Religion and Moral Status of the Pre-born

[Daniel9v9]

You are free to state that life begins at conception as many times as you wish. That doesn't make it so. Different faith communities have different views.

Yes. So if one of these communities have its beliefs codified into law, isn't that their belief pressed upon others? Do you see the problem with your earlier question?

And again, suppose a 10 weeks old baby is aborted. Do you believe that baby has an afterlife?

 

[mark46]

Yes. So if one of these communities have its beliefs codified into law, isn't that their belief pressed upon others? Do you see the problem with your earlier question?

And again, suppose a 10 weeks old baby is aborted. Do you believe that baby has an afterlife?

=========
In the US, there is only group trying to codify its religious beliefs into law. IMO, this is in conflict with our long tradition.

And no, I do not believe that a fetus has an afterlife. What follows? Birth certificates and baptisms of the unborn?

 

[Greg Cheney]

What am I missing? Let churches ban it but not the government.

I reject the legitimacy of the State (no, Romans 13 does not legitimize the modern-day violent State), for it is only concerned with its monopoly over a given territory. It is not concerned with justice, but with its own control over the "justice system." However, State actors get it right sometimes; in this case they did. Regardless of the group that does it, innocent life should be protected. In this case, the State is more righteous than the religious groups that do not protect the innocent, and we should be grateful that lives will be saved. However, the State will not change lives, only the Church will as it follows Christ. People have indeed ceded Church and family authority over to the State, and that is a tragedy. Another tragedy is that people are willing to destroy human life in the womb. (Ectopic pregnancies are another topic, in my view)

 

[Daniel9v9]

=========
In the US, there is only group trying to codify its religious beliefs into law. IMO, this is in conflict with our long tradition.

And no, I do not believe that a fetus has an afterlife. What follows? Birth certificates and baptisms of the unborn?

Well, if you look into the reason why Roe v. Wade was overturned, it's partly because it doesn't have a long tradition. And again, to codify a law that allows for abortion is to codify a certain belief system.

Since you don't believe that the unborn have a soul, I'll leave you with this thought: Consider the unborn John who was filled with the Holy Spirit and leapt for joy in the womb for the unborn Jesus. cf. Luke 1

 

[disciple Clint]

Since the status of the life in the womb from conception to birth is judged differently based on one's religion, why would we want the state regulating it?

"... a number of religious groups, including the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the two largest American Jewish movements – Reform and Conservative Judaism – favor a woman’s right to have an abortion with few or no exceptions.

Many of the nation’s largest mainline Protestant denominations – including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Methodists – also support abortion rights,

Where major religious groups stand on abortion

The recent ruling seems to me to be a violation of freedom of religion. It imposes the religious beliefs of those churches that oppose abortion (in fact seeing it as murder) on everyone including those who do not hold that belief.

What am I missing? Let churches ban it but not the government.

Missing is the fact that a human child exists at the time of conception and killing a human without legal justification is murder. If it is ok to kill a child before it is born why would it not be ok to kill a child at any time them become inconvenient? If one condition of age can be justified then any condition of age can also be justified. AND yet we a appalled at the concept of child sacrifice, or starving children, or children killed in war, or children killed at schools. What exactly are our values?

 

[KCfromNC]

So, the morning after pill MUST be banned in the US because the egg is child that we are murdering. And certainly, the contraceptive pill is an abortion device since fertilized eggs may be killed. What herbs and vegetables should be illegal to be consumed by women, since so many might kill a newly fertilized egg.

Also, if unimplanted eggs are people, they deserve to be counted as dependents on tax returns, have life insurance taken out on them, be eligible for food stamps and other assistance, and so on. I mean, should be no big deal if they are really the same a child. I anxiously await all the new red-state laws giving these welfare benefits to the families of these "children".

Edit - hmm, I wonder if stocks with unrealized gains can be gifted to these "children", and then if the "child" doesn't survive (for example, if the woman is on birth control) the parent can inherit the stock with a stepped up cost basis?

 

[KCfromNC]

Missing is the fact that a human child exists at the time of conception and killing a human without legal justification is murder.

The actual fact is that this is not a fact.

 

[disciple Clint]

The actual fact is that this is not a fact.

citation and evidence required

 

[KCfromNC]

citation and evidence required

Interesting attempt to shift the burden of proof.
But look to post 26 to see the ways a fetus is currently treated differently than a child.

 

[mark46]

.
Since you don't believe that the unborn have a soul, I'll leave you with this thought: Consider the unborn John who was filled with the Holy Spirit and leapt for joy in the womb for the unborn Jesus. cf. Luke 1

I admit that this is a good point. It doesn't follow that all have a soul at conception. Surely John was in many ways special. I guess that I am fine with the idea of ensoulment sometime after conception. Acquinas thought 40 or 80 days. Muslims think 4 months. In scientific terms (important to evangelicals only in this one situation), viability seems reasonable.

I am also fine with idea that abortion should be rare. It is "clearly" a sin to have an abortion for economic reasons or for convenience. For certainly the embryo is potential life at conception.

From a legal perspective, a fetus must be different than a child. However, it reasonable to prohibit abortions after a certain period. States sometimes choose 23 weeks or 24 or 15. If at least 13 weeks is the number, there need be no exception for incest or rape. Surely those abortions can take place before 13 weeks. We need only have exception for the severe physical health of the mother and fetus.

 

[disciple Clint]

Interesting attempt to shift the burden of proof.
But look to post 26 to see the ways a fetus is currently treated differently than a child.

Nothing there in the way of evidence for your post.

 

[mark46]

Nothing there in the way of evidence for your post.

I think that you need evidence if you are to change the status quo. There is nothing in law treats a fetus in the same way as a child. There is no birth certificate. The fetus isn't a dependent for tax purposes. A fetus isn't counted in the census. There are literally hundreds of other situations.

To treat a fetus (even a 3rd term one) as a child would require major changes in hundreds of laws and administrative situations.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Missing is the fact that a human child exists at the time of conception...

That is the debate. Is a fertilized egg = a child?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Please list the churches and relevant documents that maintain that blastocysts should have the same rights as 20 year old woman.

I have never seen a church suggest citizenship, ownership rights and other rights being considered the same for the two.

And, yes, this would be a huge change for the US. Determining that, by law, a blastocyst (or even 3month old embryo/fetus) is a person that has rights would have a profound effect. Surely, we would start with issuing the equivalent of birth certificates for these newly defined persons.

In the US, an embryo becomes a person at birth, when God breathes life into flesh.

Ok, you got me there. We don't issue driving permits and voter registration to blastocysts. But the religious argument being made is that a fertilized egg has just as much right to live as a 20 year old woman because it is a human being.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yes, I think we should treat children in all stages of development with dignity and respect because they are living human beings, even if small and in an early stage. I see no good reason why an unborn can't share the same legal rights as a child that has just been born — or at the very least, the right not to have their life violently taken away from them. Positively, I think we should support and care for them and their family.

A big part of the problem is that our generation is bent on understanding the world through the lens of rights, privileges, and oppression, whereas historically, we have understood things primarily as gifts. So, I would talk about the "gift of life" but another of the "right of life", and in this, you see two very different philosophical frameworks. However, if we are to talk about rights, what I'm interested in learning is where those rights come from. That is, to say something to the effect that "abortion is a human right" is problematic. For, to expand a bit on the above, who decides what qualifies as a human right? The society? Which society? And who in the society? The government? The majority? The influential? The oppressed? Which class of oppressed? The more we reflect on this, the more we begin to see how complex the issue is and how shallow much of the debate is.

Yes, I agree. But my view is influenced by my religious beliefs. And maybe that is unavoidable. "Who decides what qualifies as a human right?" I think we pretty much have to go by who can insure and protect such rights. So, the government. Next question is what level?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Here we go again with the "it's a child/person/it has a soul/heartbeat!!!11" argument. It's completely irrelevant whether what we're talking about is a "person" or a "human" or anything else.

The state cannot compel a person (an actual unambiguously living, breathing, thinking person) to use any part of their body, including body fluids that can be replenished, to keep another person at any stage of development alive without their express consent. Not even after they are dead.

This is literally the only argument needed to justify respecting the right of women to make medical choices about their own bodies. The baby's body or status as a person is irrelevant.

 

[Saucy]

So many people, especially the left who are being emotionally manipulated into a freenzy by their leaders, is that this ruling on Roe had nothing to do with religion. The Supreme Court did not make a religious ruling or moral ruling. They did not share their own opinions on abortion when deciding to strike down Roe. It was a constitutional question. Is abortion protected by the constitution? The answer is no, it is not even mentioned. There is no constitutionally protected right to abortion, which means it needs to go back to the states to determine how they want to handle it. People can be angry at the justices all they want, but this was the right decision.

When it comes to majority beliefs, while most Americans do believe that abortion should be legal, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion should have some restrictions. The level of restrictions differs by area. Very few states will actually outright ban abortion. Many will have some level of restrictions. Many will leave it wide open and restriction-free.

Other lies being pumped include women will not have access to life-saving surgery if there's a miscarriage or that Christians say they're pro-life but don't care about the child after it's born. The reality is life-saving surgery is available for every woman who needs it. That is not abortion as the child has already died in the womb. Christians do support kids as they have started almost every single pregnancy center out there and adopt more kids at 2x the national average.

I know a couple that has adopted 8 kids after choosing foster care. They went with foster care because there was a line of a million people ahead of them waiting for adoption. They do not make it easy to adopt kids and the line is so long. So Christians do care about kids and mothers and support life.

 

[Saucy]

Here we go again with the "it's a child/person/it has a soul/heartbeat!!!11" argument. It's completely irrelevant whether what we're talking about is a "person" or a "human" or anything else.

The state cannot compel a person (an actual unambiguously living, breathing, thinking person) to use any part of their body, including body fluids that can be replenished, to keep another person at any stage of development alive without their express consent. Not even after they are dead.

This is literally the only argument needed to justify respecting the right of women to make medical choices about their own bodies. The baby's body or status as a person is irrelevant.

This is incorrect. A child after it is born still needs support from the mother. Not doing so is murder. It's no less murder when the child is inside of her body.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It was a constitutional question. Is abortion protected by the constitution? The answer is no, it is not even mentioned.

Good point but, The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated". The SCOTUS has upheld the right to privacy, which often protects rights to bodily integrity.

The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

This is incorrect. A child after it is born still needs support from the mother. Not doing so is murder. It's no less murder when the child is inside of her body.

It is not incorrect. Yes, once the child is born, it has rights, but if that child needed a blood transfusion the state still cannot compel the mother to provide the blood from her own body.