just said, a baby has no responsibility since its responsibilities are accepted by its parents and those who care for it from the moment it is born until it reaches the age when it is accountable and until it reaches maturity. That is why the welfare of a child is the legal and moral responsibility of the adult/s who care for it.

Yes, a mother is responsible for her children. A baby is born and she is responsible for its welfare. Sure.

But no, she is not free to kill her child. To kill a child is murder. She has of course no right to kill a child. The child is legally born and she must accept responsibility for it. Both moral and legal.

You ask which is the higher law. God's law or American law.

In reply -

God's law is supreme.

You ask whether God's law regards a foetus as a non-human being.

In reply -

Does God regard an acorn as an oak tree ? Or an egg as a chicken ? We can see that these are, potentially, oak trees and chickens. So it is with human sperm, with a foetus, and with the wonderful development of a baby in the womb of a mother. And since all life comes from God, yes, it is a tragedy and a sad thing whenever a pregancy is aborted. We both strongly agree about this. But the issue before us is whether or not a woman should be condemned who, for one reason or another terminates her preganancy, and whether she has the right to do so.
It seems to me that if we have the power to condemn a woman who undergoes an abortion we are, in effect, claiming to be judges over her, judges of divine law. In such a case please say which law and which judges are worthy of condemning her ?

I must again say that a baby, officially, legally, is born. That is when it is a person. That is when it's own life begins.

You ask at what specific point a foetus becomes a person. May I suggest that we consider this interesting question by reference to the opposite extreme - the moment of death ?

The medical profession tells us that the moment of death is the time when a death certificate can be written for the person concerned. Yes ? It also defines death as the time when that body (though it is physically still present) has not a spirit - since the spirit of the person leaves the body. In the same way, a child is born and its first breath in this world is (in my opinion) the moment when it is born. Babies tend to cry at the moment of birth. Or are gently made to cry, so that they take their first breath away from the mother. It is at this moment (I suggest) when the child is born. In both cases (life and death) the breath is to be compared to spirit. The baby is born. The man dies. In both cases breath.

Thank you for saying I am wrong. It's my privilege to have at least shared my considered views. I completely respect your own views and hope our exchange was useful.

Very best wishes.

Back to top

IP Logged

jeff

Ex Member

Re: Can a Christian be Pro-Abortion ?
Reply #12 - Dec 31^st, 2007 at 10:26pm

Conscientious wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 7:04am:

Hi there Jeff,
1. You write (regarding cases where a woman has to have an abortion to prevent her dying) -
'The exception, if this is one, does not negate the rule. That's a very basic fallacy'.
In reply - Is it ? Don't you agree that each case is to be judged on its merits ? You are right that the rule is not negated by exceptions. But what rule are we discussing here at the outset ? We are discussing the rule which is the freedom of a woman when she is pregnant. But you wish to set this freedom to one side in the mistaken belief that a foetus has rights superior to the pregnant woman herself. It is plainly not so. It is your own basic fallacy which you wish to impose on every woman. As already said, the foetus becomes a child, both medically and also legally, at the time when it is born. Why is this not part of your realisation ?

the point is that you attempting to create a rule (in favor of legalization) based on the exception. that was the premise of that point that you made and i'm pointing out that it is based on fallacy.

what you are pointing out here is another fallacy: that a rule can't necessarily be negated by exceptions.
no, we are not discussing the "rule which is the freedom of a woman when she is pregnant." we are discussing the morality of abortion. whether that is legalized by the the rights of woman is a legal issue.
you are attempting the demonstrate the morality of its permissibility based on exceptions.

Quote:

2. You write -'I'm pretty sure the Bible is inflexible on things like murder. if the unborn child is a person, then i would say that God is quite inflexible on it'.
Murder (which is only one form of killing a person) is used by you as a description of abortion. But here again you are wrong. Firstly, a person becomes a person, as said several times, at the moment he/she is born - both legally and medically. Why do you repeatedly fail to admit this fact is true ? He/she is named, recorded, and joins humanity at the moment of birth, not before. But murder applies only to people. People who (by logic, by medicine and by certified fact) are already born. So your emotive use of the term 'murder' is really inappropriate and reveals that you have an agenda.

you are bringing back the concept of abortion being murder, which i believe presupposes the end of the argument (which i would acknowledge is a necessary end of the argument). however, can you not admit that God, demonstrated by the Bible, is inflexible on murder?

the point of when life begins actually didn't enter into my point here, you brought that in. it's digressive. my point is that God is inflexible on plenty of things and not everything is permissible, beneficial or even allowable.

Quote:

3. You write -
'Arguing the law in a case of morality is a bit of a non-sequitor. No ? If you are accepting the law as a fair measure of what is right and wrong, you would have to accept that at one time abortion was wrong, but now it's right. also that at one time slavery based on race was at one time right, but now it's wrong. This is another fallacy in this argument - the appeal to law which is based on the discussion of morality'.
Morality is itself the basis of law. No I do NOT accept that 'at one time abortion was wrong but now is 'right'. Abortion is as said a very unfortunate event and should not, in an ideal world, occur. It is no more right or wrong today than it always was. I do not say it is 'right'. Nor do I say physical 'death' or 'illness' or 'slavery' or 'religious intolerance' is right. All these things are products of an imperfect world. And we as moral people have to deal with the fact of their imperfection. The way we do so best is to first recognise the freedoms of accountable people.

is morality the basis of law? then how can it shift so dramatically, even within a span of thirty years. remember, abortion was criminal (on demand) within the last thirty years.
these examples (such as slavery) are not just a matter of being the product of an imperfect world, but have been a matter of law. was that law based on morality? i am pointing out the weakness in your appeal to law when law is not always based on morality (unless morality is a generally fluxuating concept).
you need to focus on the rebuttals of the specific points and not digress. legal does not necessarily mean right. thus, your appeal to law in your multi-faceted argument is refuted.
Quote:

4. You write - 'Infirm and mentally retarded people have no responsibilities, and yet they have legal rights. same with small children, infants and babies. no responsibilities, yet they have rights. this point, therefore, is false'.
But, with respect, you are again wrong. Infirm and mentally retarded people DO have rights and they DO have responsibilities. But their responsibilities are legally given to their carers. Isn't that so ? Their rights remain theirs.

again, this goes back to the argument (which you did not introduce in your initial post) concerning when life starts. you assert that life starts at birth, but on what do you base that? this is actually the crux of the abortion argument and as long as this definition is not mutually agreed on, there is no meeting of the minds. pro-abortionists tend to define that life starts at birth, pro-lifers at conception.

Back to top

IP Logged

jeff

Ex Member

Re: Can a Christian be Pro-Abortion ?
Reply #13 - Dec 31^st, 2007 at 10:35pm

Conscientious wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 7:04am:

5. Yes, a pregnant woman has both rights and responsibilities. Her responsibilities are various. But no politician or pope or any person outside of her husband or God has a right to force her on this issue. Her rights and responsibilities for her own body are her very own, before God.

this, again, is the bottom line of this argument and simply restating it does not make it true. there are a lot more people involved in abortions.
she, like the mother of a child that is born, is the parent of the child; that has legal responsibilities attached to it.

Quote:

6. You write -

'I just don't see how killing an unborn child is expressing love'

What do you mean. You don't see/understand love in all its expressions ? I just don't see how burning Joan of Arc at the stake is expressing love also. Was it ? How about killing adults in wars ? Can you imagine a situation where killing an unborn child may be expressing love ? Think about this please.

Abortion IS an unfortunate thing. Who believes otherwise ? It should NOT happen in an ideal world. But we are not in an ideal world. The science of medicine exists because sickness exists in an imperfect world. It is not for you or me to pontificate on whether a particular woman loves the foetus or does not. Such a matter is for her to answer for before God. And not for politicians or theologians to pontificate on.

no, actually, i don't see how burning Joan of Arc at the stake is expressing love for her. do you? maybe that's a part of that sliding moral code. you might not appreciate that expression of love if it was enacted towards you. and i guess that's why such a code of love was a part of the New Covenant.
apply that to your own life. would you have wanted to be aborted? that is the basic measure and scale of the law of love.

Quote:

7. Yes, 'One size of shoe does NOT fit everyone'. So too with abortion. It is patently obvious that each and every case of abortion has its own story. How blunt an instrument is that which makes every abortion a 'murder'. Nothing is more ridiculous and insensitive. There are literally thousands of different scenarios including those where the woman will die without abortion. That is why the spirit of the law in such matters is superior, in every way, to a dogma.

you are again applying the exception to make the rule (the one about the woman who will die without the abortion). this doesn't make your argument because it's a possible exception to make the rule (which you are admitting when you say there are literally thousands... etc.) are the literally thousands all cases in which a woman's life is in danger if she carries to term or delivers a baby? that makes your point, again, fallacious. thus, this point must be surrendered. your multi-claimed argument is falling on fallacy and redundancy.

Back to top

IP Logged

Conscientious

LNF Staffer3

Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 80
Edinburgh
Gender: male

Re: Can a Christian be Pro-Abortion ?
Reply #14 - Dec 31^st, 2007 at 11:22pm

Hi Jeff,

First, Happy New Year 2008 !

In my view morality is the same in all ages. The fact that this imperfect world has a different view of what is moral/immoral according to which age we are talking about only proves that man-made laws are a poor reflection of morality. Slavery is immoral and yet (as you say) it existed in all ages and still does exist. But on this issue of abortion perhaps you agree we are dealing here (or trying to deal here) with the question of how Christians (or those who put God's law first) ought to deal with this issue. And to settle whether there is (or is not) a resolution to this issue which is moral, just and, yes, Christian.

You summarise this discussion well by saying 'pro-abortionists tend to define that life starts at birth - pro-lifers at conception'.

Since you raise this interesting point, I feel it only right to agree that life DOES begin at the moment of conception. There is (to me anyway) no doubt about it. A foetus develops within the womb of a woman and as it grows we see that it reacts to stimuli. It gets nourishment. There is no doubt it is living. I recall too that in the Christian gospels John the Baptist leapt for joy while still in the womb of his mother - at the news of Christ's advent ! So, yes, certainly, there are good reasons to believe life does begin within the womb at the moment of conception.

We can ask how late a pregnancy can or should ever be medically terminated. Whether a day old conception despite it being a life IS a human being and whether ending that life is an act of murder, etc. Let me admit too, that from a technical point of view there can be no doubt that at conception human life begins. But I do not think it ridiculous to imagine situations (since many have existed) where the life of a woman would be lost unless she had an abortion. Surely in such cases we are wrong to describe such an operation as murder ? But, from such a technical viewpoint some could argue so. Again, there is I believe in the Old Testament laws making it a criminal offense for sperm to fall on the ground, etc. Doesn't sperm contain life also ? Isn't a seed life ? In what sense is it life ? These are also imporant questions, for sure.

I believe a woman should seriously consider abortion before she undertakes it. But I also believe the vast majority already do so. It IS a serious moral issue and I strongly believe abortion ought only to be tolerated after discussion with the woman on these issues, even on its morality/immorality. If a woman has no faith there should be no barrier to her having abortion. But if she does have faith she should certainly be asked to reconcile her faith with such an operation. Once again, each case deserves to be considered individually.

Some will say, of course, that every abortion is an abuse punishable by courts. Such courts would be illogical since they would presume guilt from the outset. They would be dogmatic courts. Virtually inquisitorial courts. Who sit on matters where they believe a criminal act has been committed. I can't agree with that idea. And, despite a living being being slowly formed as a foetus I'm still of the view (as is the law and the medical profession) that a person actually becomes a person at the moment of birth, before which it is of course a foetus, though living. It has no independent existence of its own. It has not yet been born.

These are extremely deep, profound issues. Sensitive ones too, of course. Perhaps it's right that there will always remain two schools of thought on this issue. One of them pointing to the moment of conception as the strictly legal start of life and the other to the moment of actual birth in this imperfect world. These need not be contradictory views. In fact, the space between them may be the resolution of this debate.

Perhaps, in the future, it will be possible to educate women about the fact that life DOES begin at conception and also to tolerate her will for abortion only if she is made to agree to that fact. But, as to the actual decision, it remains hers, before her husband/and/or God.

Regards

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 31^st, 2007 at 11:30pm by Conscientious »

IP Logged

Mercy For All

Hardhat
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker

Offline

Be completely alive until
you're completely dead.

Posts: 36,992
Gender: male

Re: Can a Christian be Pro-Abortion ?
Reply #15 - Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:40pm

Conscientious wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 7:37pm:

Dear Mercy for All,

You ask whether I as a Christian have freedoms. Well, yes. And since you ask I quote Jesus own words and those from the New Testament -

1. 'He whom the Son has made free is free indeed'.

and again - (this time, from St Paul) -

Romans 8:21
2. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

3.James 2:12
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

etc.

Regards

Did I ask that? I questioned whether all readers would acknowledge that you have specific freedoms because you are a Christian.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mercy For All

Hardhat
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker

Offline

Be completely alive until
you're completely dead.

Posts: 36,992
Gender: male

Re: Can a Christian be Pro-Abortion ?
Reply #16 - Jan 1^st, 2008 at 9:39pm

Conscientious wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 11:22pm:

Hi Jeff,

First, Happy New Year 2008 !

In my view morality is the same in all ages. The fact that this imperfect world has a different view of what is moral/immoral according to which age we are talking about only proves that man-made laws are a poor reflection of morality. Slavery is immoral and yet (as you say) it existed in all ages and still does exist. But on this issue of abortion perhaps you agree we are dealing here (or trying to deal here) with the question of how Christians (or those who put God's law first) ought to deal with this issue. And to settle whether there is (or is not) a resolution to this issue which is moral, just and, yes, Christian.

You summarise this discussion well by saying 'pro-abortionists tend to define that life starts at birth - pro-lifers at conception'.

Since you raise this interesting point, I feel it only right to agree that life DOES begin at the moment of conception. There is (to me anyway) no doubt about it. A foetus develops within the womb of a woman and as it grows we see that it reacts to stimuli. It gets nourishment. There is no doubt it is living. I recall too that in the Christian gospels John the Baptist leapt for joy while still in the womb of his mother - at the news of Christ's advent ! So, yes, certainly, there are good reasons to believe life does begin within the womb at the moment of conception.

We can ask how late a pregnancy can or should ever be medically terminated. Whether a day old conception despite it being a life IS a human being and whether ending that life is an act of murder, etc. Let me admit too, that from a technical point of view there can be no doubt that at conception human life begins. But I do not think it ridiculous to imagine situations (since many have existed) where the life of a woman would be lost unless she had an abortion. Surely in such cases we are wrong to describe such an operation as murder ? But, from such a technical viewpoint some could argue so. Again, there is I believe in the Old Testament laws making it a criminal offense for sperm to fall on the ground, etc. Doesn't sperm contain life also ? Isn't a seed life ? In what sense is it life ? These are also imporant questions, for sure.

I believe a woman should seriously consider abortion before she undertakes it. But I also believe the vast majority already do so. It IS a serious moral issue and I strongly believe abortion ought only to be tolerated after discussion with the woman on these issues, even on its morality/immorality. If a woman has no faith there should be no barrier to her having abortion. But if she does have faith she should certainly be asked to reconcile her faith with such an operation. Once again, each case deserves to be considered individually.

Some will say, of course, that every abortion is an abuse punishable by courts. Such courts would be illogical since they would presume guilt from the outset. They would be dogmatic courts. Virtually inquisitorial courts. Who sit on matters where they believe a criminal act has been committed. I can't agree with that idea. And, despite a living being being slowly formed as a foetus I'm still of the view (as is the law and the medical profession) that a person actually becomes a person at the moment of birth, before which it is of course a foetus, though living. It has no independent existence of its own. It has not yet been born.

These are extremely deep, profound issues. Sensitive ones too, of course. Perhaps it's right that there will always remain two schools of thought on this issue. One of them pointing to the moment of conception as the strictly legal start of life and the other to the moment of actual birth in this imperfect world. These need not be contradictory views. In fact, the space between them may be the resolution of this debate.

Perhaps, in the future, it will be possible to educate women about the fact that life DOES begin at conception and also to tolerate her will for abortion only if she is made to agree to that fact. But, as to the actual decision, it remains hers, before her husband/and/or God.

Regards

You seem to be very "black and white" on this--as if "abortion is wrong" means that it should never be used to save a mother's life. I'm not sure anyone here is saying that.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mercy For All

Hardhat
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker

Offline

Be completely alive until
you're completely dead.

Posts: 36,992
Gender: male

Re: Can a Christian be Pro-Abortion ?
Reply #17 - Jan 1^st, 2008 at 9:48pm

Conscientious wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 8:10pm:

You ask -

1. Christ is the fulfillment of the law? Are you flexible on that? Or dogmatic? No, I am flexible on this, since I realise there are those who choose to remain under the law. And, for them, it is so.

So...Christ is the fulfillment of the law if you believe so? Otherwise, not?

Quote:

On rights being counterbalanced by responsibilities you ask -

2. 'Says who' ?

Well, as said before, by the fact that justice is symbolised by balance. That every action does have a reaction. That even in chemistry and physics the outcome of an action has a reaction. That every law has an impact, and that it is the responsibility of us all to obey the law. Penalties exist if we do not. And freedoms result from the application of the law.

What is a just an equitable law if it does not have responsibility to keep it ?

Ah...well, in that case I'm sure a fetus has no problem keeping the law--thus making it a responsible entity. If for any reason it cannot keep the law, it is the mother's fault.

Quote:

3. Do I believe in Karma ? No, I do not, since I believe in the grace of God - the benefits of which are far greater than any good I may ever do. D

I appreciate the fact that you recognize grace to be opposite of karma.

Quote:

4. You ask whether babies incur responsibilities from the moment they emerge from the womb. No, they do not incur responsibilities until they reach the age of accountability. From the time of their birth until they reach the age of accountability their responsibilities belong to their parents/those who care for them.

So in what way are fetuses (feti?) different from children since neither incur responsibility?

Quote:

As just said, a baby has no responsibility since its responsibilities are accepted by its parents and those who care for it from the moment it is born until it reaches the age when it is accountable and until it reaches maturity. That is why the welfare of a child is the legal and moral responsibility of the adult/s who care for it.

Yes, a mother is responsible for her children. A baby is born and she is responsible for its welfare. Sure.

But no, she is not free to kill her child. To kill a child is murder. She has of course no right to kill a child. The child is legally born and she must accept responsibility for it. Both moral and legal.

What about this:

"A baby (whether born or unborn) has no responsibility...etc., etc., etc...and a mother must accept responsibility for it, both moral and legal, even before the baby is born"?

Quote:

You ask which is the higher law. God's law or American law.

In reply -

God's law is supreme.

You ask whether God's law regards a foetus as a non-human being.

In reply -

Does God regard an acorn as an oak tree ? Or an egg as a chicken ? We can see that these are, potentially, oak trees and chickens. So it is with human sperm, with a foetus, and with the wonderful development of a baby in the womb of a mother. And since all life comes from God, yes, it is a tragedy and a sad thing whenever a pregancy is aborted. We both strongly agree about this. But the issue before us is whether or not a woman should be condemned who, for one reason or another terminates her preganancy, and whether she has the right to do so.

Acorn and egg are comparable to ovum and/or sperm, but not fetus.

Where in the Bible does it talk about these kind of "rights"? I understand it to be particularly American. How is it particularly Christian

Quote:

It seems to me that if we have the power to condemn a woman who undergoes an abortion we are, in effect, claiming to be judges over her, judges of divine law. In such a case please say which law and which judges are worthy of condemning her ?

Where do you draw the line there? Do "we" have the power to condemn anyone for anything?

Quote:

The medical profession tells us that the moment of death is the time when a death certificate can be written for the person concerned. Yes ? It also defines death as the time when that body (though it is physically still present) has not a spirit - since the spirit of the person leaves the body. In the same way, a child is born and its first breath in this world is (in my opinion) the moment when it is born. Babies tend to cry at the moment of birth. Or are gently made to cry, so that they take their first breath away from the mother. It is at this moment (I suggest) when the child is born. In both cases (life and death) the breath is to be compared to spirit. The baby is born. The man dies. In both cases breath.

Spirit is breath? Breath is spirit? What about someone on an iron lung?

Quote:

Thank you for saying I am wrong. It's my privilege to have at least shared my considered views. I completely respect your own views and hope our exchange was useful.

Very best wishes.

Did I say you were wrong? I remember asking a lot of questions...

Back to top

IP Logged

jeff

Ex Member

Re: Can a Christian be Pro-Abortion ?
Reply #18 - Jan 1^st, 2008 at 10:22pm

Conscientious wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 11:22pm:

In my view morality is the same in all ages. The fact that this imperfect world has a different view of what is moral/immoral according to which age we are talking about only proves that man-made laws are a poor reflection of morality. Slavery is immoral and yet (as you say) it existed in all ages and still does exist. But on this issue of abortion perhaps you agree we are dealing here (or trying to deal here) with the question of how Christians (or those who put God's law first) ought to deal with this issue. And to settle whether there is (or is not) a resolution to this issue which is moral, just and, yes, Christian.

i agree that morality is an absolute issue, not dependent on shifting societal expectations or cultural shifts. as such, i would again state that this point that you raised in your initial post is irrelevant to the discussion. the legality or lack of legality of an act does not necessitate its morality.

Quote:

You summarise this discussion well by saying 'pro-abortionists tend to define that life starts at birth - pro-lifers at conception'.
Since you raise this interesting point, I feel it only right to agree that life DOES begin at the moment of conception. There is (to me anyway) no doubt about it. A foetus develops within the womb of a woman and as it grows we see that it reacts to stimuli. It gets nourishment. There is no doubt it is living. I recall too that in the Christian gospels John the Baptist leapt for joy while still in the womb of his mother - at the news of Christ's advent ! So, yes, certainly, there are good reasons to believe life does begin within the womb at the moment of conception.

so the bottom line is that destroying a fetus, is destroying a life. what we have to come to grips with every time then is which life has more value. you've raised the issue of the pregnant woman's life being in danger if she carries to term or continues to carry the unborn baby. this is a pretty good issue since it is the only example of a situation that may introduce moral ambiguity. there are two people's lives in the question.
however, in other situations you must measure different criteria. for example, whether to murder the life of the unborn child vs. the plans of the mother of the unborn child to pursue her education. this, i believe isn't really that big a dilemma. would it be a dilemma if the child was born?

Quote:

We can ask how late a pregnancy can or should ever be medically terminated. Whether a day old conception despite it being a life IS a human being and whether ending that life is an act of murder, etc. Let me admit too, that from a technical point of view there can be no doubt that at conception human life begins. But I do not think it ridiculous to imagine situations (since many have existed) where the life of a woman would be lost unless she had an abortion.

if you want to look at when it is appropriate, we should extend the scale to after the baby is born. since life starts at conception, the unborn baby is a person. you've acknowledged that the unborn is a living person and he or she should be treated as such.
Quote:

Surely in such cases we are wrong to describe such an operation as murder ?

i can see this as morally ambiguous for the exact reason stated above. however, i would again state that you cannot make a rule to accomodate everything because of an exception.
Quote:

Again, there is I believe in the Old Testament laws making it a criminal offense for sperm to fall on the ground, etc. Doesn't sperm contain life also ? Isn't a seed life ? In what sense is it life ?

i'd be interested to have a reference for that "law."
Quote:

I believe a woman should seriously consider abortion before she undertakes it. But I also believe the vast majority already do so. It IS a serious moral issue and I strongly believe abortion ought only to be tolerated after discussion with the woman on these issues, even on its morality/immorality. If a woman has no faith there should be no barrier to her having abortion. But if she does have faith she should certainly be asked to reconcile her faith with such an operation. Once again, each case deserves to be considered individually.

that's like saying someone has no faith so they shouldn't be bound by the constraints of killing other people or robbing them. please don't appeal to law again, because as i've stated that is aside from the moral discussion. are only religious people bound by moral law or are all people bound by it, regardless of whether they follow it?
Quote:

Some will say, of course, that every abortion is an abuse punishable by courts. Such courts would be illogical since they would presume guilt from the outset. They would be dogmatic courts. Virtually inquisitorial courts. Who sit on matters where they believe a criminal act has been committed. I can't agree with that idea. And, despite a living being being slowly formed as a foetus I'm still of the view (as is the law and the medical profession) that a person actually becomes a person at the moment of birth, before which it is of course a foetus, though living. It has no independent existence of its own. It has not yet been born.

but life starts at conception. and we all know that a baby for the first few years of life can also not sustain life on his or her own. you're backtracking on when life begins.

Back to top

IP Logged

Running Deer

LNF Representative2
LNF Bunker

Offline

Disloyal Opposition

Posts: 2,805
Gender: male

Re: Can a Christian be Pro-Abortion ?
Reply #19 - Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 8:41pm

The Bible doesn't directly address abortion, but it does address the accidental killing of a fetus. The punishment for accidentally killing a fetus under the Torah is less than accidentally killing a born human. This indicates that the Torah's authors considered the unborn to be less valuable or worthy of retribution than the born. So, it's entirely possible that abortion is not a particularly big deal. Since the Bible doesn't say one way or other, Christians are free to disagree vehemently about it.

Back to top

"If cousins, I would much prefer to marry one my Neanderthal relatives than a screeching chimpanzee which might bite my face off as has happened recently. Of course, chimps are not even a human species so procreation between humans and chimps is out of the question." - joe_christian, on sex

IP Logged