Pro-Fetal Life

[ubicaritas]

Which is a natural place for a developing human life.

Christian ethics has never been defined primarily as a cult of nature.

 

[redleghunter]

Christian ethics has never been defined primarily as a cult of nature.

Well neither has Christian ethics denied the obvious.

 

[ubicaritas]

Well neither has Christian ethics denied the obvious.

An is does not necessarily make for an ought.

 

[redleghunter]

An is does not necessarily make for an ought.

I was hoping to avoid having to present the birds and the bees in this thread...

 

[SPF]

Ubicaritas, you do realize that human development begins at fertilization and lasts roughly 25 years, with only the very beginning part taking place in the womb.

According to Scripture, human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. I am unsure on what grounds you think it's logically sound to discriminate against a human and claim that they lack moral worth and value based upon what sounds like either their age or location.

 

[Dan1988]

Ubicaritas, you do realize that human development begins at fertilization and lasts roughly 25 years, with only the very beginning part taking place in the womb.

According to Scripture, human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. I am unsure on what grounds you think it's logically sound to discriminate against a human and claim that they lack moral worth and value based upon what sounds like either their age or location.

It's sad to see that so many Christians have embraced abortion as a valid option. They have have given heed to the doctrines of Demons, where wickedness is looked upon as good and good as evil.

 

[SPF]

It's sad to see that so many Christians have embraced abortion as a valid option. They have have given heed to the doctrines of Demons, where wickedness is looked upon as good and good as evil.

I just find it particularly surprising when Christians support abortion. Thanks to modern science, we actually know that at fertilization a new, unique individual is created. Thanks to Scripture, we know that human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. So how Christians can support abortion is beyond my understanding.

What I find particularly perplexing is when Christians use the women's rights argument for justification. Biblically speaking, we are all slaves to Christ, commanded to honor him with our bodies, with our lives.

And even from a worldly point of view, abortion shouldn't be a women's rights issue. Sure, as good Americans we say that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, we all acknowledge that those rights can be temporarily suspended, or permanently revoked. For example, every single person in jail has had their rights to pursuit of happiness and liberty temporarily suspended. Every single person on death row has essentially had all three rights revoked.

So the question as to whether or not pregnancy is one of those times where a woman's "right" to pursuit of happiness is temporarily suspended or not is based entirely, 100% upon how we understand the nature of the human life inside of her. If we acknowledge that a human being possesses inherent moral worth and value from fertilization, then their right to life certainly trumps the woman's right to pursuit of happiness.

The morality of abortion stands or falls completely and entirely upon our understanding of the nature and worth of the human life inside the womb.

 

[ubicaritas]

A woman's body is her life.

 

[SPF]

A woman's body is her life.

Which means what?

Does that therefore mean that the human baby inside of her does not possess inherent moral worth and value because of its location of residence?

The law suspends people's rights all the time for the sake of protecting other humans, why should pregnancy be excluded from that?

Again, the morality of abortion comes down how we understand the nature of the life inside the mother's womb. You're statements seem to completely disregard and ignore the human growing in the womb.

 

[ubicaritas]

And you want to turn an ethically complicated matter into something simple.

 

[SPF]

And you want to turn an ethically complicated matter into something simple.

And you're not providing anything of substance in response.

 

[Aldebaran]

A woman's body is her life.

A baby's body is his/her life too.

 

[ubicaritas]

A baby's body is his/her life too.

So I'm supposed to go along with patriarchy and recognize a rapist's right to procreate because a woman's body is less important than so-called facts of biology?

 

[SPF]

So I'm supposed to go along with patriarchy and recognize a rapist's right to procreate because a woman's body is less important than so-called facts of biology?

Yay, more fallacies! The moral worth and value of a human being is not based upon the how in which they came into existence.

Imagine that we line up 3 adults. 1 of the adults came into existence VIA 2 loving and married parents. The 2nd adult came into existence by a single mother who had a one night stand and didn't use proper protection. The 3rd adult came into existence because his mother was raped.

If the question was then posed - Do any of these adults possess more inherent moral worth and value because of how they came into existence? The answer would obviously (or at least it should obviously), be no.

The morality of abortion doesn't rest with the how in which a human being came into existence. Either humans are morally valuable and posses inherent moral worth from fertilization, which is when they begin their existence - or not.

I've never yet to see an objective argument laid out which was logically valid that suggested that human beings somehow grow into moral worth and value. We either have it or we don't.

 

[Aldebaran]

So I'm supposed to go along with patriarchy and recognize a rapist's right to procreate because a woman's body is less important than so-called facts of biology?

We're not talking about rapist's rights here. We're talking about the baby's rights--as in to live.

 

[ubicaritas]

I never said anything about moral worth, this has to do about the autonomy of the woman over her own body. Something you totally discount. Woman are people too. Sentimentalist appeals about cute babies don't hold water in comparison. There's half the human race whose bodies are routinely seen as the property of men and their interests, including their religious-political interests.

 

[SPF]

I never said anything about moral worth, this has to do about the autonomy of the woman over her own body. Something you totally discount. Woman are people too.

You've missed the point entirely and have completely disregarded the innocent human being inside the mother's womb.

All of us Americans recognize that at times our "rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be temporarily suspended or permanently revoked. The answer to whether or not pregnancy is one of those times is entirely based upon the nature of the life inside the womb.

And as a supposed Christian, you should recognize that we don't even own our bodies. Everything we are belongs to God and is to be used at all times for His glory. The sense of self ownership that you propose is not Scriptural and is certainly influenced by the world. Read Job and then come back. Seriously.

 

[Archivist]

You’re right in that for the first couple of years the term Pro-Life included both abortion and capital punishment categories. But since the 70s, it has only referred to abortion.

Why do we need to change that? I don’t see what’s wrong with the term. I think it’s very useful and beneficial for discussion to have a specific category attached to the phrase so that discussions can stay centered on the topic a lot more effectively.

Here’s a good read:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “pro-life” was first introduced to modern language in 1960 by A. S. Neill in his book Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Childrearing (p.138), which promoted progressive parentingand citizen attitudes. Neill wrote, “no pro-life citizen would tolerate our penal code, our hangings, our punishments of homosexuals, our attitude towards bastardy.”

By the late 1960s, anti-abortion started to latch on to the “life” framing: the Right to Life League was founded in 1967 in California and the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life was launched in 1968. But it didn’t quite mean what it does today; in progressive circles at the time, you could be “pro-life” by being both anti-abortion and anti-war. “To be pro-life you have to be for all life,” said Sue Bastyr, a 21-year-old student from the University of Minnesota, to the Chicago Tribune in 1971.

Then, in Jan. 1973, the Supreme Court wrote the landmark Roe v. Wade decision declaring American women have the right to choose to have an abortion. In response, anti-abortion groups began to mobilize rapidly. Part of their move towards organizing was deciding on what to call themselves; “pro-life” was chosen by movement leaders to put forth a positive image. The same month Roe v. Wade was decided, the first iteration of the Human Life Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw abortions, was introduced in congress.

It was a marketing masterstroke: the word “life” has been linked to the opposition of abortion since, and being “pro-life” has come to mean specifically opposing abortion—and not, for instance, opposing war or the death penalty. The success of the label is largely due to its ability to frame the issue not as standing against something (a woman’s choice) but in favor of it (life).

It has been so successful, in fact, that the opposition party was forced to adapt directly to it: the label “pro-choice” was created specifically to counter “pro-life.”

Interesting that just a few posts ago, your post 70 to be exact, you falsely claimed that I was trying to "redefine pro-life" by coming up with a "new definition". Now you admit that I am simply trying to take the definition back to what it was.

I guess you don't admit when you are wrong.

Now, what is wrong with "pro-fetal life"? How is that not a more exact definition?

 

[Archivist]

But she didn't murder any children, so she has that to take to the grave.

But no one here is talking about murdering children.

 

[Archivist]

Can you quote some CF posters holding this view? Or are we dealing with hypotheticals.

Don't know if you are an American, but abortion to save the life of the mother was in every state law prior to Roe v Wade (even Texas where the case came from).

Roe was about abortion on demand and not the life of the mother.

So your OP is showcasing an extreme view not even US conservatives had before Roe v Wade.

Once we get a few quotes from you, I guess we can delve into a few examples of where a woman's very life hangs in the balance.

This was addressed earlier in the thread. While the Roman Catholic Church does permit medically-neutral procedures to save the life of a pregnant woman, it does not permit an abortion to save the life of a pregnant woman. https://dphx.org/respect-life/know-the-issues/abortion/