Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First off, I am 200% pro-life. An atheist friend (who used to be pro-life) has decided that abortion is only murder if it happens before the nervous system forms. does anyone have any ideas how I can convince him otherwise? Thanks!
View attachment 120740
The fact that the baby feels pain, thinks and breathes is only part of the issue. This is the only issue in question for atheists but for Christians there is a much bigger question to ask. Do we have a right to deny a soul its ONLY chance to live? We have ONE chance to live and NO ONE has the right to take that chance from us. That is why murder is such a serious offence to God. I think any Christian should think about that before supporting abortion at ANY point after conception.
What does that mean - that for every conception that happens you want twins to be born?First off, I am 200% pro-life.
You probably cannot by argument.An atheist friend (who used to be pro-life) has decided that abortion is only murder if it happens before the nervous system forms. does anyone have any ideas how I can convince him otherwise? Thanks!
I doubt that will convince him unless he isn't 100% sure.Biochemically and Genetically the baby is complete. It is simply in an early stage of development.
Here is the big question: "What is the un-born?" And if we are not 100% certain that it is not a human being then we should not kill it. We don't blow a building up when we are doing a demolition unless we are 100% certain people are not still walking around in the building. The same ought to go for the womb also...."hardship doesn't justify homicide!"
I wonder how you know (i) that the soul manifests before the nervous system develops, and (ii) that, if it does, and if there is an abortion, that is the soul's only chance at life?
We seem to be loosing sight of what a "soul" is. If one has a personality, if one is concious of self and is a human person one has a soul because that is what the word means - one's personhood. If you can ask "do I have a soul" then you have pretty much proved you have one! A soul in Jewish thinking is not an external plug-in, but one's whole personhood. It's not a "thing", its a concept and a status.I don't KNOW that any of us have a soul. I have FAITH that we do.
I don't KNOW that any of us have a soul. I have FAITH that we do. And I don't KNOW that we only have one chance at life. The Bible tells me that we do therefore I believe it. As a Christian I assume you believe these things too, or do I assume too much? Is it alright to kill anyone because you aren't sure that they have a spirit or will or will not live again? There is no evidence that unborn babies DON"T have a soul and more reason to believe that they do than that they don't. God said that he knew us and was with us when we were in the womb and that he was OUR GOD when we were in the womb. God knows and fellowships with our souls not our earthly bodies. He said that he's the God of the LIVING, not the dead. The logic you used is the very same kind of logic that convinces people that mass extermination of groups of people is ok. These people don't have souls and aren't real people. Dehumanization has gone on many times before. The dehumanization of the 21st century will be remembered as that of the unborn, the elderly and the disabled. I have a strong feeling that we will look back on this all one day with a lot of sadness and regret for the millions of lives lost in this current holocaust
I don't know where the Bible says that the soul manifests in the body by a certain point, and that the soul then has only that one shot at life. Can you point the verses out for me?
We seem to be loosing sight of what a "soul" is. If one has a personality, if one is concious of self and is a human person one has a soul because that is what the word means - one's personhood. If you can ask "do I have a soul" then you have pretty much proved you have one! A soul in Jewish thinking is not an external plug-in, but one's whole personhood. It's not a "thing", its a concept and a status.
With that being said...there is a measure of faith that we take in all things and I think the Christian worldview is the most coherent/sensible and intelligent worldview that q person can invest their faith in.
Considering the self-evident proofs of God such as creation and Creator...it ultimately takes more FAITH to be an atheist and deny God's existense
When the resurrection comes we will be physically beings with a new body in which our personality and personhood can exist.Then what part of us lives on after death? That part is what I am referring to as the soul.
Our identity somehow resides with Christ between the two, but - like scripture - we should be careful not to say more about the details of that than we know.So are you saying our spirit is not seperate from our bodies and we just cease to exist after we die until the resurrection?
Norswede,
To say that "the only issue in question for atheists" is whether "the baby feels pain, thinks and breathes" is to lampoon an entire demographic that considers abortion to be the toughest decision a woman may ever have to make in her lifetime. Aside from the primary consideration of an embryo suffering physical pain, which it cannot until the fetal stage, every human being is capable of understanding, intuitively, the anguish brought on by the prospect of aborting, or having to abort, a fetus. For any parent contemplating an abortion, atheist or otherwise, there is a potential that is being terminated, one that is intimately and genetically linked to the mother and father. If that language sounds cold, it frankly doesn't matter because the emotions are not.
That said, many of us support a woman's right to choose because we don't view abortion as murder, that is, a strictly wanton and illegal extinguishing of a human life, which is a position you seem to take, a priori. Even still, this part of the debate is worthy of raging on and we may eventually converge on a well defined, nuanced consensus.
I accept that, in the your view, the soul is present at the moment of conception and that you, as a Christian, could not abort your own pregnancy, no matter how abject the external conditions for rearing the child may be (your own situation might be well and good, but you can imagine what I mean). Do you see, however, that you won't extend similar tolerance to others whose hearts and minds may be on the side of life but are, perhaps under far harsher circumstances than yours, faced with the difficult decision of aborting their pregnancies for what they consider to be the greater good?
You write that "we have ONE chance to live and NO ONE has the right to take that chance from us." Well said, and I agree with the phrasing, but I don't presently feel that that right must be extended to the first cell division of a zygote. I'm not being facetious when I say "presently." My mind may change, but, in that context, can you see that you're advocating taking away another woman's right to determine what she does to her own body? And why make the lofty claim that "murder is such a serious offense to God?" Murder is a serious offense to everybody.
-Tom
Norswede,
Your last sentence rings the truest so I'll respond in reverse order. As you say, the reality of abortion is graphic, and it is precisely for that reason that even atheists don't take it as lightly as, again, just a matter of the baby's central nervous system. That was the basis for my first post on this thread, so please keep that in mind.
Also, let me commend you on replying, this time, without appealing to the concept of a soul as a persuasive point in the debate because I think both sides have a long list of legitimate arguments without dipping their hands into scripture, which tends to derail the conversation for non-religionists.
I happen to agree, in principle, with just about everything you wrote in your reply to my post, except for your use of two terms: "excuse," as in what is a valid "excuse" for abortion, and "support," as in we should consider all information before "supporting" abortion.
When you use these terms, you do a great disservice to your case by dehumanizing the other side. Would a thinking, feeling person really turn to being raped as an "excuse" to abort a baby? That is not called an excuse. That is called a reason.
Similarly, while there is no denying that keeping the medical practice of abortion legal is necessary to our position, it is not the impetus. We do not "support" abortion, we accept it as an unavoidable component of ensuring that the government does not have control over a woman's body. To perpetuate the idea that pro-choicers terminate their fetuses willy-nilly without "considering all the information" does nothing but draw a caricature of people who think differently than you do even though they are no less human.
On to your points:
You seem to conflate the two scenarios of a late term abortion and a sadist murdering a newborn baby as if they could both pop up out of a vacuum without prologue. Like anyone else, I would find both prospects devastating. But there is such a thing as a reasoned action and only one of those two has a chance at qualifying. You said, to repeat, that abortion is graphic. Unfortunately, poverty, disease and pain are graphic, too, and sometimes the most humane thing you can do for someone is to euthanize the person. If you were to make the decision after careful evaluation of all the data and, very likely, much internal struggle, that it is time to end a loved one's lifetime of suffering, no one would call you a "sadistic monster." And, if anyone did, would you see the absurd imputation there?
I can't, myself, conceive of a way in which my wife would carry a baby to nearly full term and then decide in the final hour to abort it. But, if that were to happen, I would know with absolute certainty that there would have had to be a reason that would have caused the context of the scenario to have changed completely.
Being pro-choice means having the option to weigh all the variables and make well-intentioned decisions about your own body within the context you happen to be in. If the need for an abortion is even a possibility, no decision, for or against, will be an easy one. Again, try not to discredit the amount of mental anguish that goes into any decision regarding a pro-choicer's abortion even if you have a difference of opinion.
Ending at the beginning, then, my line on your simplistic chart (if you were serious about it) would have to fall between "4) Rape" and "5) Embarrassment to the mother," but I think you've made it too easy.
Anyhow, I'm happy to give you my thoughts on your questions but I was hoping you would address some of the issues I brought up as well. Thanks for reading.
-Tom
If ones decriminalisation is based on that principle alone, then yes. But that doesn't have to be the case. One can decriminalise abortion for certain instances and stay at that. An argument that tries to say "if you allow it at all you allow everything" is simply rubbish - most legislation deals with issues in which there are shades of gray and copes with that. We decriminalise killing in self defense, but nobody argues that therefore we must legalise murder.But you know as well as I do that once abortion is legalized, it has to be legalized in all cases because the argument for it is that it's the women's right to choose what to do with her body.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?