Is the Fetus a Human Being?

[Eloy Craft]

That would be pretending to know God's mind and how God thinks, the big sin of Calvinism.

Not hardly. It's a simple recognition that God became something people are denying as having any value. It should be a no brainer for a Christian that if God became what we are in the womb it's very deserving of dignity.

 

[ubicaritas]

No sir. I'm thinking of the creation of an individual human being in the womb. I don't even believe the creation of all that is is happening in the past. It's happening at every moment. So when you say redemption before creation or creation becomes an idol.....that doesn't make sense. One thing I know is that as an argument for abortion it is a denial of God's reason for creating. Perhaps that's a knee jerk reaction from the fear of making creation an idol? Added: How can ethics be separated from human nature? Ethics flows from human nature.

It was the sin of Roman Catholicism to presume to have a privileged perspective on human nature, and if you disagreed with them, you got burnt at the stake. So no thanks, let's not talk about some ivory tower perspective on "human nature" shall we? We all know where that goes.

Ethics in my church literally flows from the cup of Christ's blood and the broken bread we share as the body of Christ. It is a completely different perspective from what you are talking about. Community is at the heart of ethics, and we see that signified in the kinds of sacraments and examples Christ patterned for us.

One of the most moving experiences I had years ago was attending a foot washing on Maundy Thursday and washing a stranger's feet in a large Episcopalian church (It's the basis of "ubi caritas", since that hymn is frequently sung then). This is a perfect example of Jesus' pedagogy of ethics. We have to become intimate with the stranger in order to serve the stranger. The carnality of their lives is the very stuff we must be open to accepting if we are to serve them.

 

[ubicaritas]

Not hardly. It's a simple recognition that God became something people are denying as having any value. It should be a no brainer for a Christian that if God became what we are in the womb it's very deserving of dignity.

That's not what my perspective rests on, or the overall of my church towards the ethics of abortion. We don't necessarily claim an embryo has no value, or that life is not a gift from God, but the value of the woman's autonomy and her moral agency is the primary consideration.

 

[Eloy Craft]

That would be pretending to know God's mind and how God thinks, the big sin of Calvinism.

Not hardly. It's a simple recognition that God became something people are denying as having any value. It should be a no brainer for a Christian that if God became what we are in the womb it's very deserving of dignity.

It was the sin of Roman Catholicism to presume to have a privileged perspective on human nature, and if you disagreed with them, you got burnt at the stake. So no thanks, let's not talk about some ivory tower perspective on "human nature" shall we? We all know where that goes.

Ethics in my church literally flows from the cup of Christ's blood and the broken bread we share as the body of Christ. It is a completely different perspective from what you are talking about. Community is at the heart of ethics, and we see that signified in the kinds of sacraments and examples Christ patterned for us.

One of the most moving experiences I had years ago was attending a foot washing on Maundy Thursday and washing a stranger's feet (It's the basis of "ubi caritas", since that hymn is frequently sung then). This is a perfect example of Jesus' pedagogy of ethics. We have to become intimate with the stranger in order to serve the stranger. The carnality of their lives is the very stuff we must be open to accepting if we are to serve them.

Indeed Jesus reveals God and at the same time He reveals man to himself. It still flows from human nature. That is human blood in Jesus' veins. I think you should put away past resentments so you can be in the moment. An intellectually honest look at the distorted meaning the modern mind gives to the human body and then find that the most powerful truth's against it come from the theology surrounding the human body and it's meaning.

 

[ubicaritas]

Not hardly. It's a simple recognition that God became something people are denying as having any value. It should be a no brainer for a Christian that if God became what we are in the womb it's very deserving of dignity.

Indeed Jesus reveals God and at the same time He reveals man to himself. It still flows from human nature. That is human blood in Jesus' veins. I think you should put away past resentments so you can be in the moment. An intellectually honest look at the distorted meaning the modern mind gives to the human body and then find that the most powerful truth's against it come from the theology surrounding the human body and it's meaning.

Go back to the folks singing "every sperm is sacred"? No thank you. I see no evidence they really were interested in understanding the human body, just controlling it for political ends.

 

[Eloy Craft]

but the value of the woman's autonomy and her moral agency is the primary consideration.

That value is given to the child in the womb. Jesus said "this is my body and it's given up for you" What does the woman demanding autonomy say? This is my body and it is not given up for you" That just can't be a christian woman'[s view of her body.

 

[ubicaritas]

That value is given to the child in the womb. Jesus said "this is my body and it's given up for you" What does the woman demanding autonomy say? This is my body and it is not given up for you" That just can't be a christian woman'[s view of her body.

Don't confuse Law and Gospel. We recognize self sacrifice only as an ideal, not a realistic norm for all Christians. Otherwise, Jesus words to the rich young ruler would condemn all of us.

In addition, generally a man has no right to tell a woman she needs to sacrifice more, at least in this day and age its inappropriate. And if we do that in Christ's name its offensive to the Gospel, as well.

That's two strikes right there.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Go back to the folks singing "every sperm is sacred"? No thank you. I see no evidence they really were interested in understanding the human body, just controlling it for political ends.

That keeps you from being grounded in the moment. It's a way of commiunicating to people in the past that masturbation is a sin. Now we express differently

 

[Eloy Craft]

Don't confuse Law and Gospel. We recognize self sacrifice only as an ideal, not a realistic norm for all Christians. Otherwise, Jesus words to the rich young ruler would condemn all of us.

What law are you referring to? I just gave Jesus' example of the law of love. added. An ideal must be striven for and never abandoned to the current

 

[Eloy Craft]

In addition, generally a man has no right to tell a woman she needs to sacrifice more, at least in this day and age its inappropriate. And if we do that in Christ's name its offensive to the Gospel, as well.

That's two strikes right there.

It's not just a woman's child in her womb. Must we abandon God's purpose for sex for a man and woman's inability to choose? Added. The Gospel is offensive to those who oppose God. It's part and parcel of being united to Jesus. I think what is offensive to the Gospel is when it can't be distinguished from the ways of the world

 

[ubicaritas]

What law are you referring to? I just gave Jesus' example of the law of love. added. An ideal must be striven for and never abandoned to the current

We are under no obligation to follow any Law or ideal because Jesus Christ has fulfilled all the Law's demands and obligations. Jesus is just offering a suggestion to his disciples, not an obligation, when seen through the prism of the grace he gives us freely and without condition.

As I told somebody here recently, Jesus offers real grace to real sinners, not fake grace to fake sinners.

 

[ubicaritas]

It's not just a woman's child in her womb. Must we abandon God's purpose for sex for a man and woman's inability to choose? .

Human beings have done a great deal of harm to each other trying to use a particular idea of "God's purpose for sex" to order that "Great chain of being" that I discussed earlier. We've treated women and gays as second or third class citizens.

What's more important is how does my sexuality serve the neighbor I am most intimate with. The dominant themes in our church are that sexuality should involve things like mutual consent and trust.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Human beings have done a great deal of harm to each other trying to use a particular idea of "God's purpose for sex" to order that "Great chain of being" that I discussed earlier. We've treated women and gays as second or third class citizens.

I agree that a wrong approach has caused damage. This is a case of 'blame the messenger not the message'. You seem to blame the message.

What's more important is how does my sexuality serve the neighbor I am most intimate with. The dominant themes in our church are that sexuality should involve things like mutual consent and trust.

Isn't the marital bond lifted up by Christ the answer to all disorders of society? What you call for is a normalization of what is an enemy to that ideal. As for consent and trust. Bears in the woods form a pair bond of consent and trust to create an environment safe for reproduction. The forms you agree to fall short of even that. The human pair bond must accomodate human nature which is spiritual and made for eternity. The forms you want to agree to reduce the marital bond to the sensual to the detriment of intellect.

 

[grasping the after wind]

If fetuses are persons, why do most people not have funerals after a miscarriage? In some cases there isn't even biological matter to bury.

The whole notion of an embryo being a person goes against our experience of the world (unless perhaps you are a Buddhist or Hindu and could believe a cow or a fish could be a person as well). And I beg to differ that embryonic personhood is a naked fact of science, it isn't. Personhood is a legal concept, and its widely recognized there is no constitutional recognition of embryonic or fetal personhood.

Seems to me you are claiming that to be a person one must have people willing to give one a funeral and that there must be biological matter to bury. Are you really making that your case? Are the Eskimos that wandered off into the wilderness when they felt the end coming a in order to not burden their tribe no longer qualified to be persons. did the Africans that died on the slave ships lose their personhood because they were not given a funeral? If personhood is merely a legal concept and nothing more, then why not be content with slavery as the law could simply be made to say that a slave is not a person. Genocide suddenly can be considered righteous as the law can be made to say those that are on the receiving end are not persons at all because the "don't look like a legally defined person".

 

[Hillsage]

You are actually asking about when a soul enters a human body?

Ask the question....when did the human soul of Jesus of Nazareth enter Him?

I'm not JUST asking 'when'. I'm asking the Hebrew 'definition of' soul.

Also, since you never answered...why???. A 'man' is debateably either a dichotomy or tricotomy being. I believe we are a trinity; We are a spirit we have a soul and we live in a body.

1TH 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Strong's definition of soul/nephesh in the OT is that of "a breathing creature".

5315 nephesh: prop. a breathing creature,i.e. animal or (abstr.) vitality; used very widely in a lit. accommodated or fig. sense (bodily or mental).

A fetus is not a 'breathing creature', he/she is a cellular respiration creature, but his/her oxygen does not come from their breathing lungs, it comes from the mother's breathing. For millenia death was determined by when one 'expired' or 'breathed their last'...just like Jesus on the cross. Thanks to modern medicine, we now can play God and keep a 'lot' of people alive that would have died if it was really left up to God. And that's where I think the religious and political football game is still at today. There's still unanswered questions.


EDIT: Clarification of first sentence

 

[SkyWriting]

The forms you want to agree to reduce the marital bond to the sensual to the detriment of intellect.

Evidently you are not familiar with such couples.
Such relationships are not centered on the sensual.

 

[SkyWriting]

That value is given to the child in the womb. Jesus said "this is my body and it's given up for you" What does the woman demanding autonomy say? This is my body and it is not given up for you" That just can't be a christian woman'[s view of her body.

"This is Gods body, I am the caretaker of it,
you have no say in it and are totally
unqualified to address my situation...get lost."

 

[Eloy Craft]

Evidently you are not familiar with such couples.
Such relationships are not centered on the sensual.

Not sensual as in sexual pleasure but as in a good of the sensitive powers rather than the powers of the intellect. This doesn't mean they aren't able to learn or grow in knowledge but they haven't entered into an environment that enables them to grow in sanctity, which is the ultimate end of a Christian marriage.

 

[Eloy Craft]

This is Gods body, I am the caretaker of it, you have no say in it...get lost.

There's another body I'm talking about. It may be inside of you but it isn't you. Maybe I'm the father and it's just as much my responsibility. Maybe you want to kill my son or my niece. That's my niece not just your daughter. Is that not fair?

 

[SkyWriting]

There's another body I'm talking about. It may be inside of you but it isn't you. Maybe I'm the father and it's just as much my responsibility. Maybe you want to kill my son or my niece. That's my niece not just your daughter. Is that not fair?

"If you are offering, we will transfer the unborn to your body.
Now you have full control. I was not planning for this responsibility
but my husband insisted that evening and I defer to his judgment
as the head of the family. Perhaps he misjudged the outcome?"
npi