Then let them choose to make what they consider the responsible choice. What say do you have in it?
And a fetus life is just as valuable as any adult, that’s the Pro-Life platform ;-)
Then why can’t the government force you to give up a kidney to save someone else if they should also force women to carry it to term?
As far as failed contraceptives goes both individuals knew going into the act that there is always a small chance of it failing, again its a informed choice.
As far as uninformed decision goes I think our schools explain facts at a pretty young age, but we could always do more to inform!
Thats a lot to go over right now and its getting late, I’ll pick it up from here tomorrow.
Not to take a giant whiz on this thread, but is there really a debate to be had here? Both sides are required, for the most part, to take a hard stance based on very subjective reasoning and no compromise is possible for a solution.
Well, the moral test for abortion doesn’t have to be subjective.
Yep, that’s my take as well. Both sides have fundamentally different views regarding the life and value of the fetus, resulting in no real room for compromise. So what’s the point of talking, especially when the debaters already know all the arguments? It comes down to which view can get the most supporters, and that’ll always be the pro-choice view. The best pro-lifers can hope for at a national level (possibly even a state level) is that abortions will be limited to the first trimester, and even that’s unlikely. And I say all this as a pro-lifer who would personally like to have abortions banned except in cases of rape/incest/mother’s health.
OK, I feel like being a pain. Why rape? Why incest? Huh? It’s still a life you’re killing because you didn’t like how it was conceived. How do you reconcile that with saying that the life of the fetus is equal to that of the adult?
Hey, you left out the part where you’re a dude, too!
The earliest you can identify massive birth defects in a fetus is 4 months, so first-trimester-only abortions will not get massive support.
Taranis breathes a heavy sigh and carefully selects an old worn leather bookmark from the desk drawer and delicately drapes it across the screen.
Isn’t the moral test just about the most subjective for this topic?
edit: Also, how can you be pro-life but justify it for cases of rape? To save the mother, that’s not the same choice. If you are pro-life and abortion is murder, what makes it okay to murder the fetus when the mother is in no physical danger by having the baby? Usually people can justify killing by self-defense. Doesn’t seem to apply here.
That line of observation contains two silent presuppositions that are questionable: The Bible is to be interpreted privately, and an abortion can only be immoral if it certainly kills a fully formed human being.
So instead of an exegetical response (for example, miscarriages are mentioned in the Bible), I think it is more important to keep in mind that the Christian tradition has condemned and punished abortions unambigously even in those times when the doctors tended to assume that an embryo in the earliest stages is not yet ‘formed’ or ensouled, because in matters of human life, one must err on the side of caution.
My knowledge of Talmudic Judaism is limited, but I understand that the principle is similar: Even if the baby might not be legally a human being until its head emerges, it is still forbidden to threaten its life in the earlier stages without proportional reason.
Personally, in cases of rape/incest, I still justify it by saying it’s a form of self-defense because the child was forced upon the mother. I know it can be argued that a life is a life, so this stance is a little inconsistent, but the idea of forcing a woman to have a child that she didn’t voluntarily conceive seems repugnant to me.
And I’m sure people will now argue that banning abortions for regular pregnancies is still forcing a woman to involuntarily have a child, but I see that as different if the sex happened willingly.
Incestuous children are not always forced upon the mother. What’s the reasoning there?
You know…most abortions are the result of a woman conceiving when she didn’t want to. FYI.
I can see the idea that it would be self-defense, but I guess does that mean self-defense has a statute of limitations so to speak? If someone beats the shit out of me, I don’t have 3 months to go and stab them to death with the kitchen knife that was within my reach at the time of the attack. For the record, it seems repugnant to me, too and maybe this is one of those things that just isn’t going to be consistent, it just is. Which I guess is part of the reason why I posited that there really isn’t a debate to be had here. A stance on abortion is a complicated web of beliefs that can’t really be proven or demonstrated. It’s a personal perspective.
I’m encouraged to see that the pro-life/pro-choice duality has become more nuanced over the years here. It wasn’t that long ago that “personally against abortion but no right to legislate the lives of others” was a fairly minority position. I’ve held this view for a long time.
It’s been mentioned here many times, usually by me as a pro-Death Christian, and I’m pretty sure that Gav and at least one of the Sofaers have joined in the discussion before.
The Mosaic Law does mention miscarriages in completely unambiguous language: Exodus 21:22-25 is extremely clear that killing a fetus results in a penalty of whatever the husband thinks is fair, plus additional penalties (eye for an eye, etc.) for any other injuries which resulted to the mother. Contextually, v.12 proclaims the death penalty (or a life of exile) for anyone who murders another person and v.20 also declares this to for anyone who kills a slave (who is treated as property, but is still a living human). In my view, this is one of the strongest Biblical statements against the modern Christian position of a fetus being a human being.
In addition, there is very clear language all over the Bible concerning the position that life begins at birth rather than in the womb. For example, Matthew 1:20 says that the “thing” in Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not the “baby” or “he” or any other word which would indicate a soul or humanity. Job 3:11 asks about dying as one emerges from the womb, and Job 10:18-19 indicates that one who dies in the womb has never actually come into being (the language is poetic, but still). Psalm 22:10, 58:3, 71:6 all use a parallel poetic structure in the Hebrew to equate the beginning of life with coming from the womb. Both Job 1:21 and Ecclesiastes 5:15 talk about the beginning and end of life: emerging from the womb then “departing” in death.
Then there are more wide-ranging teachings, such as salvation. When you believe in the work of Christ, the Bible says you are “born again”, not “conceived again” or some such. The Bible teaches that the spiritual life begins at spiritual birth, and this is an analogue for physical life at physical birth. See especially John 3:3-4 when Nicodemus even asks (sarcastically) about going back in the womb to be born again, implying that just going back into the womb wouldn’t begin a new life.
The Bible does mention being “formed” in the womb many times, and I think this is one of two major planks on which Christian Fundies base their pro-Life position. But the formation of a physical body does not mean it is a human life, especially in light of the above teachings (and others such as: Adam was first fully formed from the dust, and only then did he become a human being when God breathed into him the Breath of Life at creation).
I know it can be argued that a life is a life, so this stance is a little inconsistent, but the idea of forcing a woman to have a child that she didn’t voluntarily conceive seems repugnant to me.
If a woman uses birth control, then she’s not going to voluntarily conceive either.
Arguments over abortion never change anyone’s mind, and this thread will probably be no different. Personally, I think the pro-life position is hypocritical because, at its core, it is all about punishing women who choose to have sex. That’s why pro-lifers live with the “inconsistency” of allowing abortion in cases of rape. That’s also why they usually decline to extend their position to the logical conclusion: people should be forced to save lives.
Force passersby to render emergency aid in accidents? What is this, France?
Mandatory organ donation? That’s totalitarian!
Force women to bring a fetus to term? Yeah, she deserves it! Er… I mean, it’s a BABY!
What’s especially frustrating is the contortions that pro-lifers use in order to assign guilt to women. For example, if a woman uses all available birth control but still gets pregnant, then she “voluntarily” conceived. Hmm… How about this: if a gun store owner takes all reasonable precautions but ends up selling a gun that is used to kill someone, then he “voluntarily” was a criminal accessory. Funny how that never goes over so well…
Sorry, but it’s true: if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. Even I recognize that, as a guy. Paradoxically, it makes me respect Palin’s “no exceptions even for rape” a little more than the standard line. Although she’s still crazy.
What differentiates this conclusion about the moral law from other conclusions about the moral law, which everyone agrees can be rightfully legislated?
The Mosaic Law does mention miscarriages in completely unambiguous language: Exodus 21:22-25 is extremely clear that killing a fetus results in a penalty of whatever the husband thinks is fair, plus additional penalties (eye for an eye, etc.) for any other injuries which resulted to the mother. Contextually, v.12 proclaims the death penalty (or a life of exile) for anyone who murders another person and v.20 also declares this to for anyone who kills a slave (who is treated as property, but is still a living human). In my view, this is one of the strongest Biblical statements against the modern Christian position of a fetus being a human being.
I’m surprised you cite this verse, which has led many astray because of its ambiguity, as an example of complete unambiguity. To say nothing about the other difficulties, the verse nowhere states that the child died during its miscarriage. The word used simply means ‘to come out’, which is elsewhere used synonymously with being born. That the penalty set by the husband is meant to compensate for such an early birth seems to be the easiest reading.
In addition, there is very clear language all over the Bible concerning the position that life begins at birth rather than in the womb. For example, Matthew 1:20 says that the “thing” in Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not the “baby” or “he” or any other word which would indicate a soul or humanity.
Oh please. Here’s the verse in Greek. Kindly point to the word which translates to ‘thing’ in your dictionary.
Job 3:11 asks about dying as one emerges from the womb
A bit hard to die unless one lives first, is it not?
Psalm 22:10, 58:3, 71:6 all use a parallel poetic structure in the Hebrew to equate the beginning of life with coming from the womb. Both Job 1:21 and Ecclesiastes 5:15 talk about the beginning and end of life: emerging from the womb then “departing” in death.
Then there are more wide-ranging teachings, such as salvation. When you believe in the work of Christ, the Bible says you are “born again”, not “conceived again” or some such. The Bible teaches that the spiritual life begins at spiritual birth, and this is an analogue for physical life at physical birth. See especially John 3:3-4 when Nicodemus even asks (sarcastically) about going back in the womb to be born again, implying that just going back into the womb wouldn’t begin a new life.
And now you’re grasping at straws. Yes, birth is an excellent metaphor for life. Those passages can be understood neither in a moral nor a legal nor a scientific sense, which is why an informed conclusion about moral, legal and scientific facts needs better sources.
The Bible does mention being “formed” in the womb many times, and I think this is one of two major planks on which Christian Fundies base their pro-Life position. But the formation of a physical body does not mean it is a human life
If the nature of the new embryonic body is not human, I struggle to see the alternatives. Could it be a plant, perhaps? A dog? A horse?
especially in light of the above teachings (and others such as: Adam was first fully formed from the dust, and only then did he become a human being when God breathed into him the Breath of Life at creation).
And if you showed up in the moment between Adam’s formation from dust and God’s life-giving breath, and just as God was getting ready to breathe and finish His work, you would cut off the limbs from Adam’s body and stab a needle into his heart, what, in your opinion, would that make you in God’s eyes?