Is the Fetus a Human Being?

[redleghunter]

This is a great example for us the fallacy known as "Appeal to Popularity" It's an invalid way of reasoning.

And it was an appeal to a very left wing (not to mention lumping in Unitarians who are not Christian) only view.

 

[JacksBratt]

Also, the clear death penalty in the scripture is for "accidental" killing of a child, meaning abortion was either unheard of or unspeakable and not even used as example here.

Wonder what the penalty would have been for purposeful murder of a child?

Exactly... Remember Charles Manson... They killed the then pregnant Sharon Tate and her unborn child..
Oh the humanity.. the poor child. They murdered that innocent child.... 20 years later... "hmm, it's not a human."

 

[redleghunter]

That's just it... "It" is a human being. This human is not "her body" or part of it. She is a life support system for it and no blood passes from the mother to the infant. Only O2 and nutrients.

What about the "choice" of the human inside of her?
The woman already made a choice with her body and let part of a man's body inside of her.... The man and the woman are then both responsible for their actions in creating another human.

It is a sad state of the body of Christ, when the Christians can see abortion as an ethical and moral thing to do.

You are correct...totally sad....

 

[ubicaritas]

Thank you for honestly sharing this. For me, this really explains a lot. Ubicharitas is actually OK with holding onto and believing in contradictory, inconsistent ideas. Personally, I have more intellectual and spiritual integrity than to intentionally allow myself to do that. But seeing as the link he provided to his denominations position on abortion is logically inconsistent, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that his own view follows that.

I think it's more like we recognize a spectrum of beliefs that are possible in our denomination . We don't expect people to be wacky and crazy, nor do we view ourselves as lacking integrity. We are just being honest about what we see as an ambiguous situation.

There are plenty of schools of ethical thought that good ethics is driven by personalism, so it's not down to moral absolutism, but can vary by situation to situation.

 

[SPF]

nor do we view ourselves as lacking integrity. We are just being honest about what we see as an ambiguous situation.

Yet, when one readily acknowledges that the beliefs they are holding pertaining to a moral situation are contradictory and inconsistent - and they are OK with that - then yes, that person is lacking in intellectual integrity.

It's one thing for two people to hold different moral positions, it's another thing entirely for one person to hold to a self-defeating, contradictory position, and to be OK with it.

 

[ubicaritas]

Yet, when one readily acknowledges that the beliefs they are holding pertaining to a moral situation are contradictory and inconsistent - and they are OK with that - then yes, that person is lacking in intellectual integrity.

It's one thing for two people to hold different moral positions, it's another thing entirely for one person to hold to a self-defeating, contradictory position, and to be OK with it.

That's not necessarily true, especially if we assume that a rationalistic, totalizing, left-brain driven approach to life is inadequate, as we do.

I also think you overplay how seemingly contradictory that statement was. You are bringing alot of your own baggage along when you read, I am afraid. Just because life may be sacred for us doesn't mean that we automatically conclude a woman may never have an abortion as a result. That does not follow.

 

[SPF]

We are not anti-intellectual, not by a long shot. We aren't the ones denying science and shouting about how we should have more "Creation Museums".

Anyone who can acknowledge and be OK with the fact that a belief they hold is inconsistent and contradictory is indeed anti-intellectual.

 

[ubicaritas]

Anyone who can acknowledge and be OK with the fact that a belief they hold is inconsistent and contradictory is indeed anti-intellectual.

Now you are just name-calling. You've completely dodged trying to actually understand my perspective, and have been dealing with it in bad faith all along.

 

[NW82]

 

[SPF]

Now you are just name-calling. You've completely dodged trying to actually understand my perspective, and have been dealing with it in bad faith all along.

How can one understand a perspective that is acknowledging it is inconsistent and contradicting?

You flatly said: " we don't pretend to have an entirely logically consistent "worldview". That's not what we are about."

Therefore, all I was doing was thanking you for actually coming out and being honest about this. I, and all the other educated Christians I know strive for intellectual and spiritual integrity. Part of that would necessarily entail a worldview that is consistent.

I don't think for a moment that I hold the corner on Truth. I am certain that a number of my beliefs are wrong. I come to places like this to engage in dialogue with other people as a way of testing my worldview and my beliefs. When I find a belief that contradicts one I hold, then I happily engage in conversation to try and see if mine holds water, or if it's time to perhaps abandon it for what reveals itself as Truth.

You however, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish as you readily admit that your worldview is inconsistent, and you're OK with that. I guess that's why 50% of your posts are flooded with fallacies - you just aren't concerned with being consistent and intellectually honest.

 

[ubicaritas]

How can one understand a perspective that is acknowledging it is inconsistent and contradicting?

You flatly said: " we don't pretend to have an entirely logically consistent "worldview". That's not what we are about."

Therefore, all I was doing was thanking you for actually coming out and being honest about this. I, and all the other educated Christians I know strive for intellectual and spiritual integrity. Part of that would necessarily entail a worldview that is consistent.

Now you are just defaming my religion by implying we lack "spiritual integrity". You won't listen to what we have to say.

Part of having integrity is admitting we don't have all the answers neatly wrapped up. We believe in being sincere about that. We view other Christians that pretend to do so as merely being deluded in the capabilities of discursive reasoning to know God's mind, and full of arrogance. History has shown time and again that totalizing narratives or regimes end in abuse of human beings and their rights.

Lutherans learn ethics as much by doing as by thinking about it "objectively". You see a neighbor in need and you get involved. Really challenging ethical matters we mostly leave to people who are actual stakeholders and people who have expertise, like doctors, women, etc., and not the armchair ethicist. It is far more honest and has more real intellectual integrity than either what Catholics or other Evangelicals promote, which is really little more than junk that isn't even taken seriously by many secular academics now days.

 

[redleghunter]

That's not necessarily true, especially if we assume that a rationalistic, totalizing, left-brain driven approach to life is inadequate, as we do.

I also think you overplay how seemingly contradictory that statement was. You are bringing alot of your own baggage along when you read, I am afraid. Just because life may be sacred for us doesn't mean that we automatically conclude a woman may never have an abortion as a result. That does not follow.

I think @SPF was nicely pointing out the moral relativism of your church. Moral relativism IS self defeating as everyone has an opinion and each opinion is considered valid. What you and your church are denying is that there are objective truths. Unfortunately for your church, the Bibles in pews which may be collecting a bit of dust 'scream out' objective truth.

 

[redleghunter]

Now you are just name-calling. You've completely dodged trying to actually understand my perspective, and have been dealing with it in bad faith all along.

It's not name calling. He is just giving an honest assessment on where the evidence leads with your worldview.

 

[ubicaritas]

I think @SPF was nicely pointing out the moral relativism of your church. Moral relativism IS self defeating as everyone has an opinion and each opinion is considered valid. What you and your church are denying is that there are objective truths. Unfortunately for your church, the Bibles in pews which may be collecting a bit of dust 'scream out' objective truth.

We don't share your philosophical presuppositions, that is true. That hardly means we are simply empty-headed fools who believe any act can be considered moral, no matter who it hurts. We are not libertines.

My church is really the only thing standing between me and being an a "religious none". Its the only church that I have encountered that has the intellectual integrity to say "we don't have all the answers and we refuse to compel you to believe something that you find ethically repugnant according to your conscience, but we do promise to be on the journey with you and help you live out your vocation".

 

[JacksBratt]

I think it's more like we recognize a spectrum of beliefs that are possible in our denomination . We don't expect people to be wacky and crazy, nor do we view ourselves as lacking integrity. We are just being honest about what we see as an ambiguous situation.

There are plenty of schools of ethical thought that good ethics is driven by personalism, so it's not down to moral absolutism, but can vary by situation to situation.

In other words...if times change, we should change with them. If the old ways seem prudish or out of step with what is considered acceptable by the mainstream... then we will ignore that portion of the scripture.

God said that He is the same and never changes. His mandates and moral framework should not change withing the mindset of those that claim to be His children.

I don't care what any group or committee, or foundation of any sort of people say... The Bible is the word of God... it says that killing is wrong... Babies are alive and have a soul and are human... Killing them is still wrong. It was in Jesus day, it is now and it will be in the future.. No matter what spin you put on it... A baby is a living human being, from conception. To poison, crush, cut or suck this human out of it's mothers womb is wrong at any stage of the game.

I am never shocked, anymore, at what people can convince themselves to be right and moral.

 

[SPF]

You won't listen to what we have to say.

Actually, the problem is that I have listened closely to what you have said and have closely read the abortion statement that your branch of Lutherans have put out. And both are inconsistent and self-contradicting.

Part of having integrity is admitting we don't have all the answers neatly wrapped up. We believe in being sincere about that. We view other Christians that pretend to do so as merely being deluded in the capabilities of discursive reasoning to know God's mind, and full of arrogance

I completely agree that those with actual intellectual integrity have enough humility to recognize that they don't know everything. I certainly don't know everything. But, and this is very important - those with intellectual integrity at least hold to consistent beliefs that are not self contradicting.

So pulling this back to the abortion discussion...The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's position on abortion. I must say, they actually get something spot on.

"Human beings, created in God’s image as male and female (Genesis 1:27-28), are persons of intrinsic value and dignity."

"All of life is a mysterious, awesome gift of God. Biblical passages express the God-given mystery of creation (Psalm 139; Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 40:26ff; Luke 1:41; Acts 17:24-25). God creates life, redeems it through Jesus Christ, and fulfills it in the coming of the reign of God. Personal human life is a part of this divine drama. God creates a human being through complex genetic, physiological, and relational developments.2 Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity."

The first thing I would point out is that in the first quote, there is no distinction made between a human being and a human person. It seems the Lutherans accept what we already know, which is that all human beings, from fertilization are created in the image of God and possess intrinsic moral worth and value.

And this really is the key point to the entire discussion over the morality of abortion. Our moral worth as humans is derived from God. We don't have to be a certain age to acquire moral worth and value. We don't have to reside at a certain location to acquire moral worth and value. And we also don't have to come into existence by a certain way in order to acquire moral worth and value.

And if we possess inherent moral worth and value, from our very beginning, I honestly cannot come up with a morally valid reason for 98.5% of all the abortions committed in America which are done for convenience purposes.

 

[ubicaritas]

Actually, the problem is that I have listened closely to what you have said and have closely read the abortion statement that your branch of Lutherans have put out. And both are inconsistent and self-contradicting.

I completely agree that those with actual intellectual integrity have enough humility to recognize that they don't know everything. I certainly don't know everything. But, and this is very important - those with intellectual integrity at least hold to consistent beliefs that are not self contradicting.

So pulling this back to the abortion discussion...The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's position on abortion. I must say, they actually get something spot on.

"Human beings, created in God’s image as male and female (Genesis 1:27-28), are persons of intrinsic value and dignity."

"All of life is a mysterious, awesome gift of God. Biblical passages express the God-given mystery of creation (Psalm 139; Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 40:26ff; Luke 1:41; Acts 17:24-25). God creates life, redeems it through Jesus Christ, and fulfills it in the coming of the reign of God. Personal human life is a part of this divine drama. God creates a human being through complex genetic, physiological, and relational developments.2 Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity."

The first thing I would point out is that in the first quote, there is no distinction made between a human being and a human person. It seems the Lutherans accept what we already know, which is that all human beings, from fertilization are created in the image of God and possess intrinsic moral worth and value.

And this really is the key point to the entire discussion over the morality of abortion. Our moral worth as humans is derived from God. We don't have to be a certain age to acquire moral worth and value. We don't have to reside at a certain location to acquire moral worth and value. And we also don't have to come into existence by a certain way in order to acquire moral worth and value.

And if we possess inherent moral worth and value, from our very beginning, I honestly cannot come up with a morally valid reason for 98.5% of all the abortions committed in America which are done for convenience purposes.

Economics plays a significant role in abortion. I believe we should be able to find common ground as Christians in trying to help alleviate poverty that compels women towards aborting children that are otherwise wanted. It is not simply "convenience" for a poor woman to choose abortion and its offensive towards the dignity of women and the poor to say otherwise. She may very well be thinking about the long-term future of her family and making a very self-sacrificing decision.

 

[redleghunter]

We don't share your philosophical presuppositions

You mean the Bible.

 

[ubicaritas]

You mean the Bible.

Everyone brings presuppositions to the Bible.

 

[Hillsage]

I hope you realize a doctor will always perform triage and try to save both mother and child. That's how it works.

I guess you are asking for an answer to a hypothetical situation where the doctor comes out and says "you have to choose between your wife or child. I can't save both."

Answer this for me and I will answer your question. What situation would warrant such a decision be made?

If the mother dies so does the baby.

Of course triage is first...that's a duh comment. I'm not talking about "triage first response" though. I'm talking you have two buddies wounded and you can only carry one. Which one do you choose? Your closest friend, or the one least injured. IOW I just personally feel that your request appears to be a waffle to not answer. Come on and just man up to life back here 'in the world' and make a hard decision, as I assume you had to do over 'there', like I did. Back when there was "The right way, the wrong way and the Army way." Does that slogan ring a bell for you as it does me? Another 'waffle' to deny reality and abscond from true eternal responsibility IMO. But hey, 'war is hell' right?

As to your question; The mother has cancer and is pregnant. To delay chemo is to die and to take chemo is to kill her 'child to be'. OK does she kill herself or does she kill her 'child to be'? Which is not a sin in your book, murder or suicide? Just answer this scenario which made the news.

I've backed off for you because I'm not interested in looking up all the actual medical conditions which have occurred and you apparently don't know about and don't want to answer. Instead I feel like you've offered me a 'cop out' mandate???? Why is that? Is it because there is no black and white answer allowing you to cling to your indoctrination and still not loose. I'm not trying to be mean here Redleg, just trying to be as hard for 'the truth' as 'the government', 'the medical establishment' and 'the legal system' have personally taught me to be, concerning those things still blindly 'too' worshiped by the nominal church and they don't even know. I know there's a whole lot more GREY in their BLACK and WHITE world, because I've cornered them and it always ends up coming back as a 'God's judgement' against me from THEM. And I'm sorry I have no problem in my heart standing in front of Him, compared to the nominal church of today. Not ALL the church, just too many.