Since we're doing abortion again

19,199 Views | 491 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by one MEEN Ag
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dilettante • 8:04a, 9/5/21
AG
Dilettante said:
When I say life, I'm talking about anything which is alive. I wouldn't say "a life". I don't think that's a meaningful statement. All life is made of cells. A cell is the only discrete living unit which can be concretely defined in space (not time) in a non arbitrary way. Multicellular organisms are not indivisible units of life, and they are technically many lives, not one. This isn't usually very useful information, but it is in this case.

You and I are a bunch of cells. They're all unique. They're all human (which itself is technically an arbitrary concept, but the edge cases don't really occur often enough for it to be a problem). Which ones do we care about? We don't care about all of them. Some of your cells may split off and fuse with someone else's. That makes a new cell, which is more unique than most others for a little while.

Why is uniqueness important? Why should I care? How unique does it have to be?

You would probably describe all this as technicality, but I don't think it is. I think we describe the world in ways that work pretty well, but this is an edge case. There is no reason to care about a single isolated cell.
If you believe that humans have a soul and a spirit that begins at conception then there is definitely a reason to care about a single isolated cell.

And obviously a zygote that has the potential to become a human is different than cells sloughed from the body daily.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 8:19a, 9/5/21
I've never understood the idea that a human is ensouled at conception. Is the idea that a sperm and egg have half a soul each, encased in the chromosomes? Because that's odd. If not, what makes that specific period special that it deserves a soul?
Reply Quote
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 8:38a, 9/5/21
AG
Sapper Redux said:
I've never understood the idea that a human is ensouled at conception. Is the idea that a sperm and egg have half a soul each, encased in the chromosomes? Because that's odd. If not, what makes that specific period special that it deserves a soul?
If I recall correctly you are a non believer? If not, please forgive me.

Christians believe we are more than just a clump of cells and that we are all emdued with a spirit and soul. It can not be explained by science but I believe it is born out by observation. And of course the Incarnation is the divine evidence of this concept to Christians.

And that is the fundamental difference on the issue. If you believe that a human becomes a "person" with a soul and spirit at conception, then it is murder.

If there is no soul and/or spirit then it is just a clump of cells and who cares?

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 8:52a, 9/5/21
I'm not a believer, but I am genuinely confused at how the union of a sperm and egg is seen as the moment of ensoulment. Traditionally it was believed to happen much later in the pregnancy (or even after birth). Heck, it wasn't even a consensus position amongst Christians until within our lifetimes. Logically it doesn't really follow given the complexities of conception, the number of spontaneous abortions early in the process, etc It just feels like an attempt to connect theology to science without fully considering the messy reality of the science.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 9:21a, 9/5/21
AG

Quote:
Traditionally it was believed to happen much later in the pregnancy (or even after birth). Heck, it wasn't even a consensus position amongst Christians until within our lifetimes.
Simply wrong. Absolutely wrong.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 9:51a, 9/5/21
Zobel said:

Quote:
Traditionally it was believed to happen much later in the pregnancy (or even after birth). Heck, it wasn't even a consensus position amongst Christians until within our lifetimes.
Simply wrong. Absolutely wrong.


No, it's not. The Catholic Church adopted conception earlier (in the 19th century), but there was a long history of people as learned as Thomas Aquinas arguing for a much later ensoulment. For Protestant denominations, opposition to abortion on the basis of ensoulment at conception was often a post-Roe phenomenon. So yes, as a consensus position, it's very recent. There was a lot of argument for centuries.
Reply Quote
88Warrior
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 10:05a, 9/5/21
"Traditionally it was believed to happen much later in the pregnancy (or even after birth). Heck, it wasn't even a consensus position amongst Christians until within our lifetimes"

So you're not a believer but you throw this out there as if you know our beliefs and history better than us Christians? At best a case of arrogance and at worse a bad troll attempt. All that aside, the basis of my objection to abortion is I believe that at conception life begins. Life with a soul from God himself. If you believe this as pro-lifers do then there can never be the "middle ground" that so many pro-choice folks claim to seek. So the debate will never end.
Reply Quote
1
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 88Warrior • 10:09a, 9/5/21
88Warrior said:
"Traditionally it was believed to happen much later in the pregnancy (or even after birth). Heck, it wasn't even a consensus position amongst Christians until within our lifetimes"

So you're not a believer but you throw this out there as if you know our beliefs and history better than us Christians? At best a case of arrogance and at worse a bad troll attempt. All that aside, the basis of my objection to abortion is I believe that at conception life begins. Life with a soul from God himself. If you believe this as pro-lifers do then there can never be the "middle ground" that so many pro-choice folks claim to seek. So the debate will never end.


It's not like the arguments were hidden. The history is pretty well published. You might not like it, but these arguments have evolved over centuries. As for ensoulment at conception, fine, you hold that belief. It doesn't change the oddity of it. Somewhere in the neighborhood of almost half of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort due to natural issues with the embryo's genetics or the mother's physiology. That's A LOT of souls that God creates on Earth and then removes from Earth, often without the mother even being aware she was ever pregnant. Seems weird.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 10:17a, 9/5/21
AG
You don't understand what you're talking about, and consequently are conflating two different things. Ensoulment as a philosophical question is a different matter than whether abortion is wrong and why. Ensoulment as a philosophical question can't be understood in the current strict materialist frame work.

Ironically, the view of Aquinas was precisely the product of trying to connect theology to science and being limited by current scientific knowledge. If we take his same approach today, we would arrive exactly where we are.

Regardless of the Aristotelean debates, Christianity has forever and always viewed abortion as equivalent to murder, and there is no time where this was not the small-o orthodox view.
Reply Quote
4
Star Wars Memes Only
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:28a, 9/5/21
Zobel said:
Ensoulment as a philosophical question is a different matter than whether abortion is wrong and why.


I hear all the time that abortion is wrong because the fetus has a soul. If that's the case then the abortion question seems to be connected to the one of ensoulment. What am I missing?
Reply Quote
1
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:38a, 9/5/21
Zobel said:
You don't understand what you're talking about, and consequently are conflating two different things. Ensoulment as a philosophical question is a different matter than whether abortion is wrong and why. Ensoulment as a philosophical question can't be understood in the current strict materialist frame work.

Ironically, the view of Aquinas was precisely the product of trying to connect theology to science and being limited by current scientific knowledge. If we take his same approach today, we would arrive exactly where we are.

Regardless of the Aristotelean debates, Christianity has forever and always viewed abortion as equivalent to murder, and there is no time where this was not the small-o orthodox view.


Except the Bible doesn't view abortion as equivalent to the murder of another person. That's where the debate comes in and why ensoulment was so important from a theological and legal perspective. Abortion was insanely common throughout history in Christian nations and often permitted before "the quickening." The Southern Baptist Church had no serious position on Roe, and in fact wasn't against the ruling initially. You can attack me all you want, it doesn't erase the issue and the history behind it.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Star Wars Memes Only • 10:39a, 9/5/21
AG
People make a lot of questionable arguments about all kinds of things. I think there's more than a little disconnect between moral frameworks at play here. We moderns tend to take rationalism as axiomatic and work from there. Ancients had different or varying axiomatic positions.

I think it would be more accurate to say that since Christianity has always and consistently taught, from the time of the Apostles, that abortion is wrong and equivalent to murder, that is our axiomatic position. Hence Aquinas had no issue saying that since humans in the womb don't look human until 40 days or whatever they're not of human form (Aristotle's definition, not Plato's) and therefore not completely human and therefore not ensouled, but abortion is still wrong.

On the other hand other early philosophers viewed the soul as created and therefore material (ancient definition, not modern one - material != tangible in this case) and therefore tied to the specific material of the specific human. Therefore it happens at conception, when the material beginning of that specific human begins. And abortion is still wrong.

With what we know today there isn't a substantive difference between the two positions above which you might call Aquinas and Tertullian's or perhaps Christian Aristotelian vs Christian Platonist. If the philosophical form of a human is completely and inextricably found contained in the DNA, which I think is true, then they both are the same.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 10:40a, 9/5/21
AG
I'm not attacking you, I'm letting you know that you're ignorant on this topic. Christianity is not based on the Bible and predates it. Consider why that makes the rest of your post wrong.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Star Wars Memes Only • 10:43a, 9/5/21
AG
I also think that there are a lot of other axiomatic Christian moral teachings which moderns accept without inspection - the equality of the sexes, universal value of human life, etc - and don't trouble themselves to justify. But these are absolutely not strictly rational positions and can be attacked on those grounds (and were by the ancients for sure).
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:58a, 9/5/21
Zobel said:
I'm not attacking you, I'm letting you know that you're ignorant on this topic. Christianity is not based on the Bible and predates it. Consider why that makes the rest of your post wrong.


Ah. We're not capable of even agreeing on the basis for a debate. Got it.
Reply Quote
Joe Boudain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 11:10a, 9/5/21
Sapper Redux said:
Zobel said:
I'm not attacking you, I'm letting you know that you're ignorant on this topic. Christianity is not based on the Bible and predates it. Consider why that makes the rest of your post wrong.


Ah. We're not capable of even agreeing on the basis for a debate. Got it.


If your basis for debate is that Christianity is based on the Bible you're going to have a tough time debating anyone who knows the bare minimum of their faith.
Reply Quote
2
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Joe Boudain • 11:13a, 9/5/21
Joe Boudain said:
Sapper Redux said:
Zobel said:
I'm not attacking you, I'm letting you know that you're ignorant on this topic. Christianity is not based on the Bible and predates it. Consider why that makes the rest of your post wrong.


Ah. We're not capable of even agreeing on the basis for a debate. Got it.


If your basis for debate is that Christianity is based on the Bible you're going to have a tough time debating anyone who knows the bare minimum of their faith.


You're approaching some weird heresies. I'm out. Have a good time.
Reply Quote
jrico2727
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 11:22a, 9/5/21
AG
Sapper Redux said:
Joe Boudain said:
Sapper Redux said:
Zobel said:
I'm not attacking you, I'm letting you know that you're ignorant on this topic. Christianity is not based on the Bible and predates it. Consider why that makes the rest of your post wrong.


Ah. We're not capable of even agreeing on the basis for a debate. Got it.


If your basis for debate is that Christianity is based on the Bible you're going to have a tough time debating anyone who knows the bare minimum of their faith.


You're approaching some weird heresies. I'm out. Have a good time.


The heresy of historical accuracy. Anathema lol
Reply Quote
4
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 12:06p, 9/5/21
AG
You've got two Roman Catholics and an Orthodox poster telling you something. Perhaps you should consider the slight possibility your understanding as an atheist of Christianity is incorrect. Just a thought.
Reply Quote
5
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 2:04p, 9/5/21
Macarthur said:
File5 said:
So there's the chasm we must cross. When is it murder?, Don't know how to convince you of my view, and you definitely can't convince me of yours.

As this is the R & P forum, I believe God looks on abortion as an abomination. Of course I don't expect that to have an effect on you, and the argument goes to intent - if you don't think it's murder, how can God hold you accountable? I suppose I'm playing it safe here, Pascals Theorem applied to babies.

As for your charity comments, don't know what to tell you but that more government is not the answer to all the world's ills. Your comments undermine all the work that Christians do every day with the tap of a few keys. Maybe if government didn't try to solve everything with our dollars, we could us those dollars to do more things in our own communities.

I disagree with your statement about inverse proportion, but it's kind of interesting - I think needs go up proportionally to government involvement via the entitlement state - ergo, the more government involvement, the greater the charity required to address the issues caused BY the government.
How do you know this?



I'm bumping this as I think this is a significant point that needs expansion.

How does a Christian know abortion is an abomination to God?
Reply Quote
Joe Boudain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 2:15p, 9/5/21
Because it is just murder called another name.
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 2:28p, 9/5/21
AG
Jeremiah 32:35

Leveiticus 18:21

Leviticus 20:2

Deuteronomy 12:31

1 Kings 11:7

2 Kings 23:10
Reply Quote
2
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 3:05p, 9/5/21
Zobel said:
You've got two Roman Catholics and an Orthodox poster telling you something. Perhaps you should consider the slight possibility your understanding as an atheist of Christianity is incorrect. Just a thought.


I wasn't raised as an atheist and I've been one for far less time as an adult than I was a practicing Christian.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jrico2727 • 3:06p, 9/5/21
jrico2727 said:
Sapper Redux said:
Joe Boudain said:
Sapper Redux said:
Zobel said:
I'm not attacking you, I'm letting you know that you're ignorant on this topic. Christianity is not based on the Bible and predates it. Consider why that makes the rest of your post wrong.


Ah. We're not capable of even agreeing on the basis for a debate. Got it.


If your basis for debate is that Christianity is based on the Bible you're going to have a tough time debating anyone who knows the bare minimum of their faith.


You're approaching some weird heresies. I'm out. Have a good time.


The heresy of historical accuracy. Anathema lol


Eh. Nevermind. The point won't come across. I'm done with this one.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 3:52p, 9/5/21
AG
Well, that seems a little embarrassing for you, then.
Reply Quote
3
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 3:59p, 9/5/21
Zobel said:
Well, that seems a little embarrassing for you, then.


Cool.
Reply Quote
jrico2727
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 6:27p, 9/5/21
AG
From the Didache, which a early "catechism" of the Church. It's a collection of teachings from the apostles to the nations. Some will date it prior to some New Testament books, as early as 70 A.D.

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.
Reply Quote
3
Joe Boudain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jrico2727 • 6:47p, 9/5/21
jrico2727 said:
From the Didache, which a early "catechism" of the Church. It's a collection of teachings from the apostles to the nations. Some will date it prior to some New Testament books, as early as 70 A.D.

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.


Poe's law is in effect here. You can go through an entire seminar of the church teaching on murder, the church teaching on the different severity of sin, vincible vs invincible ignorance, and the severe jeopardy those who harm little children are put in, but I don't think they would care.

The idea that someone could think God could be okay with murder, because it's called abortion, is astounding.
Reply Quote
2
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 8:29p, 9/5/21
AG
Zobel said:
Jeremiah 32:35

Leveiticus 18:21

Leviticus 20:2

Deuteronomy 12:31

1 Kings 11:7

2 Kings 23:10


To my untrained eyes, these appear to be condemnations of child sacrifice. Could an argument be made that this is distinct from abortion?

I'm sure it's for another thread, but I've always been hesitant to assign OT morality to Christians. Atheists usually get slapped down for quoting OT in description of Christian morality. What is the correct line for me to walk in trying to understand Christian morality?

Does Jesus say anything about abortion?

Reply Quote
1 edit
RebelE Infantry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 8:33p, 9/5/21
AG
kurt vonnegut said:
Zobel said:
Jeremiah 32:35

Leveiticus 18:21

Leviticus 20:2

Deuteronomy 12:31

1 Kings 11:7

2 Kings 23:10


To my untrained eyes, these appear to be condemnations of child sacrifice. Could an argument be made that this is distinct from abortion?

I'm sure it's for another thread, but I've always been hesitant to assign OT morality to Christians. Atheists usually get slapped down for quoting OT in description of Christian morality. What is the correct line for me to walk in trying to understand Christian morality?

Does Jesus say anything about abortion?



No
Reply Quote
2
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 8:45p, 9/5/21
AG
What was the purpose of child sacrifice? Why did ancient people make offerings and seek communion with gods?

Why do women abort their children? The vast majority are for convenience by other names and rationalizations. Call it worship, call it service. It comes put the same.

Jesus is Yahweh. So, yes. Those quotes from the mouth of the Lord are Jesus speaking.
Reply Quote
6
File5
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:10p, 9/5/21
AG
Appreciate some of the regulars here doing the heavy lifting and expounding on the Christian position on abortion. I kept hitting the posting limit and then had the game weekend to go to. Whoop!

It's interesting that Zobel brought out the OT instead of the NT, and kurt I agree that often Christians will say OT has limited usefulness in terms of morality, so I appreciated your question. It'll take me a little while to process Zobel's responses, he's always got answers that take me a while to research.

I was going to respond with the NT myself, with James 3:9-10 and Galatians 1:15 together. From these I determine it is God's will that we are made in the image and likeness of Him, and are set aside before we were born. From the garden, to Sodom and Gomorrah, to Judas Iscariot, humans have reaped the effects of deviating from God's will in a willful and evil manner. From this it follows, I believe, that God views abortion as an abomination and that we should fight against it.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to File5 • 10:31p, 9/5/21
AG
Both of those are actually OT references. Image and likeness is from Genesis. St Paul is referencing Isaiah 49 and Jeremiah 1, one of several places where he shows that he views himself called as a prophet.
Reply Quote
File5
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:53p, 9/5/21
AG
Zobel said:
Both of those are actually OT references. Image and likeness is from Genesis. St Paul is referencing Isaiah 49 and Jeremiah 1, one of several places where he shows that he views himself called as a prophet.
Well, goes to show what I know...thank you!

Given this, however, I take this to mean that they are confirming these concepts in the NT explicitly as still valid, which adds to the argument IMO given the relationship of the NT to the modern church.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to File5 • 11:07p, 9/5/21
AG
Yeah for sure, was affirming your selections. There's no disjunction between the OT and the NT, so it shouldn't be surprising that the ideas of one are found in the other and vice versa.
Reply Quote
5
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.