Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[Vicomte13]

I crushed an acorn with a hammer. Did I destroy an oak tree?

If the acorn was fertilized and could germinate, yes.

 

[Vicomte13]

Armoured said: ↑
Where/when did God "reveal life begins at conception "?


How interesting that you can arrive at this conclusion when Christian biblical scholars didn't.

...​

I guess you just understand the bible better than they did.

It's not a matter of appeals to authority.
It is a matter of what the language says very directly, in Hebrew and in English translation, and then applying basic biological truth.

The text repeatedly says that a given man "begat" a child.
When does a man beget a child?
At one moment: conception.
After that, the role of man in bringing a child into existence is finished.

And that is the point from which every life in the Bible whose span of years is given, is listed and measured.

If the scholars you have looked at are wandering around in doubt about when life begins, they have apparently not just looked directly at the language. Because if anybody does look directly at the language, it is obvious that lives are traced from males begetting (not birth from females), and it is a biological fact that a male begets when he impregnates the female. The male part of reproductive begetting is a one-off, one moment in time event: conception.

The text says "he begat" over and over again. It isn't vague, at all. It isn't questionable. If the scholars missed it, they missed it. But you yourself can look directly at it and see it - and you can do that in English, or Latin, or Greek or Aramaic, or Hebrew. Whichever text or manuscript you pick up, the same fact appears: Biblical lives begin when begotten by their fathers - and that is conception. It's right there in black and white.

Now, of course, there has ALWAYS been pressure to try to open up a window for abortion, because abortion has ALWAYS been convenient, so we shouldn't be too terribly surprised to see weak men seeking to compromise with infanticide in every generation.

There is no compromise to be had, however, for God revealed in black and white that lives begin when begotten by their fathers, and he revealed it over and over and over again, line after line, page after page.

It is surprising that the scholars missed this, because it is pretty obvious.

 

[Armoured]

Are you sure you're a 'modern' feminist? Maybe it's more the 'old guard'
today. I'm getting older and so are the man-haters.

Edit: Unless your info is wrong, you are male, and thus barred
from being any type of feminist. Unless you are like Bruce Jenner
in reverse.

Who told you men can't be feminists?

 

[Ratjaws]

I don't believe that any issue since the Civil War has divided Americans more than the issue of abortion. Is there any way that we can reach a compromise on the issue? Please complete the poll and explain your answers. For example, even if you personally oppose abortion would you be willing to allow legal abortions in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is in danger? Why or why not?

I will start out by saying that unfortunately I could not vote because there is no category that represents my full understanding. If you had a "life of the mother only" option then I could pick that.

It never ceases to amaze me how anti-life pro-abortion advocates like to use the past belief of religious groups when it comes to this issue but any other issue they claim science alone can justify one's position. The quote from wikipedia that Ecco cites, which comes from Catholic scholars, leaves out the very important fact that even with such a belief in ensoulment, that same church considered it immoral to interfere with that life from the moment of conception.

Others here state flat out what begins at fertilization is no more human than say a cow! This kind of thinking completely overlooks the fact that both sperm and egg are from human beings and therefore cannot become a cow or any other kind of animal. The life that begins at the moment of conception must either be human or it is never human. It cannot be potentially human as the sperm or egg are precisely because all the genetic material from that moment on is the same right on through till natural death. There is no clear line between fertilization and death of this new life that can be considered a starting point.

With this in mind I will also add that for any act to be moral a three-fold criteria must be met, namely the means, end and intent of the person doing the act must be moral. Combine this with the fact that all human life has an inviolable dignity that comes from God, as the Declaration/Constitution of the United States assume when it speaks of inalienable rights, and you must conclude any good law must protect all human life... from fertilization till natural death. Any law that ignores these facts is immoral and therefore unethical.

Now to clarify there is only one kind of abortion that does not violate this criteria. It is called an ectopic pregnancey where, because the newly formed embryonic person attempts to implant on the uteran wall and not the mother's womb, it endangers the mother's life AND therefore it's own life! In this case it is not desirable, if there were another way, but it is morally permissable to interrupt the pregnancy, and thus, most likely, end the life of the newly formed child.

Now notice here the criteria for a good moral act still applies and we are not putting the child's life in danger because we want to (the intent criteria), and if possible we try to keep that child alive with medical technology (the means and end criteria), therefore this is a moral act, albeit undesirable.

We can save premature children somewhere around the 22nd week and as medical technology improves this window will hopefully enlarge. Until then the doctor who seeks to save them both but unintentionally kills the child is acting morally responsible. He/she does not directly will the death of that child but is trying to repair a bad situation. This same line of thinking could be applied to any other situation similar to this but I know of none other. The key is we will to save them both from a situation not caused by a person intentionally.

So the short answer to your question is that no there can be no compromise on abortion since it ultimately takes the life of an innocent and helpless person. This includes cases of rape or incest where again the newly formed child is not responsible for the father's immoral act and therefore should not be punished by death. Procured abortion, as given us by the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, is especially henious the new person's life can be taken for any reason not serious. Education, job, age, lifestyle, and even because the child is "unwanted" are the usual reasons given that are all secondary to the newly formed person's right to life.

Those who claim this is about a woman's choice are also mistaken because they never link the issue of choice to prior to sexual intercourse where it ultimately belongs. The push for Roe vs. Wade was precisely because of the superfacial reason of separating pleasure from the initiation of new life. This is also driven by sterilization an contraception that insist "unwanted" children must be prevented... that is separated from the sexual act that should be open to new life as God intended. In other words the mindset behind sterilization and contraception drives abortion because neither method is foolproof and abortion must be used as a backup. If a man or woman don't want children then they simply refrain from sexual intercourse. Once they decide to partake of this act they must be open to the possibility of new life because that is the acts nature. New human life comes in no other way and to try to interrupt and separate the two is to move against God who gave human sexuality its nature. It is to sin in Christian terms. It is to disorder an act that has as its primary goal a two-fold meaning: love and life. This is to unite a man and woman and to create new human life according to God's will.

 

[Armoured]

I will start out by saying that unfortunately I could not vote because there is no category that represents my full understanding. If you had a "life of the mother only" option then I could pick that.

It's the second option.

 

[Armoured]

It's not a matter of appeals to authority.
It is a matter of what the language says very directly, in Hebrew and in English translation, and then applying basic biological truth.

The text repeatedly says that a given man "begat" a child.
When does a man beget a child?
At one moment: conception.
After that, the role of man in bringing a child into existence is finished.

And that is the point from which every life in the Bible whose span of years is given, is listed and measured.

If the scholars you have looked at are wandering around in doubt about when life begins, they have apparently not just looked directly at the language. Because if anybody does look directly at the language, it is obvious that lives are traced from males begetting (not birth from females), and it is a biological fact that a male begets when he impregnates the female. The male part of reproductive begetting is a one-off, one moment in time event: conception.

The text says "he begat" over and over again. It isn't vague, at all. It isn't questionable. If the scholars missed it, they missed it. But you yourself can look directly at it and see it - and you can do that in English, or Latin, or Greek or Aramaic, or Hebrew. Whichever text or manuscript you pick up, the same fact appears: Biblical lives begin when begotten by their fathers - and that is conception. It's right there in black and white.

Now, of course, there has ALWAYS been pressure to try to open up a window for abortion, because abortion has ALWAYS been convenient, so we shouldn't be too terribly surprised to see weak men seeking to compromise with infanticide in every generation.

There is no compromise to be had, however, for God revealed in black and white that lives begin when begotten by their fathers, and he revealed it over and over and over again, line after line, page after page.

It is surprising that the scholars missed this, because it is pretty obvious.

Begat means "fathered", but the idea that fathering means a person is a person from the point of conception is all your opinion. What you're doing is called "projection", i.e. you're assuming what you believe is true, is actually true.

 

[Ratjaws]

It's the second option.

I wish this was true Armoured, but one can drive a truck through the "health" of the mother option. No the "life of the mother" is the only health issue serious enough to justifiy the possibility of killing that new child once an interruption of pregnancy occurs.

 

[Armoured]

I wish this was true Armoured, but one can drive a truck through the "health" of the mother option. No the "life of the mother" is the only health issue serious enough to justifiy the possibility of killing that new child once an interruption of pregnancy occurs.

Uh-huh.

So, who gets to decide when a pregnancy absolutely threatens the life of the mother, as opposed to just her health?

Please think carefully before responding. My wife's pregnancy almost killed her, so this is kind of a personal topic.

 

[Ratjaws]

The only real compromise would be for individuals to decide for themselves as to the ethics and morality regarding abortion. Individuals should be free to live according to their own personal belief, and not pursue enforcement of their belief as mandatory for all others.

Ananda,
We all live under the same moral reality... that as a Catholic I just happen to be blessed with a formal declaration of moral reality in the Ten Commandments in no way means you, or anyone else, don't have to live by the same rules. Take a look at the study of Natural Law where moral law is made more explicit and it's connection to the human person is made clearer. All of us have a conscience meant by God to discern right from wrong, good from evil, and as such we are all bound to not kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, etc... Having law clearly in front of you whether formally codified or as seen by your conscience in no way means you can go on a tangent. You cannot decide you are exempt from murder and call it a legitimate choice. There is no compromise with evil and abortion is an unnecessary evil we are all, religious or not, bound to not partake of or support in any direct way. You are free to do good... never evil!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Historically, the biggest abortion mill in the US, Planned Parenthood, was formed to promote the elimination of blacks and other minorities thru contraception and abortion. Margaret Sanger did NOT want black babies being born, she preferred them to be aborted.

I don't have anything to do with that group (just like most, if not all, people here). I'm just talking about a woman's right to abort a pregnancy.

I don't know what that group is about, nore what it does. And you know what? It's quite irrelevant in this thread, where we are sharing our individual opinions on the practice of abortion.

Perhaps you would like to actually address what folks in this thread are saying.

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK. The word translated there as "murder" is Ratsach,
רָצַח

which means to intentionally kill a human.

That's not what the word "murder" means in english. The word "murder" is a legal term and it is a very specific type of killing of a human.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I disagree. Feminists want to eliminate all human males from existence (when science will allow reproduction with out us). In that light, abortion is kind of a temporary side issue.

Wut?

 

[Ratjaws]

Uh-huh.

So, who gets to decide when a pregnancy absolutely threatens the life of the mother, as opposed to just her health?

Please think carefully before responding. My wife's pregnancy almost killed her, so this is kind of a personal topic.

Let's put this in another venue, Armoured: who gets to decide when an armed robber absolutely threatens the life of the mother? Why the mother of course! She has a conscience doesn't she? Never-the-less the same rules of morality apply to this situation as they do to a zygot, fetus, or embryo's life... right? Or are you of the mind that life which resides in a mother's womb should be fuzzy? Don't you realize that even those judges on the Supreme court who gave us Roe vs. Wade said it was a human life we were dealing with? What they tried to blurr was whether that life was a person or not. Yet how do you think these judges would decide a case where a person hunting in the woods shot at something moving and killed another person? Of course they would say the hunter should have made sure it was not a person before shooting. That decision in 1973 was a farce opening a flood gate of evil and blurring the moral conscience of generations of people afterward. Now if you want to call an unborn/preborn child not a person deserving of the same right to life as each of us outside the womb... well that is for you to decide and face God with on judgment day. And note here I am saying nothing about your situation which I know nothing about. I am merely making general statements of truth setting down principles in order that our decision process be made easier. These principles are universal and apply even to you no matter what your situation. All you need do is try to understand these principles, apply them to your situation, and make better decisions in the future even if you did not make a wise decision in the past. I don't know the morality of your situation so I make no judgment on it and if you insist on bringing it up in this context I can only suspect you wish a strawman to brace your position. Is that what is going on here? Can you not address these general ideas without invoking your personal situation?

 

[Armoured]

Let's put this in another venue, Armoured: who gets to decide when an armed robber absolutely threatens the life of the mother? Why the mother of course! She has a conscience doesn't she? Never-the-less the same rules of morality apply to this situation as they do to a zygot, fetus, or embryo's life... right? Or are you of the mind that life which resides in a mother's womb should be fuzzy? Don't you realize that even those judges on the Supreme court who gave us Roe vs. Wade said it was a human life we were dealing with? What they tried to blurr was whether that life was a person or not. Yet how do you think these judges would decide a case where a person hunting in the woods shot at something moving and killed another person? Of course they would say the hunter should have made sure it was not a person before shooting. That decision in 1973 was a farce opening a flood gate of evil and blurring the moral conscience of generations of people afterward. Now if you want to call an unborn/preborn child not a person deserving of the same right to life as each of us outside the womb... well that is for you to decide and face God with on judgment day. And note here I am saying nothing about your situation which I know nothing about. I am merely making general statements of truth setting down principles in or that our decision process be made easier. These principles are unversal and apply even to you no matter what your situation. All you need do is try to understand these principles, apply them to your situation, and make better decisions in the future even if you did not make a wise decision in the past. I don't know the morality of your situation so I make no judgment on it and if you insist on bringing it up in this context I can only suspect you wish a strawman to brace your position. Is that what is going on here? Can you not address these general ideas without invoking your personal situation?

That's all great, but perhaps you'd care to actually address my question?

 

[Ratjaws]

We are talking about the same God who said we should bludgeon people to death with rocks if they worked on the wrong day? Somehow does not seem the kind of guy you have to parse carefully to ensure you get the right message. If he was worried about abortion I think he might of mentioned it rather directly.

Belk,
Reading your reply to Vicomte it would seem you have an unclear idea of the biblical passage you so loosely quote. I believe it refers to the probition of work on the Sabbath? Of course you first must understand God is the Author of life and can take it whenever he wants. So if he told the Jews of old testament times to kill those who violate one of the laws he gave there is nothing wrong with this. In fact they (and implied is God here) only take the persons bodily life. Their soul goes on into eternity where it will be reunited with their body therefore God is really not taking life in the ultimate sense. The point being God creates therefore God can destroy even if in this case he is not really destroying. The point of the law was to teach them and us that the Sabbath is holy and should be kept with proper respect.

Now today none of us have been commanded to kill Sabbath breakers and if we try to say we were told to do so by God, we violate public revelation which takes prescidence over private. This is what the same Church that gave us those scriptures teaches and is what you don't seem to know.

In relation to abortion again God is the Author of life and as such makes it plain in scripture and Church teaching that abortion is unjust. As such we cannot justify the law for procured abortion today. It is an evil that goes against God's will and our government which was put into place by God (he allows it) is irresponsible for the Roe vs. Wade decision back in 1973. Until that law is changed to reflect the moral reality of abortion Americans will be cursed. I suspect the unrest we experience in our society and politics today will become worse unless we outlaw abortion. This country even though founded on good principles that protect human life, liberty and property, need not continue it's existence if we continue to elect immoral politicians who play fast and loose with the most vunerable human lives.

 

[Ratjaws]

I crushed an acorn with a hammer. Did I destroy an oak tree?

No kts, an acorn is a potential oak tree just as a human sperm or human egg are a potential human person. In the case of the tree the seed must be germinated for there to be an oak tree while with the person the sperm and egg must come together (and a soul infused by God) for there to be a new living person.

 

[AirPo]

Has anyone mentioned the fact that we reached a compromise a long time ago?

 

[Albion]

The only real compromise would be for individuals to decide for themselves as to the ethics and morality regarding abortion. Individuals should be free to live according to their own personal belief, and not pursue enforcement of their belief as mandatory for all others.

Just like letting "individuals to decide for themselves as to the ethics" of any other crime. Hmm. To obey or not? Do other people have any rights? Hmm. Whatever I want--yeh, that's what should decide it!

 

[ecco]

It's not a matter of appeals to authority.
It is a matter of what the language says very directly, in Hebrew and in English translation, and then applying basic biological truth.

The text repeatedly says that a given man "begat" a child.
When does a man beget a child?
At one moment: conception.
After that, the role of man in bringing a child into existence is finished.

And that is the point from which every life in the Bible whose span of years is given, is listed and measured.

Well, no. Some weren't even begaten. Some were born and some just became sons.

18 And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber.
19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.
20 And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,
21 Hadoram also, and Uzal, and Diklah,
22 And Ebal, and Abimael, and Sheba,
23 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan.
​

Perhaps the vagueness inherent in the writings are the reason biblical scholars did not use your concepts.

If the scholars you have looked at are wandering around in doubt about when life begins, they have apparently not just looked directly at the language. Because if anybody does look directly at the language, it is obvious that lives are traced from males begetting (not birth from females), and it is a biological fact that a male begets when he impregnates the female. The male part of reproductive begetting is a one-off, one moment in time event: conception.

The scholars I "looked at" arrived at their conclusions about the beginning of life over a thousand years ago. Over a thousand years none have ever come up with your scheme.

The text says "he begat" over and over again. It isn't vague, at all. It isn't questionable. If the scholars missed it, they missed it. But you yourself can look directly at it and see it - and you can do that in English, or Latin, or Greek or Aramaic, or Hebrew. Whichever text or manuscript you pick up, the same fact appears: Biblical lives begin when begotten by their fathers - and that is conception. It's right there in black and white.

No. See above.

Now, of course, there has ALWAYS been pressure to try to open up a window for abortion, because abortion has ALWAYS been convenient, so we shouldn't be too terribly surprised to see weak men seeking to compromise with infanticide in every generation.

I doubt most women would use the word "convenient" when discussing abortion. That just seems to be you injecting your own beliefs and biases.

There is no compromise to be had, however, for God revealed in black and white that lives begin when begotten by their fathers, and he revealed it over and over and over again, line after line, page after page.

It is surprising that the scholars missed this, because it is pretty obvious.

See, that's the real problem here. I find it hard to accept one person's interpretation over the interpretations of many, many biblical scholars over many, many years. One would think that someone else would have made this obvious finding, especially when the church was trying to move the goalposts from first breath or quickening to conception.

That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in biblically objective truths.


In any case, we do not live in a Christian Theocracy, so I guess your argument is pointless.

 

[Albion]

I crushed an acorn with a hammer. Did I destroy an oak tree?

Yes. A small one, but I assure you it wasn't a carrot or a mosquito.