The Abortion Debate Again

[Bible-boy]

In another thread on another topic the abortion debate popped up once again.

In that thread the Poster Magnetic Poles said:

The point is there is great divergence in science and among theologians about when life begins. Killing a baby is wrong. But many, including Christians, would not agree that a blastocyst is a "baby". Even misusing the term "baby" makes meaningful debate impossible, as in most cases we seem to not be talking about a baby, but a mass of cells with the potential to someday become a baby. Nobody wants to kiss and cuddle a mass of cellular matter.

Rather than reinvent the wheel I'll just quote from noted Christian Ethicist, Scott Rae on the subject:

Although the Bible never specifically states that “the fetus is a person” and “Thou shalt not have an abortion,” it is misleading to insist that the Bible nowhere prohibits abortion. The general tenor of Scripture is resoundingly pro-life. Although some texts on the surface appear to support a pro-choice position, such support is not borne out by further examination of the texts in their context.

The Bible clearly prohibits the taking of innocent life in the Fifth Commandment: “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13). The biblical case against abortion, therefore, is made by equating the unborn child in the womb with a child or adult out of the womb. It is not sufficient to show, as some pro-life advocates attempt to do, God is deeply involved in fashioning the unborn in the womb, and thus deeply cares about the unborn. Given his role as Creator of all the universe, the same thing could be said of the animals. God is involved in the creation of animals and cares deeply for them as well. But from that alone, it does nit follow that animals have the same rights as people, since God also gave people dominion over the animal kingdom. The pro-life advocate must show that God attributes the same characteristics to the unborn in the womb as to the person out of the womb. In other words, Scripture must indicate a continuity of personal identity when describing the unborn.

The passages cited below are not an exhaustive list of texts that could refer to abortion, but they represent the clearest indications of a continuity of personal identity that begin at the earliest points of pregnancy and continues into adulthood.

In the account of the first birth, when Eve gave birth to her son Cain, person language is used to describe Cain. In Genesis 4:1, the text states that, “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, ‘With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.’” Here Cain’s life is viewed as a continuity, and his history extends back to his conception. Eve speaks of Cain with no sense of discontinuity between his conception, birth, and postnatal life. The person who was conceived was considered the same person who was born. Had Eve not given birth to Cain, she still would likely have said that she conceived Cain, the person.

This continuity between conception and birth is clearer in Job 3:3, which states, “May the day of my birth perish, and the night it was said, ‘A boy is born!’” This poetic passage employs what is called synonymous parallelism, in which the second line of poetry restates the first one, essentially saying the same thing in different language. This type of parallelism suggests that the child who was “born” and the child who was “conceived” are considered the same person. In fact, the terms born and conceived are used interchangeably here, suggesting that a person is in view at both conception and birth. This is strengthened by the use of the term boy in the second half of the verse, which speaks of conception. The woman did not conceive a thing or a piece of tissue, but a “boy,” a person. The Hebrew term for “boy,” gerber, is also used in other parts of the Old Testament to refer to a man (Ex. 10:11; Deut. 22:5; Judg. 5:30). Thus, in the same sense that an adult man is a person, the individual conceived in Job 3:3 is a person.

Other passages describe God knowing the unborn in the same way he knows a child or an adult. For example, in Jeremiah 1:5, God states, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Here it seems clear that God had a relationship with and an intimate knowledge of Jeremiah [in the womb] in the same way he did when Jeremiah was an adult and engaged in his prophetic ministry. In the womb he was called to be a prophet, something that was commonly done with other prophets when they were adults. One should be careful not to take the parallelism too far in this text, since it would extend the argument for personhood farther than one might want. A similar text occurs in Isaiah 49:1, which states, “Before I was born the LORD called me [literally, “from the womb the LORD called me”]; from my birth he has made mention of my name.” Here the person in question was both called and named prior to birth, indicative of a personal interest that parallels the interest God takes in adults. Since the person in view in Isaiah 49:1 is the Suffering Servant, Jesus Christ, this passage may be a reference to preexistence. Another indication that the unborn are objects of God’s knowledge may be found in Psalm 139:13-16, which clearly shows that God is intimately involved in forming the unborn child and cultivating an intimate knowledge of that child.

Some people may object to the use of these texts, suggesting that all of them refer only to God’s foreknowledge of a person prior to birth. However, in passages such as Genesis 4:1 and Job 3:3, the person who eventually grows into and adult is the person who is in view in the womb. A second objection that can be raised is that texts such as Psalm 139:13-16 speak only of the development of a person in the womb, not of the fact that what is in the womb is indeed a person. However, these texts suggest that in the womb from conception is a person with potential for development, not merely some being who will develop into a person at some point in the gestational process. These texts, particularly Psalm 139, strongly suggest a continuity of personal identity that runs from conception to adulthood.

Two other passages highlight this continuity of personal identity. Psalm 51:2 says, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Here David is confessing not only his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and premeditated murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (see 2 Sam. 11-12), but also his innate inclination to sin. This is a characteristic shared by all people and David’s claim is that he possessed it from the point of conception. Thus, the inclination to sin is attributed both to adult persons and the unborn. Using synonymous parallelism similar to that in Job 3:3, David appears to treat birth and conception as practically interchangeable terms. Finally, the Greek term for “baby,” brephos, is applied to a child still in the womb in Luke 1:41-44 as well as to the newborn baby Jesus in Luke 2:16.

*The poster placed some text in bold for emphasis.

 

[Bible-boy]

Post Continued:

Perhaps a more explicit reference to the significance of the birth of the baby (brephos) Jesus comes from the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth in the early days of her pregnancy. Mary visits Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56) only a few days after she has found out that she is pregnant with Jesus. The account of the angel’s announcement (vv. 26-38) indicates that Mary left in haste to visit Elizabeth and share this news with her. Allowing for travel time of roughly two weeks, we perceive that when she arrives at Elizabeth’s home, Mary is in the very earliest stages of her pregnancy, with a fetus that is less than three weeks old. Upon arrival at Elizabeth’s home, Mary is immediately recognized as “the mother of my Lord” (v. 43). Even though she is carrying a very small, relatively undeveloped fetus, she is clearly recognized as a mother, and by implication, Jesus is recognized as her son, a baby. Further, John the Baptist leaps in Elizabeth’s womb, perhaps signifying his recognition of the significance of Jesus’ conception and in utero development.

What is clear is that all of the parties involved in the narrative—Mary, John, and Elizabeth—recognize that something very significant is occurring which is bound up with Mary being pregnant with the Messiah. The significance of the incarnation, though likely not grasped in its fullness, is nonetheless recognized, not a Jesus’ birth, but far earlier, in the earliest stages following conception. That is, the incarnation is recognized as having begun months prior to Jesus’ actual birth. From the earliest points of life in the womb, Mary and Elizabeth realize that the incarnation began with Jesus’ conception and that the Messiah took on human form in all of its stages, embryonic life included.

The general tenor of Scripture appears to support the idea that the unborn is considered a person by God, being described with many of the same characteristics that apply to children and adults. However, a handful of passages seem to indicate that the unborn is less than a full person, and that the Bible does not consider the unborn to be the equivalent of an adult in terms of its essential personhood. The primary text that calls this into question is Exodus 21:22-25, which records a specific law designed to arbitrate a very specific case. The passage states,

“If two men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e. to the woman], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

Pro-choice advocates contend that since the penalty for causing the death of the fetus is only a fine, whereas the penalty for causing the death of the mother is death, the fetus must not be deserving of the same level of protection as an adult person. It must have a different status, something less than that of full personhood that merits a life-for-life penalty if taken. However, there is significant debate over the translation “gives birth prematurely.” For the pro-choice advocate, the interpretation has no scholarly consensus. The most likely translation is “she give birth prematurely” (so NIV), implying that the birth is successful, creating serious discomfort for the pregnant woman, but not killing her or her child. The normal Hebrew word for miscarriage is the term shakal, which is not used here. Rather the term yasa is used. It is normally used in connection with the live birth of one’s child. The fact that the normal term for miscarriage is not used here and a term that has connotations to live birth is used suggests that the passage means a woman who gives birth prematurely. This would make more sense of the different penalties accruing to the guilty party. Perhaps the phrase “if there is no serious injury” (v. 23) would apply to either the woman or the child, so that if the woman actually did have a miscarriage, the punishment would be life for life. Even if the correct translation were “she had a miscarriage,” it would not necessarily follow that the unborn has less of a claim to personhood, since penalty and personhood are not necessarily related.

Source: Source: Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2 ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, pg. 128-132.

 

[Bible-boy]

Personhood of the fetus continued:

Most philosophers agree that the fetus either has personhood from the point of conception or it acquires it at some point during the process of gestation. A small minority of thinkers hold that not even the newborn baby possesses personhood, thus making infanticide theoretically justifiable in some cases. But most thinkers agree that once the fetus emerges from the womb as a newborn child, it is a person with full human rights. Thus the question under debate is, At what point in the process of gestation does the fetus possess personhood? A wide variety of different points have been suggested. These are called “decisive moments,” referring to a “moment” at which the fetus can be said to be a person. In this section we will discuss these different moments.

Often a distinction is made between the fetus being a human being and the fetus being a person. Such a distinction is highly arbitrary, since the essence of the fetus is unchanged throughout the process of gestation. None of the different decisive moments suggest any relevant change in the essence of the fetus. Thus a constant process of growth and development continues from conception to adulthood.

In the abortion debate one commonly hears voices suggesting that no one has a way to determine for sure when personhood begins [like BHO’s “above my pay grade” comment]. Taking an agnostic approach to the issue, these people argue that science has provided no clear answer to the question. They maintain that since it is essentially a religious or philosophical issue and cannot be proven conclusively, it should be left to individual choice.

In response to this, the same can be said of the pro-choice view that allows for abortion. By permitting abortion throughout almost the entire nine months of pregnancy, pro-choice advocates are actually making a strong statement that personhood doesn’t begin until birth. We will examine birth as a decisive moment below. In addition, if one is admittedly agnostic about when personhood is acquired, then surely it is preferable to err on the side of life. If we are not sure that the fetus is a person, then society should not permit the taking of the life of the fetus through abortion. For example, if I am hunting with a friend who enters the woods and I then hear what sounds like the rustling of a deer at the same spot where my friend entered, I had better not shoot. After all, I cannot be sure whether the rustling sound was made by my friend or the deer. If in doubt, one should not shoot into the trees. Likewise, if in doubt about the personhood of the fetus, one should not risk the life of the fetus, since it may be a person whose life is being ended by abortion. Uncertainty about the status of the fetus justifies caution, not abortion.

Source: Source: Rae, Scott B., Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, pg. 138.

*Comments in brackets [ ] were added by the poster. Likewise, the poster placed some text in bold font for emphasis.

 

[Bible-boy]

Personhood of the Fetus Continued:

The most commonly proposed decisive moment, and the one currently endorsed by the Supreme Court is viability, which is the paint at which that fetus is able to live on its own outside the womb. At this point of about 24—26 weeks of gestation, the fetus is able to live on its own, a fact that is deemed significant enough to grant it the status of a person. Although it may still depend on medical technology, it no longer depends on it uterine environment.

One problem with viability as a determinant of personhood is that it cannot be measured precisely. It varies from fetus to fetus and medical technology is continually push viability back to earlier stages of pregnancy. Thus, viability keeps changing, which raises questions about its reliability as an indicator of personhood. So what does viability actually measure? Viability has more to do with the ability of medical technology to sustain life outside the womb than it has to do with the essence of the fetus. Viability relates more to the fetus’ location and dependency than to its essence or its personhood. Thus, no inherent connection exists between the fetus’ ability to survive outside the womb and its essence. Rather viability measures the progress of medical technology in helping the fetus to survive in a different location.

Perhaps the next most commonly proposed decisive moment is brain development, or the point at which the brain of the fetus begins to function, which is about 45 days into the pregnancy. The appeal of this decisive moment is the parallel with the definition of death, which is the cessation of all brain activity. Since brain activity is what measures death, or the loss of personhood, it is reasonable to take the beginning of brain activity as the indication of personhood. The problem with the analogy to brain death is that the dead brain is in an irreversible condition, unable to be revived. The brain of the developing fetus is only temporarily nonfunctional. Its electroencephalogram (EEG) is only temporarily flat, whereas the EEG of a dead person’s brain is permanently flat. Also, the embryo from the point of conception has all the necessary capacities to develop full brain activity. Until about 45 days of gestation, those capacities are not yet realized but are latent in the embryo. Just because the capacity is not exercised is not a necessary comment on the essence of the fetus, since that capacity is only temporarily latent, not irreversibly lost. Thus, using brain activity as the decisive moment for personhood raises serious questions about its usefulness in determining viability.

Source: Rae, Scott B., Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, pg. 139.

*The poster placed some text in bold font for emphasis.

 

[Bible-boy]

Personhood of the Fetus Continued:

A third proposal for a decisive moment is sentience, that, the point at which the fetus is capable of experiencing sensations, particularly pain. The appeal of this point for the determination of personhood is that if the fetus cannot feel pain, then there is less of a problem with abortion, and it disarms many pro-life arguments that abortion is cruel to the fetus.

As is the case with the other decisive moments, however, sentience has little inherent connection to the personhood [essence] of the fetus. This decisive moment confuses the experience of harm with the reality of harm. It does not follow that the fetus cannot be harmed simply because the fetus cannot feel pain or otherwise experience harm. Even id I am paralyzed from the waist down and cannot feel pain in my legs, I am still harmed if someone amputates my leg. In addition, to take sentience as the determinant of personhood, one would also have to admit that the person in a persistent vegetative state (i.e. irreversibly comatose), the momentarily unconscious person, and even the sleeping person are not persons. One might object that these people once did function with sentience and that the loss of sentience is only temporary. But once that objection is made, the objector is admitting that something besides sentience determines personhood, and thus sentience as a decisive moment cannot be sustained.

Another idea suggested as a decisive moment is quickening, that is, the first time that the mother feels the fetus move inside her womb. Before the advent of sophisticated medical technology such as ultrasound, which can see the fetus from the early stages of pregnancy, quickening was considered the first indication of the presence of life within the mother’s womb. Yet quickening as a determinant of personhood cannot be maintained because the essence of the fetus does not depend on someone’s awareness of it. This criteria confuses the nature of the fetus with what one can know about the fetus. Philosophically speaking, this decisive moment confuses epistemology (knowledge or awareness of the fetus) with ontology (the nature or essence of the fetus). A similar confusion is involved in the use of the appearance of humanness of the fetus as a decisive moment for personhood. The appeal of this is that the fetus begins to resemble a baby, it makes it at least emotionally more difficult to consider abortion. But the appearance of the fetus has no inherent relationship to its essence. Also, from the point of conception, the fetus has all the capacities necessary to look like a normal human being. Certainly one would not want to determine personhood on such a subjective criteria as the appearance of humanness.

A few hold that birth is the decisive moment at which the fetus acquires personhood. But no essential difference exists between the fetus on the day before its birth and the day after its birth. The only difference is location, that is, the baby now lives outside the womb. But as is the case with viability as a determinant of personhood, the essence of personhood involves more than simply location. It does not follow that my nature as a person changes just because I change locations.

Source: Rae, Scott B., Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, pg. 139-140.

*The poster placed some text in bold font for emphasis.

 

[Bible-boy]

Personhood of the Fetus Continued:

Finally, implantation has been proposed as a decisive moment for a number of reasons. First, at this point the embryo establishes it presence in the womb by the “signals” or the hormones it produces. Second, 20 to 50 percent of the embryos spontaneously miscarry prior to implantation, which suggests that implantation is critical not only for the development of the embryo but to its essence. It would also suggest that we have the obligation to save all of the embryos, something that very few people consider. Third, twinning, or the production of twins, normally occurs prior to implantation, suggesting that individual human personhood does not begin until after implantation.

Although placing personhood at implantation would not justify very many abortions, the implications of the decisive moment are significant. First, it would make any birth control methods that prevent implantation, such as many birth control pills and the “abortion pill,” RU-486, morally acceptable, since an unimplanted embryo is not considered a person. Further, embryos from in vitro fertilization can be either discarded or used for experimentation without any moral problem, since those embryos lack personhood.

In response to the proposal of implantation as a decisive moment, it does not follow that personhood is established at implantation just because the embryo establishes its presence by the hormonal signals it produces. The essence of the fetus cannot be dependent on another’s awareness of its existence, whether it is physical awareness, as in quickening, or chemical awareness in the production of specific hormones. Second, just because up to 50 percent of conceived embryos spontaneously miscarry, it does not follow that personhood comes at implantation, since the essential nature of the fetus is not dependent on the number of embryos that do or do not survive to implant. Even if the embryo is fully a person, we are not morally obligated to save all of them since we have no moral obligation to interfere in the embryo’s natural death. Not interfering to prevent a spontaneous miscarriage is not the same as killing an embryo just as removing life support from a terminally ill patient is not the same as actively killing such a patient. Third, just because twinning occurs prior to implantation, it does not follow that the original embryo was not fully a person before the split. Thus, the proposal of implantation as a decisive moment for personhood generates some very significant questions.

In light of the above discussion, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the fetus has full personhood from the moment of conception. The argument could look something like this:

An adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of the organism from conception (this premise has hardly any debate).

From conception to adulthood, this development has no break that is relevant to the essential nature of the fetus (this is the debatable premise, but the above discussion shows that all the proposed breaks are not comments on the nature of the fetus).

Therefore, one is a human person from the point of conception onward (no one debates that this conclusion follows from the above two premises).

Also, from conception the fetus has unique and separate genetic identity, needing only nutrition and shelter to develop into a full newborn baby and later into an adult. From the moment of conception, it possesses all the capacities necessary to develop into a full adult. Thus it is incorrect to say that the fetus is a potential person. Rather, the fetus is a person with full potential to develop all of its latent capacities. It is a full human being, a person that is in the process of becoming a fully grown adult, with no breaks in the process of its development.

Source: Rae, Scott B., Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, pg. 141-142.

*The poster placed some text in bold font for emphasis.

 

[LeBuick]

Bible Boy,

All this that you posted doesn't address MP statement. He said "some theologians" differ with this view. What you posted is one person's view which is highly debatable as he takes many stretches to make his points...

Ex...

In the account of the first birth, when Eve gave birth to her son Cain, person language is used to describe Cain. In Genesis 4:1, the text states that, “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, ‘With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.’” Here Cain’s life is viewed as a continuity, and his history extends back to his conception. Eve speaks of Cain with no sense of discontinuity between his conception, birth, and postnatal life. The person who was conceived was considered the same person who was born. Had Eve not given birth to Cain, she still would likely have said that she conceived Cain, the person.

Nothing in this continuity definitively says when life begins. I don't think anyone denies a person is conceived, the question is when does the person become a live. Even after death, we still call them a dead person. So person doesn't equal life. He takes stretches like this in the majority of these statements.

 

[Bible-boy]

Bible Boy,

All this that you posted doesn't address MP statement. He said "some theologians" differ with this view. What you posted is one person's view which is highly debatable as he takes many stretches to make his points...

Ex...



Nothing in this continuity definitively says when life begins. I don't think anyone denies a person is conceived, the question is when does the person become a live. Even after death, we still call them a dead person. So person doesn't equal life. He takes stretches like this in the majority of these statements.

Like RevMitchell said in response to Magnetic Poles:

Neither disagreement between scientists and theologians nor whether or not someone wants to kiss the baby is a standard for truth in this matter.

And Magnetic Poles replied that he fully agrees.


You are equivocating between Rae's use of the term "Personhood" and your understanding of the use of the term "person." This is a formal fallacy on your part and does not disprove or refute Rae's position.

 

[4His_glory]

Interesting stuff Bible-boy.

Even if we can not determine when life begins (and I believe that the Scriptures are clear) it is best to err on the side of life rather than death. Abortion should not even be a debate for Christians.

 

[donnA]

when 2 humans join together they create another human, not something else, not lifeless matter, but another human. This is the way God's creation is designed to function. Every egg, and every sperm has the potential to be a human, but once they join together they are a human, man (mankind) has reproduced after his kind.

 

[mcdirector]

I've been willing to listen to all sides of this issue but my opinion has not changed. God knows us before we are conceived. God knows us when we are two cells. We may not be cuddly then, but we are God's creation then. I understand the argument about not being a person until we take our first breath. I do. I understand it all.

What I also understand is that we are created by God and that is nothing to mess with. AND since there are so many opinions about when life began, I'm gonna back up to the first one, because I'm not going to mess with this glorious, wonderful, awesome creation of God.

 

[SBCPreacher]

I've been willing to listen to all sides of this issue but my opinion has not changed. God knows us before we are conceived. God knows us when we are two cells. We may not be cuddly then, but we are God's creation then. I understand the argument about not being a person until we take our first breath. I do. I understand it all.

What I also understand is that we are created by God and that is nothing to mess with. AND since there are so many opinions about when life began, I'm gonna back up to the first one, because I'm not going to mess with this glorious, wonderful, awesome creation of God.

What she said!

If "we" are not certain (although I am convinced) when life began, we know that it wasn't before conception. So to be safe, that should be a good point to say it begins.

 

[KenH]

There is no good reason for abortions. If in attempting to save the life of a pregnant woman and the unborn baby is killed as an unfortunate side effect that is not the same thing as an abortion where the intention is to kill the unborn baby. Using abortion as a method of birth control should be condemned by everyone.

 

[OldRegular]

In another thread on another topic the abortion debate popped up once again.

In that thread the Poster Magnetic Poles said:

Originally Posted by Magnetic Poles

The point is there is great divergence in science and among theologians about when life begins. Killing a baby is wrong. But many, including Christians, would not agree that a blastocyst is a "baby". Even misusing the term "baby" makes meaningful debate impossible, as in most cases we seem to not be talking about a baby, but a mass of cells with the potential to someday become a baby. Nobody wants to kiss and cuddle a mass of cellular matter.

There may be some divergence among theologians as to when life begins since some seem to take on a god complex but I do not believe there is much disagreement between scientists, at least those qualified to know.

Any scientist with a brain knows that when conception takes place a new life is formed. That life is the same as its progenitors, nothing else. If Magnetic Poles has information to the contrary it should be shared not hoarded.

 

[righteousdude2]

When It Comes to ABORTION: There is No Debate!!!

There can be no debate when it comes to taking the life of an unborn child. We are called to a standard of Holiness, and killing an unborn life is not reflective of Holiness.

Sorry, but, this is one area where being a believer requires ALL of us to move beyond the flesh from which we were once part of. We are now a new man/woman, and the Word calls ALL of us to be Holy, and to lift up Holy hands. There is no way on this earth that a true believer can lift up Holy hands and claim to be striving for holiness while we support elected officials who support abortion and use our tax dollars to fund abortion clinics, and aborting the innocent life of even one unborn child.

Oh, by the way, there is no doubt in my mind, or heart-of-hearts, that life begins at conception. And that statement is NOT above my "paygrade!"

Shalom,

Pastor Paul:type:

 

[OldRegular]

There can be no debate when it comes to taking the life of an unborn child. We are called to a standard of Holiness, and killing an unborn life is not reflective of Holiness.

Sorry, but, this is one area where being a believer requires ALL of us to move beyond the flesh from which we were once part of. We are now a new man/woman, and the Word calls ALL of us to be Holy, and to lift up Holy hands. There is no way on this earth that a true believer can lift up Holy hands and claim to be striving for holiness while we support elected officials who support abortion and use our tax dollars to fund abortion clinics, and aborting the innocent life of even one unborn child.

Oh, by the way, there is no doubt in my mind, or heart-of-hearts, that life begins at conception. And that statement is NOT above my "paygrade!"

Shalom,

Pastor Paul:type:

Great post! Really a call for true believers to follow our Lord and Savior.

 

[Bible-boy]

I find it odd that we see the abortion issue raised (by both sides) in political debates; however, when we have a thread devoted solely to that topic with good solid information and sources presented there is little participation.

 

[OldRegular]

when 2 humans join together they create another human, not something else, not lifeless matter, but another human. This is the way God's creation is designed to function. Every egg, and every sperm has the potential to be a human, but once they join together they are a human, man (mankind) has reproduced after his kind.

Donna,

Thank you. You are correct and I could not have said it better myself.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I find it odd that we see the abortion issue raised (by both sides) in political debates; however, when we have a thread devoted solely to that topic with good solid information and sources presented there is little participation.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I tire of the same old back and forth that inevitably turns into personal attacks, insults, and ridiculously heated and emotional rhetoric. We have been over it many times, no one is going to change their mind. Sometimes it is better to agree to disagree and talk about something else.

 

[Bible-boy]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I tire of the same old back and forth that inevitably turns into personal attacks, insults, and ridiculously heated and emotional rhetoric. We have been over it many times, no one is going to change their mind. Sometimes it is better to agree to disagree and talk about something else.

In another thread where the abortion issue popped up as an off-topic side issue you stated:

The point is there is great divergence in science and among theologians about when life begins. Killing a baby is wrong. But many, including Christians, would not agree that a blastocyst is a "baby". Even misusing the term "baby" makes meaningful debate impossible, as in most cases we seem to not be talking about a baby, but a mass of cells with the potential to someday become a baby. Nobody wants to kiss and cuddle a mass of cellular matter.

I tried to provide a new thread specifically addressing the issues you raised. The quoted material I provided from Scott Rae fully addresses your concerns over when life begins and the idea of "potential to someday become a baby." No one here has engaged in personal attacks etc. So let's discuss the issues and leave persons and personalities aside.:thumbs: