Abortion, right or wrong?

[MeetingPeopleIsEasy]

http://www.dbcuuc.org/sermons/001001.htm <-- Why Abortion is not Murder

 

[DrFate]

I believe that abortion is not murder, at least through most of the pregnancy. It is about as "alive" as the skin cells on your arm. Ill post a link as soon as the boards let me, when I have 15 posts.

State sponsored elimination of the children of the Poor. What' s wrong with that?

 

[Kasey]

There is no Biblical justification to destroy the life of an un-born child. Its murder, plain and simple.

 

[Maize]

I am not Christian, and I am pro-choice. I don't like the fact that so many abortions happen, but I believe the choice is up to the woman. Also, there are times when an abortion is necessary, like when the life of the mother is at immediate risk. It's a complex issue.

 

[:æ:]

There is no Biblical justification to destroy the life of an un-born child. Its murder, plain and simple.

That's certainly false since God himself ordered the slaying of pregnant women. While its not clear what the justification is, there must obviously be some justification.

Hosea 13:16
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.[/font]

 

[:æ:]

State sponsored elimination of the children of the Poor. What' s wrong with that?

Since abortion is an elective procedure, your statement is an obvious misrepresentation.

:æ:

 

[ChiRho]

Now I don't want to get anyone mad. But I really don't understand this. There are some scriptures that make God's stand on abortion a little less than clear at least to me. Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

If God is strictly against all abortion, why does He appear to order at least the possibility of it here (not to mention the other barbarity) or was this just Moses over-doing it?

Numbers 31

2"Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people."

16"Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.

Are you proposing that God is unjust? I think that our problem begins when we tend to judge according to our carnal (and very much sinful) sense of morality. God imposes wrath and mercy according to His perfect Will.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[Crazy Liz]

Numbers 31

2"Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people."

16"Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.

Are you proposing that God is unjust? I think that our problem begins when we tend to judge according to our carnal (and very much sinful) sense of morality. God imposes wrath and mercy according to His perfect Will.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

You seem to be saying we are incapable of making any moral judgments at all. If this is the case, how can we "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God?" Why all the wisdom teaching in scripture?

I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

 

[ChiRho]

I believe that abortion is not murder, at least through most of the pregnancy. It is about as "alive" as the skin cells on your arm. Ill post a link as soon as the boards let me, when I have 15 posts.

From your link:

Number six: to be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of innocent human life which is a "person." This is the sine qua non, the absolute key, essential element of the whole definition. If the innocent human life which is intentionally killed does not constitute a person, than no "murder" has been committed.

But what is "personhood"? Some ethicists list more than a dozen criteria for defining "personhood." But I believe there are just three which are absolutely necessary: they are "consciousness," "self-awareness," and "memory." In order for me to be a person, to be "Robert," it is essential that I possess the ability to experience "consciousness"-by which I mean an awareness of my environment. I must also have the ability to recognize the difference between my environment and myself, which is what I mean by "self-awareness." Despite temporary lapses into unconsciousness and loss of self-awareness due to sleep, sedation, and so on, I remain the "person" I am only so long as I am able to return to consciousness and self-awareness with the memory of my own past intact.

What is it that gives someone consciousness, self-awareness, and memory? It is only one thing: a brain. . With a mature, fully functioning human brain, there can be consciousness, self-awareness, memory, and "personhood." Without a brain, personhood is absent.

This is a giant assumption...just because this whacked out doctor believes that Rene Descartes sets the standard of what qualifies as human life, doesnt mean that he is correct.

In response to your link, I offer Dr. John Warwick Montgomery's response to the same question asked by a Medical Doctor from Ohio and published in JAMA in 1970:

"When does life begin?...

...Specifically, would you define life as beginning (1) with the first cell that forms when sperm and egg meet, or (2) when the cell has demonstrated life with the first cell division, or (3) with the first heartbeat, or (4) when the first wave activity can be demonstrated on the electroecephalogram, or (5) at the first possible time when life can be sustained outside the uterus or (6) when?"

-MD Ohio

John Warwick Montgomery, Ph.D., D. Theol.

"Human life can, of course, be arbitrarily "defined" to begin at any of the points mentioned. The ancient common law emphasis on "quickening" lillustrates how arbitrary such definitions often are, and how pragmatic are the considerations giving rise to them (in this case, workable sanctions against socially harmful abortion).

The medical profession and the Christian religion, however, are so fully committed to the irreducible dignity and worth of individual human life that neither can be satisfied with arbitrary or pragmatic definitions capable of investing the nonhuman with humanity or of lowering the genuinely human to subhuman status. Though variations in theological and medical judgment can certainly be observed historically on the question, it is remarkable how closely biblical (Exodus 21:22-25) and scientific evidence today enter into accord on the absolute cruciality of egg-and-sperm union as the point of origin of individual human life, as discussed by Dr. Melville Vincent and myself in separate symposium papers for the Christian Medical Society.

The force of such biblical passages as Psalm 51:5 and Luke 1:15, 41 is entirely consistent with current biological evidence as summarized, for esample, by Jules Carles, director of research at France's National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS):

This first cell [formed by sperm-and-egg union] is already the embryo of an autonomous living beign with individual hereditary patrimony, such that if we knew the nature of the spermatozoid and the chromosomes involved, we could already at that point predict the characteristics of the child, the future color of his hair, and the illnesses to which he would be subject. In his mother's womb, where he will grow, he will not accept everything she brings to him, but only that which is necessary to his existence: thereby he will realize his hereditary patrimony. In that first cell the profound dynamism and the precise direction of life appears.... In spite of its fragility and its immense needs, an autonomous and genuinely living being has come into existence....It is rather surprising to see certain physicians speak here of "potential life" as if the fertilized egg began its real life when it nests in the uterus. Modern biology does not deny the importance of nidation, but it sees it only as a condition -indispensable, to be sure- for the development of the embryo and the continuation of a life already in existence."​

 

[:æ:]

This is a giant assumption...just because this whacked out doctor believes that Rene Descartes sets the standard of what qualifies as human life, doesnt mean that he is correct.

That you call him a "whacked out doctor" doesn't make him wrong, either.

In response to your link, I offer Dr. John Warwick Montgomery's response to the same question asked by a Medical Doctor from Ohio and published in JAMA in 1970:

"When does life begin?...

...Specifically, would you define life as beginning (1) with the first cell that forms when sperm and egg meet, or (2) when the cell has demonstrated life with the first cell division, or (3) with the first heartbeat, or (4) when the first wave activity can be demonstrated on the electroecephalogram, or (5) at the first possible time when life can be sustained outside the uterus or (6) when?"

-MD Ohio

John Warwick Montgomery, Ph.D., D. Theol.

"Human life can, of course, be arbitrarily "defined" to begin at any of the points mentioned. The ancient common law emphasis on "quickening" lillustrates how arbitrary such definitions often are, and how pragmatic are the considerations giving rise to them (in this case, workable sanctions against socially harmful abortion).

The medical profession and the Christian religion, however, are so fully committed to the irreducible dignity and worth of individual human life that neither can be satisfied with arbitrary or pragmatic definitions capable of investing the nonhuman with humanity or of lowering the genuinely human to subhuman status. Though variations in theological and medical judgment can certainly be observed historically on the question, it is remarkable how closely biblical (Exodus 21:22-25) and scientific evidence today enter into accord on the absolute cruciality of egg-and-sperm union as the point of origin of individual human life, as discussed by Dr. Melville Vincent and myself in separate symposium papers for the Christian Medical Society.

The force of such biblical passages as Psalm 51:5 and Luke 1:15, 41 is entirely consistent with current biological evidence as summarized, for esample, by Jules Carles, director of research at France's National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS):

This first cell [formed by sperm-and-egg union] is already the embryo of an autonomous living beign with individual hereditary patrimony, such that if we knew the nature of the spermatozoid and the chromosomes involved, we could already at that point predict the characteristics of the child, the future color of his hair, and the illnesses to which he would be subject. In his mother's womb, where he will grow, he will not accept everything she brings to him, but only that which is necessary to his existence: thereby he will realize his hereditary patrimony. In that first cell the profound dynamism and the precise direction of life appears.... In spite of its fragility and its immense needs, an autonomous and genuinely living being has come into existence....It is rather surprising to see certain physicians speak here of "potential life" as if the fertilized egg began its real life when it nests in the uterus. Modern biology does not deny the importance of nidation, but it sees it only as a condition -indispensable, to be sure- for the development of the embryo and the continuation of a life already in existence."​

Unfortunately, all of your quotations. The question is not "when does life begin?" Life only began once, millions of years ago, and it has been propogating itself ever since. The question is "when do living things become persons?", and your quotations fail entirely to address that.

Not all forms of human life enjoy the rights of persons, so all of your claims about what is or is not human life fail to decide the issue.

:æ:

 

[MeetingPeopleIsEasy]

There is no Biblical justification to destroy the life of an un-born child. Its murder, plain and simple.

Did you read the article I posted?

 

[MeetingPeopleIsEasy]

State sponsored elimination of the children of the Poor. What' s wrong with that?

I dont see it as "elimination of children." I see it as eliminating cells that have the potential to become a living being.

 

[staceyvonne]

I also believe it's murder, plain and simple.

 

[ChiRho]

You seem to be saying we are incapable of making any moral judgments at all.

No, I wasnt. But regarding spiritual matters, yes, I believe that man, being born into complete depravity and absent of any Good, is incapable of right moral judgment. The reason, that man has retained since the Fall, is corrupt and perverse, and while capable of fulfilling worldly moral or ethical standards, does so weakly and stuggles even with this- the obedience of man's law.

If this is the case, how can we "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God?"

Christ has done this for us and gives it to us as if it were ours (see signature). The ungodly and the Christian fail equally, but the faithful are accredited righteousness according to Christ.

Although the Law is written upon the hearts of all men, our perverse nature still distorts the truth of the Law, and seeks to justify one's own actions, thoughts or words. Thankfully God has kept His Word for us to show us our sin and tell of His Promises. Not for us to vainly prop ourselves above Holy Scripture and cast false judgment upon the actions of God, according to our sinful subjective morality.

Why all the wisdom teaching in scripture?

Not sure what this means...maybe you could explain in more detail?

I do not understand the point you are trying to make

Well, I will try to be more perspicuous.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[Crazy Liz]

No, I wasnt. But regarding spiritual matters, yes, I believe that man, being born into complete depravity and absent of any Good, is incapable of right moral judgment. The reason, that man has retained since the Fall, is corrupt and perverse, and while capable of fulfilling worldly moral or ethical standards, does so weakly and stuggles even with this- the obedience of man's law.



Christ has done this for us and gives it to us as if it were ours (see signature). The ungodly and the Christian fail equally, but the faithful are accredited righteousness according to Christ.

Although the Law is written upon the hearts of all men, our perverse nature still distorts the truth of the Law, and seeks to justify one's own actions, thoughts or words. Thankfully God has kept His Word for us to show us our sin and tell of His Promises. Not for us to vainly prop ourselves above Holy Scripture and cast false judgment upon the actions of God, according to our sinful subjective morality.

So what's the point of this argument, since we've all got the wrong answers, anyway. Guaranteed, according to your theory.

 

[hannabl]

It is my contention that for something to be labeled as "murder" it must meet at least all of six criteria:

Number one: to be "murder" an action must involve "killing." Something that was alive before the act must be dead as a result of the act. Meeting this criterion alone is insufficient reason to label something a "murder," however, because we often kill things in situations where no one would ever think of uttering the term "murder." We kill germs with disinfectants, and weeds with defoliants. We kill insects and rodents and cows and pigs and never get charged with murder. We even kill each other in accidents, in war, in self-defense and no one screams out the dreaded "m"-word. "Killing" is not the problem: we do it all the time.

Well, the foetus is living, and after the ebortion it's dead.

Number two: to be "murder" an action must involve the killing of "life." I mention this obvious fact in order to get the word "life" into the discussion. Notice, I did not say, "a life." I did not because the term "a life" has been misused by many people who have turned it into a stealth term: a euphemism they have secretly substituted for a different, much more important term, a term which represents the last, the most difficult to meet, and yet, the most crucial of all these six criteria.

If the foetus is alive, as I stated before, the the killing of it wouöd be the killing of life. Perhaps I'm missing subtle different between "life" and "a life" since English is my second language.

Number three: to be "murder" an action must involve the killing of "human" life. When you kill bacteria by gargling Listerine, you have not committed murder. When butchers slaughter pigs for hot dogs and cows for steaks, they have not committed murder. If the life you kill is porcine, bovine, feline, canine, or anything other than "human," then your action cannot ethically be described as "murder."

Well, if the foetus is not human what is it? And when would this non-human-being turn human?
A foetus is a human life and abortion can therefor be described as murder.

Number four: to be "murder" an action must involve the "intentional" killing of human life. Imagine two scenarios. In each one you hurriedly back your car out of your driveway. In one scenario, you fail to notice that your elderly neighbor has just walked behind your car. In the second scenario you notice that someone you despise has just walked behind your car. In both scenarios you back your car over the victim and kill him. In the first case you did so by accident, and in the second case you did so intentionally. No one would doubt that the second killing was a "murder"; but, whatever else they might call it-an accident, a tragedy, a misfortune-no one would label the first scenario a "murder" precisely because it was not done intentionally.

Miscarriage is not murder, but an abortion is rather intentionally.

Number five: to be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of "innocent" human life. As history shows, intentionally killing human life is not an ethical problem. We do it all the time, and usually congratulate ourselves on a deed well done. We do it in wartime. We do it in capital punishment, and we do it in self-defense. English versions of the Old Testament may say, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" but the meaning really is: thou shalt not "murder," because killings-in war, in capital punishment, and in self-defense-were long ago recognized as ethically justifiable forms of killing. The term "murder" was used to refer to forms of killing which were considered ethically unjustifiable. What is it about war, capital punishment, and self-defense which justifies killing? It is the fact that none of the deceased individuals was "innocent": all had become a "clear and present danger" to the lives and welfare of others, and as such, each had relinquished whatever "right to life" he or she had previously possessed.

Not really! If I poison a someones tee, killing this person, it's still murder even though this man is a rapist and thus not innocent.
No human is 'innocent', but as a baby we are more innocent than o grown man. And self defence? War? We are talking about abortion.
But self-defence is justified since you have the right to protect your own life, and when someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourselves. A foetus won't attack you!
Capital punishment, is wrong! Since it's not necessary, we can just lock them in.

Number six: to be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of innocent human life which is a "person." This is the sine qua non, the absolute key, essential element of the whole definition. If the innocent human life which is intentionally killed does not constitute a person, than no "murder" has been committed.

How do you define "person"?

 

[ChiRho]

That you call him a "whacked out doctor" doesn't make him wrong, either.


Unfortunately, all of your quotations. The question is not "when does life begin?" Life only began once, millions of years ago, and it has been propogating itself ever since. The question is "when do living things become persons?", and your quotations fail entirely to address that.

Not all forms of human life enjoy the rights of persons, so all of your claims about what is or is not human life fail to decide the issue.

:æ:

Ah, but you are drawing that distinction, based on an invalid premise.

I shall let Montgomery answer again:

"But cannot the force of the embryological evidence be reduced simply by resourse to contemporary philosophical attempts at defining "personhood" functionally? Granted that from the moment of conception everything has been supplied to produce an individual, can it really be said to be an individual prior to, say, the onset of its brain functions, or its viability, or its manifestation of rational activity--in short, prior to its genuine functioning as a human being? Should we not, with Van Peursen, choose as our starting point "the whole man in his ordinary, day-to-day conduct, attitudes and decisions. These things are not accretions to the human being who exists in himself qua substance (body plus soul), but they are the indispensable essence or core of man, without which he would not be man at all"? If this is the case, abortion could hardly be murder, for the fetus lacks this "indispensable essence or corer of man." Glanville Williams suggests brain-functioning as the point de d'epart:

The soul, after all, is frequently associated with the mind, and until the brain is formed there can be no mind. By placing electrodes on the maternal abdomen over the foetal head, electric potentials ("brain waves") are discernible in the seventh month, i.e., shortly before the time of viability. If one were to compromise by taking, say, the beginning of legal protection for the foetus, it would practically eliminate the present social problem of abortion.​

The answer to this is two fold. First even from a totally secular viewpoint, the "functionalist" definition of man will not wash. What functions will be regarded as truly human- as sine quibus non for genuine humanity? Movement? (But what about total paralysis?) Intelligence? (But what degree of it?) Personhood escapes all such definitional attempts, and the reason appears to be that personality is a transcendent affair: the subjective "I" can never be totally objectified without destroying it. If this is true, then one can hardly look for the origin-point of personhood anywhere other than at the moment when all potentialities necessary for its functioning enter the picture: namely, at conception. To argue otherwise is to become caught inextricably in a maze which would deny true humanity to those who, through organic defect, are incapable of carrying out certain rational activities (e.g. some mental cases). The efforts of the Third Reich "eugenically" to eliminate such "nonhumans" should give us no little pause here. Can we say that when a human being on the operating table undergoes suspension of activity he ceases to be human? As long as the native potentality to function as a human being exist, one must be treated as human and amust have his human rights protected. Though the newborn child does little at the time to justify its humanity (except to make an immediate pest of itself), its potentiality to exercise a range of human functions later rightly causes the law to regard its wanton destruction as murder in the full sense; and the same may be said by simple extension for the nonviable fetus."

Slaughter of the Innocents, p. 91-92

Dr. J.W. Montgomery

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[ChiRho]

Life only began once, millions of years ago, and it has been propogating itself ever since.

Do you have anything to substantiate this claim?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[:æ:]

Ah, but you are drawing that distinction, based on an invalid premise.

Which premise is that? It's not clear in the passage you quoted.

Do you have any original thoughts? Or do you simply parrot the words of other that you think qualify as some type of authority on the matter?

Do you know what the fallacy of Argument by Authority is?

I shall let Montgomery answer again:

"But cannot the force of the embryological evidence be reduced simply by resourse to contemporary philosophical attempts at defining "personhood" functionally? Granted that from the moment of conception everything has been supplied to produce an individual, can it really be said to be an individual prior to, say, the onset of its brain functions, or its viability, or its manifestation of rational activity--in short, prior to its genuine functioning as a human being? Should we not, with Van Peursen, choose as our starting point "the whole man in his ordinary, day-to-day conduct, attitudes and decisions. These things are not accretions to the human being who exists in himself qua substance (body plus soul), but they are the indispensable essence or core of man, without which he would not be man at all"? If this is the case, abortion could hardly be murder, for the fetus lacks this "indispensable essence or corer of man." Glanville Williams suggests brain-functioning as the point de d'epart:

The soul, after all, is frequently associated with the mind, and until the brain is formed there can be no mind. By placing electrodes on the maternal abdomen over the foetal head, electric potentials ("brain waves") are discernible in the seventh month, i.e., shortly before the time of viability. If one were to compromise by taking, say, the beginning of legal protection for the foetus, it would practically eliminate the present social problem of abortion.​

The answer to this is two fold. First even from a totally secular viewpoint, the "functionalist" definition of man will not wash. What functions will be regarded as truly human- as sine quibus non for genuine humanity? Movement? (But what about total paralysis?) Intelligence? (But what degree of it?) Personhood escapes all such definitional attempts, and the reason appears to be that personality is a transcendent affair: the subjective "I" can never be totally objectified without destroying it. If this is true, then one can hardly look for the origin-point of personhood anywhere other than at the moment when all potentialities necessary for its functioning enter the picture: namely, at conception. To argue otherwise is to become caught inextricably in a maze which would deny true humanity to those who, through organic defect, are incapable of carrying out certain rational activities (e.g. some mental cases). The efforts of the Third Reich "eugenically" to eliminate such "nonhumans" should give us no little pause here. Can we say that when a human being on the operating table undergoes suspension of activity he ceases to be human? As long as the native potentality to function as a human being exist, one must be treated as human and amust have his human rights protected. Though the newborn child does little at the time to justify its humanity (except to make an immediate pest of itself), its potentiality to exercise a range of human functions later rightly causes the law to regard its wanton destruction as murder in the full sense; and the same may be said by simple extension for the nonviable fetus."

Slaughter of the Innocents, p. 91-92

Dr. J.W. Montgomery

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

His argument suffers several fallacies. The first is the fallacy of the beard. Despite the fact that life forms a continuum from non-personhood to personhood, that doesn't mean that we can't state with sufficiently high confidence that before a certain point the embryo or fetus is not a person.

The second follows from this when he insists a zygote be alotted personhood based on its potential to become a person. Rights are not allocated based on potentialities, but rather realities. Children are not given the right to vote despite their potential to become 18 years of age, just as an example.

Even so, its inherent potentiality to become a person is disputable. Without the use of the mothers womb and the nutrients from her blood, it doesn't have the potential to become a person. Persons, in ordinary language, are not only conscious and self-aware, but also metabolically autonomous. Neither a zygote, an embryo, nor a fetus feature metabolic autonomy.

Lastly, the doctor (and you, I presume) seek to endow the zygote with greater rights than persons actually enjoy -- namely, the right to enslave the body of another person and inject it with hormones against her consent. No person enjoys that right, and every person enjoys the right to liberate themselves from such a violation with at least the minimum force necessary, which in this case only includes abortion.

:æ:

 

[:æ:]

Do you have anything to substantiate this claim?

You're free to split hairs if you like -- I couldn't care less. The point remains. At one point, long ago, there wasn't life. However, life, as far as we can see, has existed continuously for many millions of years. The fusion of two gametes to form a zygote is not a beginning of life, because the gametes themselves are alive before they fuse. That's why the whole "beginning of life" issue is a red herring.

:æ: