Abortion Pill & Morning After Pill Contraception

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Ok, well, it's a lot to think about, but basically I believe God already knows our spirits before He places them in our developing bodies in the womb. And that view arose out of the 2 verses above and some other things in the Bible, quite a long while back, but only very recently did I realize it also has an implication about such things as contraception or a morning after pill that prevents pregnancy. If God puts our spirits in viable developing bodies as I think fits the scriptures, then contraception has no effect on that action. He will put that individual spirit in a body, as He chooses, and our actions will not prevent it at all then, see.
Correct me here if I'm wrong as I'm going to try and summarize what you're saying. I do not want to misrepresent you.

1. Human beings come into existence at fertilization (basic biology), but they do not automatically have a soul.
2. God determines which human beings will have souls and which will not.
3. If a human will not make it to developmental level X (I'm unclear as to where, if at all you draw the line), then God will not place a soul in that human being.

Is that right? If so, then would that mean that soulless humans are not created in the image of God and therefore do not possess inherent moral worth and value and are essentially no different than animals?

What's interesting is if that's true, then on some level, we actually determine which babies will receive souls and which will not based upon whether or not a woman aborts. Do you think we have that ability?

What of the babies that are developed enough, like John the Baptist who leapt for joy in his mother's womb, that have something go wrong at the end of pregnancy? Why would God put souls in them and not the others?

This position seems fraught with problems, and based upon Scripture that frankly, isn't even clear on the issue. It's not something that I can see agreeing with.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
think killing an unborn human being for any reason outside a life-threatening medical emergency is immoral, yes. Absolutely.

There are two victims when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant - The woman, and the unwanted baby. But the morally appropriate answer to the situation is never going to be to kill one of the victims.

You keep saying this without acknowleding the fact that forcing a rape victim to carry a baby she did not, and in fact tried to avoid having, is immoral. In these cases it goes both ways. You can't just say because it is immoral to kill the baby it is moral to tell the rape victim, "Sorry, you have to stop living a normal life for nine months because you decided not to use contraception." What is your solution?
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
At every point of development, it is always divided between fetus and child. Yes, they are different, and God knows that.

Not true. The first eight weeks, an unborn baby is an embryo. Expecting mothers call it an unborn baby.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You keep saying this without acknowleding the fact that forcing a rape victim to carry a baby she did not, and in fact tried to avoid having, is immoral. In these cases it goes both ways. You can't just say because it is immoral to kill the baby it is moral to tell the rape victim, "Sorry, you have to stop living a normal life for nine months because you decided not to use contraception." What is your solution?
My "solution" has always been the same.

1. The how in which a new human being comes into existence has absolutely no impact upon their moral worth and value.

2. All human beings (which come into existence at fertilization) are equally created in the image of God and equally possess inherent moral worth and value.

3. Killing an innocent human being who has done no wrong is immoral.

Therefore, it is immoral to kill any unborn human being for any reason outside of a life-threatening medical emergency where the lives of one or both of the humans are in immediate peril.

In the tragic situation where a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, there are two victims: The mother, and the unborn child. Killing one of them is never the morally right choice to make. I refer you back to something LostMarbel's said:

As an adopted child, born from a rape, I cannot tell you how thankful I am for my life. I know all too well I could have been killed in the womb, and thrown in the trash. I am so thankful to my God for a 'mother' that respected life enough to understand it was not my fault, and allowed me to live.

I had no say at all in this event.

My life was in others hands before I was even aware I was in trouble.

That, disturbs me to this day. Knowing how easily my life could have been ended.
 
Upvote 0

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,473
Raleigh, NC
✟449,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No, it is not a baby or toddler.

How can you say a fetus is not a living human being when he or she has a unique set of DNA apart from any other human, functioning organs, and a beating heart?
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
SPF, you are only stating opinions, not a solution to the mother's problem. How do you solve the problem that the mother is struggling with when she must carry an unborn baby for nine months?
No, I'm discussing principles. We all make choices in life based upon the beliefs that we hold. The principles need to be established first. Then, we can make appropriate decisions about what actions, or practices are made.

The principle here is that abortion in the case of a rape where the mother and the child are physically healthy is immoral because they are both equally morally valuable, and they are both victims. It is immoral to kill one of the victims.

So if it's immoral, what do we do for the mother? If you're asking me, the answer would be to provide her with emotional and financial support.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Correct me here if I'm wrong as I'm going to try and summarize what you're saying. I do not want to misrepresent you.

1. Human beings come into existence at fertilization (basic biology), but they do not automatically have a soul.
2. God determines which human beings will have souls and which will not.
3. If a human will not make it to developmental level X (I'm unclear as to where, if at all you draw the line), then God will not place a soul in that human being.

Is that right? If so, then would that mean that soulless humans are not created in the image of God and therefore do not possess inherent moral worth and value and are essentially no different than animals?

What's interesting is if that's true, then on some level, we actually determine which babies will receive souls and which will not based upon whether or not a woman aborts. Do you think we have that ability?

What of the babies that are developed enough, like John the Baptist who leapt for joy in his mother's womb, that have something go wrong at the end of pregnancy? Why would God put souls in them and not the others?

This position seems fraught with problems, and based upon Scripture that frankly, isn't even clear on the issue. It's not something that I can see agreeing with.
#1 isn't exactly what I believe.

The body is dust I believe.

What makes us "human" is not just the body, alone.

Instead we are really the spirit/soul He has created us as also, which though connected to the body for a while, isn't flesh.

The body is a merely temporary home.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
How can you say a fetus is not a living human being when he or she has a unique set of DNA apart from any other human, functioning organs, and a beating heart?

But he didn't say that it isn't a living human being. His exact words were "it is not a baby or toddler."
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
#1 isn't exactly what I believe.

The body is dust I believe.

What makes us "human" is not just the body, alone.

Instead we are really the spirit/soul He has created us as also, which though connected to the body for a while, isn't flesh.

The body is a merely temporary home.
I agree that we are not just a body, certainly. I think God created us as both physical and spiritual beings. The physical body does matter. We are told to take care of it, we are told to honor God with it. When Christ returned in His glorified body, He still resembled his old self - and this will be true of us.

When Christ returns and redeems and restores creation, we will all be given new, "glorified" bodies. I don't know specifically what all that entails, other than they will be freed from the curse of sin, but I suspect we will look fairly similar to how we look now. And those bodies will be ours going forward into eternity as we will reside on the new earth in our physical bodies.

I don't agree that our bodies are "a merely temporary home". They are temporary in the sense that currently they are the recipients of a sinful nature, they age, they are susceptible to sickness, they can be hurt. But that won't always be so.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,473
Raleigh, NC
✟449,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
But he didn't say that it isn't a living human being. His exact words were "it is not a baby or toddler."

He said "No" which was enough to answer my question. The rest of the reply was a strawman which I purposefully ignored. I asked a closed ended question, and received the close ended answer I was expecting.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,224,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
But the article is discussing the Alabama Senate when it says every yea vote was cast by a white male. You are correct that six women voted for it in the House and it was signed by a female governor. Alabama Has just 22 women in its state legislature, 15.7%. That is below the national average. There is only one state where women make up more than half of the legislature, that being Nevada.
The title of the CBS news story did not mention that it was about the Senate only. I get it that titles can't say everything, but in this case it said something misleading. And the misleading has had an effect in this very thread, with people wrongly concluding that only men voted in the abortion ban. I am suspicious that may have been a deliberate misleading. More women in the Alabama legislature voted FOR the ban than women who voted AGAINST the ban. It's not a story about men oppressing women. It's a story about men AND women acting to stop abortion. And whether Alabama has more or less women in their legislature is not germane. Perhaps they will have more women in the legislature in the future and that would be a good thing.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I think killing an unborn human being for any reason outside a life-threatening medical emergency is immoral, yes. Absolutely.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

There are two victims when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant - The woman, and the unwanted baby. But the morally appropriate answer to the situation is never going to be to kill one of the victims.

But in your view it is apparently morally acceptable to force your opinion (which is all you are expressing) on a woman who has already been victimized once and cause her to be victimized again.

Well, I have an undergrad and two masters, though I never made it to the doctorate as I had a vocation change. Now I just have a bunch of silly letters after my name like CFP®, CLU, CLTC, and CKA®. However, I would trade all those in for a doctorate, so yea, you got me on that.

It is never too late. I had a student one time who completed his doctorate when he was 82. Apparently his father, who had a PhD, was always hurt because his son never got his doctorate, so he said he was doing it for dad.

Unfortunately though your education didn't help much in terms of recognizing the fallacy you keep committing by asserting that a person's gender determines whether or not they can discuss morality.

Except I never said that you can't discuss morality because of your gender. Maybe if you had a doctorate you would realize that. My exact words were that it is not moral for you as a man "to try to force someone else to do something against their will that you will never have to do." If a rape victim wants to carry the fetus of her attacker to term that should be her choice. It shouldn't be forced on her by you or the Alabama Legislature or anyone else. Fortunately the Alabama law is going to get appealed and it will be overturned.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,224,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
The fact that it was signed by a woman is irrelevant.
But other people in this very thread have made a big deal about how it was passed by men only. Not quite true, but good propaganda for sure. How is that relevant, or irrelevant, or whatever?
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The title of the CBS news story did not mention that it was about the Senate only. I get it that titles can't say everything, but in this case it said something misleading.

That is the reason you have to read the complete article as I did.

And the misleading has had an effect in this very thread, with people wrongly concluding that only men voted in the abortion ban. I am suspicious that may have been a deliberate misleading. More women in the Alabama legislature voted FOR the ban than women who voted AGAINST the ban. It's not a story about men oppressing women. It's a story about men AND women acting to stop abortion. And whether Alabama has more or less women in their legislature is not germane. Perhaps they will have more women in the legislature in the future and that would be a good thing.

I would say that it is a story of men and a few women acting to oppress women. The women in the House who supported this should be ashamed of themselves.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
But other people in this very thread have made a big deal about how it was passed by men only. Not quite true, but good propaganda for sure. How is that relevant, or irrelevant, or whatever?

that is because they didn't take the time to get their facts straight as I did.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,224,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
But only men voted for the abortion law in the Senate. The women involved were just trying to prevent men from voting for it. The article I posted claims there are only 6 women total - not just 6 women who voted for it - so there was very little female lawmaker involvement.
And yet you neglected to mention that of the women who are in the Alabama legislature, a majority of them did vote for the abortion ban. Some sponsored the bill. It's not like all or most of the women voted against it, or lobbied against it. Unless you have some evidence for saying "[t]he women involved were just trying to prevent men from voting for it".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums