Is the Fetus a Human Being?

[redleghunter]

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.

Your church does not have programs for poor and/or single women to help them through the pregnancy and then afterwards help provide education and assistance to help support the child? This is a hallmark ministry in Evangelicalism and Catholicism.

The ministry is comprehensive and global also focusing on the other needs of neighbor which influence raising a family. Here are some examples:

Christian Pregnancy Services and After Care:

Just a few examples here:

https://cmda.org/resources/publication/crisis-pregnancy-centers
Pregnancy Centers in PA
Listing Of Crisis Pregnancy Centers In Illinois
Christian Life Resources
Special Delivery | Overlake Christian Church
Top 10 Non Profit Organizations that help Mothers
Creating a Cradle Care Ministry for Expectant & New Parents

These are a few examples of Christian ministries which span all 50 states.

Sanctuary of Hope:

https://www.jhm.org/SOHCares
The above is a grand scale example of after and future care. Others include Catholic charities and Samaritans Purse.

Becoming Adoptive Parents - FAQs
Counseling
Help Protect Vulnerable Women


Here's just one example of a conservative Evangelical charitable organization's ministry:


Help Families Fleeing the Fighting in Mosul

Emergency Field Hospital Sent as Christmas Gift to Iraq

Loving Care for an Orphan | Samaritan’s Purse Gift Catalog

A Brighter Future for Ebola Widows

Women’s Programs

Crisis & Disaster Response

Feeding Programs

Health & Medical Ministries

Water, Sanitation & Hygiene

Children’s Heart Project

Putting a Stop to Human Trafficking

Deadly Earthquake in Nepal

U.S. Disaster Relief

Again, just a few examples. Many smaller independent and Bible churches work with multiple church partners within their communities to do very much of the same. And no, none are politically motivated but church run and partnered operations.

 

[ubicaritas]

Your church does not have programs for poor and/or single women to help them through the pregnancy and then afterwards help provide education and assistance to help support the child?

I know my local congregation does collect supplies for expectant, poor mothers, such as diapers, formula, and baby food. But there's only so much we can do- many of the people in our congregation are of limited means themselves. That's why we talk about justice for the poor, as contemporary Lutherans we do not divorce social justice from personal salvation.

Lutherans were actually the first to come up with the idea of the comprehensive welfare state in Europe, decades or centuries before Catholics and the Reformed churches, and Luther himself established something like a community trust so that people would not have to beg for money, which he considered undignified and without spiritual significance. We consider caring for the poor to be a shared social responsibility and not left merely up to private charity, for the most part.

 

[ubicaritas]

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.

Indeed. If a pregnant woman has cancer, that's a difficult situation that doesn't fit into the "pro-life" rhetoric at all. I know some pro-life apologists like to pretend that its somehow ethical to use minimal doses of chemotherapy but that's potentially quite irresponsible in regards to the life of the mother and the potential future health of any surviving child. And also opens up the oncologist to huge liability.

 

[Hillsage]

Those are not verses...it is the Word which is a lamp unto our feet.

You sound like so many who have replace the Trinity of Father, Son, Holy Spirit with the Father, Son and Holy Bible. I'm talking about spoken words which I have heard and are as equal to scripture in my life as the book you think I should worship. I don't worship the written word I worship the living Word, but have the highest respect for the written book. I'm just not blind as to the tamperings of indoctrinated men who think their 'intellect' allows them to tweak what the dumb sheep read in order to keep them in line...for their own good of course. IOW the "word" that the 'bible' is speaking about is 'the word' men 'heard' and wrote down. The 'word' that proceeded FROM THE MOUTH of the Lord. and not the false pen of the scribes of indoctrinated men. You do know there were multiple OT denominations right? The Massorectic, Yahweist, and Deuteronomist scribes all tweaked to their indoctrinated denominational belief system for the 'sheep's' good also. Why do you think Jeremiah 8:8 is in the bible? I don't worship "the letter" I do worship the "living Word".

 

[redleghunter]

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.

A pastor friend of mine had a daughter who had to face this difficult decision. She decided to delay chemo and have the baby. She gave birth to a healthy child and 8 months later she died of cancer. Is that pro-choice or pro-life? Now, a lot goes into her decision. Two years prior, she and her husband lost a child who drowned in 2 feet of water.

Now you would ask...would she have been wrong to take the chemo to survive? I would say no to that difficult decision. (1) because not even the RCC teaches someone who is threatened with death is obligated to die. I agree. (2) It is not conclusive the chemo would kill the child. The risks are much higher of course but not conclusive. In either case the Christian woman steps out in faith to God. We indeed reap what we sow.

And neither is murder nor suicide. The mother who decides to delay chemo has the altruistic and loving as motive. The woman who decides to take the chemo is trying to get well for both. I kind of know what such a decision is like. Have you ever had to sign surgical release forms which stated in no uncertain terms that your child required life saving surgery but would make him an invalid the remainder of his life. I did but the Lord spared me the results of that as my son through God's Mercy and Love delivered him to the astonishment of the medical staff.

 

[SPF]

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.

First off, economics plays zero role in the morality of abortion, which is precisely what your denomination's statement on abortion says:

"Human beings, created in God’s image as male and female (Genesis 1:27-28), are persons of intrinsic value and dignity...Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity."

Therefore, to abort a human being, created in the image of God due to the fact that the mother is uncertain of their economic future is immoral. It is analogous to the mother of a 3 year old little girl who just lost their job and believes that she can no longer support both herself and her daughter, so she suffocates her daughter. Both are equally immoral per the statement put forth by your denomination.

However, as to Christians striving to help alleviate poverty - that is certainly something we are called to do. As a foster parent, I certainly put my money where my mouth is. I have bought clothing, furniture, numerous vehicles for single moms (and a dad) so they could get to work, etc... All Christians should be getting involved to support those in need in their area.

 

[redleghunter]

Indeed. If a pregnant woman has cancer, that's a difficult situation that doesn't fit into the "pro-life" rhetoric at all. I know some pro-life apologists like to pretend that its somehow ethical to use minimal doses of chemotherapy but that's potentially quite irresponsible in regards to the life of the mother and the potential future health of any surviving child. And also opens up the oncologist to huge liability.

The pro-life position has always been that pro-life. That means the woman's life as well. Why pro choice advocates love to focus on the life of the mother when that is not even debatable still amazes me. EVERY state had a protection clause for the woman's life prior to Roe v. Wade.

In these types of discussions, you know when the pro-choice advocates are losing badly and want to end the debate. They bring up the life of the mother, which has never been in dispute even in the stanch Roman Catholic Church catechism.

 

[ubicaritas]

First off, economics plays zero role in the morality of abortion, which is precisely what your denomination's statement on abortion says:

"Human beings, created in God’s image as male and female (Genesis 1:27-28), are persons of intrinsic value and dignity...Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity."

Therefore, to abort a human being, created in the image of God due to the fact that the mother is uncertain of their economic future is immoral. It is analogous to the mother of a 3 year old little girl who just lost their job and believes that she can no longer support both herself and her daughter, so she suffocates her daughter. Both are equally immoral per the statement put forth by your denomination.

However, as to Christians striving to help alleviate poverty - that is certainly something we are called to do. As a foster parent, I certainly put my money where my mouth is. I have bought clothing, furniture, numerous vehicles for single mom's so they could get to work, etc... All Christians should be getting involved to support those in need in their area.

I'm not sure what your point is. We aren't speaking of morality in the usual sense but what the Church is allowed to preach in terms of the distinction between Law and Gospel. At stake is individual conscience scandalized against the Gospel, the sort of thing that caused Jesus to display extreme disgust (Matthew 18:6). That is why we have somewhat ambiguous social statements, because it is deeply offensive as a Lutheran to base our ethics merely on speculation or idealism. We expect people to make up their own minds guided by God working through their pastor, church community, secular humanities and science, and reading the Scriptures.

Our church is a place of healing for women that have had abortions, not judgment. And we also welcome those who are abortion providers as well, for the same reasons. God's love and grace are for everyone.

 

[SPF]

I'm not sure what your point is.

My point has been the same all along - abortion is immoral and wrong. You have yet to provide any sort of consistent argument that would suggest otherwise.

 

[ubicaritas]

My point has been the same all along - abortion is immoral and wrong.

You're entitled to believe that in the ELCA. Why exactly do you have a problem with my church?

 

[ubicaritas]

A pastor friend of mine had a daughter who had to face this difficult decision. She decided to delay chemo and have the baby. She gave birth to a healthy child and 8 months later she died of cancer. Is that pro-choice or pro-life? Now, a lot goes into her decision. Two years prior, she and her husband lost a child who drowned in 2 feet of water.

It's actually both, potentially, which just shows so often these terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are falsely polarizing. I would honor her decision, assuming she is mentally competent, though I would also try to make it clear well beforehand to her that her justification by God is not dependent on her choice not to abort the fetus to protect her own life. I'd also ask her to count the cost of bringing a motherless child into the world, and whether that is really a responsible use of ones reproductive capacities.

 

[Hillsage]

Indeed. If a pregnant woman has cancer, that's a difficult situation that doesn't fit into the "pro-life" rhetoric at all. I know some pro-life apologists like to pretend that its somehow ethical to use minimal doses of chemotherapy but that's potentially quite irresponsible in regards to the life of the mother and the potential future health of any surviving child. And also opens up the oncologist to huge liability.

Ubi, you are so much surer of your position than I. But we're still the 'odd men out' in this huge flag waving debate. Unfortunately their flag screams 'guilty of murder' with too big of a brush IMO. But I do appreciate your sound answers as well as responses to me. Some unanswered, not because I'm ignoring, but because I really haven't got the time. I actually skip over most of the posts, yours and theirs. I really do consider myself more 'on the fence' than either them or you. But my biggest struggle with where I'm at is this; I believe the devil owns the fence, even though he 'obviously' still uses people on both sides. So when I come here and get JUDGMENT from men, even an idiot should recognize why we are so supportive of each other. I think you and I could sit down and actually have a conversation where 'iron would sharpen iron'. Most of 'them' on the other hand seem to just fight from an attitude/angle which only showers dulling sparks. Blindly defending where they are doctrinally at, rather than dealing with the questions we can see. Questions which make their position equal to a submarine with a screen door. A 'door' which they have never seen, and therefore think doesn't exist. Oh oh, another 'alert'.

 

[JacksBratt]

Everyone brings presuppositions to the Bible.

Yes they do... Then.... when they read it... they get the truth and their presuppositions are either reinforced or eliminated.

 

[ubicaritas]

@Hillsage, being on the fence is often a good place to be though. Ideologues are easily manipulated. I learned that reading about how the KGB and Russian spy networks operate, they intentionally go after people that are "true believers". And I think that's where the pro-life crowd has been most vulnerable. You've got well meaning people with alot of passion for justice who are falling victim to extreme rhetoric.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I've been around a lot of 'sick' people over the past 10 years. Mostly seeing sick kids in Children's hospitals including my own son, by God's Grace is now fully cured. Also adults as I have been battling cancer for now 6 years and each month see new friends you meet in treatments no longer show up. Meaning they are no longer with us.

I've been around a lot of pain, suffering, death, bereavement. Yet in the aforementioned situations for some reason those years have seen the Hand of God directly correct courses, the joy of knowing a loved one relied on Christ for their salvation so when death came, there was mourning but yet comfort and joy. Divine Providence is something else as prior to 10 years ago I was wrapped up in a perfect life, loving my idols, worldly 'happy' with a great career. Then God hit me like a ton of bricks and 6 months later all the cancer, death and sorrow ensued. If God did not hit me like a ton of bricks and bring me to repentance and salvation, I would have not been able to handle what was coming. That is amazing Grace.

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 hope to prove to you that was not my intention. Something you said earlier...this venue may not be the best to express some of the more difficult of situations. I prefer rocking chairs on a porch with sweet tea myself in discussing the weightier things in our walk with Christ.

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.

There's a lot the nominal 'church' incorporates which is sin in the post-modern world. However, the protection of innocent human life is not something a church should 'worship' but obey as God commands it.

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.

I'm being honest here as well...Sounds like you clearly understand we live in a fallen world and not everything is perfect. I think you know why and unfortunately, you were in such a situation and wonder if there was a better way. Stop beating yourself up because we are not perfect. If something happened in the past and it bugs you whether or not it was the right thing to do in good conscience before a Holy, loving and merciful God, bring it to Him and I would recommend baring all to pastoral care.

 

[SPF]

You're entitled to believe that in the ELCA. Why exactly do you have a problem with my church?

Your denominational position (and subsequently your position as use seem to use "we" in everything you say, sounding as if you yourself helped found your denomination) on abortion is inconsistent. It acknowledges that human beings possess intrinsic moral worth and value from fertilization, and then suggests that abortion prior to viability is morally acceptable for convenience sake.

This position is contradictory and cannot be logically defended. That sir, is my problem.

"Human beings, created in God’s image as male and female (Genesis 1:27-28), are persons of intrinsic value and dignity...Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity."

Therefore, to abort a human being, created in the image of God due to the fact that the mother is uncertain of their economic future is immoral. It is analogous to the mother of a 3 year old little girl who just lost their job and believes that she can no longer support both herself and her daughter, so she suffocates her daughter. Both are equally immoral per the statement put forth by your denomination.

Yet, your denomination does not have a moral problem with abortions performed before viability for certain convenience reasons. It's inconsistent and logically indefensible.

But again, you've already readily admitted that you have no problem embracing inconsistent and logically indefensible beliefs. Which of course I believe demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

If a person is using contraception techniques, "natural" or otherwise, that is a sign that they are not consenting to conception, but that they consider it an unwanted outcome. If conception happens, it is accidental and not intentional. It is not a "success".

Who do they register consent with? Lol. What does that even mean? Can you tell the human body, "I'm taking medicine, so obviously I don't consent to this cold!" or "I use skincare and exercise, so I don't consent to looking older!" Or, "The fact I'm taking diet pills means I don't consent to you storing fat!" Can a woman stop herself from aging by telling everyone year to year that she is still 28?

Would it make sense to berate the sun, "I used sunscreen, I don't consent to this sunburn!" or try and convince the ocean, "My boat may have broken, but the fact I got in it and expected it to float means I do not consent to drowning!" Can a person take his lawn to court if he used weedkiller but weeds still grow?

Personal opinions means nothing to biology and natural laws.

Imagine a criminal pulls of a bank heist, but three days later the cops show up. Can the criminal legitimately claim, "But I wore a mask and covered my tracks, that means I don't consent to you catching me!" When the police laugh at the absurdity of this claim, can the criminal legitimately claim he has a "right" to then murder the cops lest he be 'forced' to go to jail and lose his autonomy?

Can a student claim, "I studied and did practice tests to prevent this result, so I do not consent to this D!"

Personal opinions mean nothing to the basic legal consequences, results, and general penalties one may face due to choices you make.

Furthermore, contraceptive methods generally have high failure rates. (About half the women seeking abortions were actively using some form of contraception - the pill, condoms, etc. during the month they conceived.) That many sex-ed classes deliberately misinform and try to act as if contraception is near foolproof doesn't mean the human body is going to subject itself to those misconceptions. What does biology care about the opinions of man?

In the case of conception, the female body releases eggs monthly to hopefully be fertilized by incoming sperm - it isn't an error of sex or malfunction. Contraception can make it harder for this to take place (blocking implantation and leading to the death of a potentially fertilized egg, changing hormones to lessen the chance of conception, blocking sperm, etc.) but simply taking contraception doesn't mean one can claim that "I didn't know this was possible" or "I didn't consent, therefore it justifies me murdering a child who is present in my body due to my own actions and none of their own."

The egg her own body released and the sperm the father released fertilized an egg, which was moved by her body into the womb. The new human life had no say or 'consent' over it's new abode. She cannot claim any person, let alone her unborn child, removed her consent. She can rail against her own biology or scream at God for making pregnancy possible, but that isn't going to change the fact that she is half responsible for the child's location and that the child hasn't violated the rights of anyone.

 

[ubicaritas]

Let me quote something written by Pr. Ed Knudson on how our church does ethics, that makes it clear why we in the ELCA are not libertines and "moral relativism" is more of a bogieman than something useful for understanding our approach:

"...the significance of the subjective relationship extends to ethics as well as worship. The community of believers may help one another in moral deliberation, but each individual is the bearer of moral agency in Lutheran understanding. It is not an isolated individual making a choice outside of relationships (which is the tendency of liberal theory), but, indeed, it is living and choosing in the midst of concrete, intersubjective relationships with both God and neighbor.

http://religiondispatches.org/on-religion-abortion-and-politics-dr-george-tillers-christian-ethics/

That might sound very postmodern but some would say Luther was laying down that groundwork centuries ago. Especially if we understand Luther through the Counter-Enlightenment philosophy of Johann Hamann, who was one of the pre-eminent interpreters of Luther in the 18th century and critical of the Enlightenments idolization of reason.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

The Bible was written by men and we haven't exactly gotten herstory from it.

Lol, what? So what if the Bible was written by men. Scripture is God breathed. The authors being men doesn't mean God thinks less of women, or that scripture is not applicable to women, or that scripture never talks about women, etc.

And the main purpose of the Bible is to reveal Christ and the way of salvation through Christ. This is why it focuses on God calling Israel, the Saviour coming out of Israel, Christ's life, death, and resurrection, and the early church. And in Christ there is no 'male or female.'

And even while not the main focus, scripture still gives plenty of insight about what it means to be a woman, what makes a strong woman, etc. It also gives narratives and histories about many noble (and ignoble, like Jezebel) women of the past.

There are women who get far more exploration and mention than many of the 12 disciples, even.

[ Does the Bible marginalize women?
See Answer: http://ebible.com/answers/17168?ori=167400]

 

[ubicaritas]

Who do they register consent with? Lol. What does that even mean? Can you tell the human body, "I'm taking medicine, so obviously I don't consent to this cold!" or "I use skincare and exercise, so I don't consent to looking older!" Or, "The fact I'm taking diet pills means I don't consent to you storing fat!" Can a woman stop herself from aging by telling everyone year to year that she is still 28?

Would it make sense to berate the sun, "I used sunscreen, I don't consent to this sunburn!" or try and convince the ocean, "My boat may have broken, but the fact I got in it and expected it to float means I do not consent to drowning!" Can a person take his lawn to court if he used weedkiller but weeds still grow?

Personal opinions means nothing to biology and natural laws.

Imagine a criminal pulls of a bank heist, but three days later the cops show up. Can the criminal legitimately claim, "But I wore a mask and covered my tracks, that means I don't consent to you catching me!" When the police laugh at the absurdity of this claim, can the criminal legitimately claim he has a "right" to then murder the cops lest he be 'forced' to go to jail and lose his autonomy?

Can a student claim, "I studied and did practice tests to prevent this result, so I do not consent to this D!"

Personal opinions mean nothing to the basic legal consequences, results, and general penalties one may face due to choices you make.

Furthermore, contraceptive methods generally have high failure rates. (About half the women seeking abortions were actively using some form of contraception - the pill, condoms, etc. during the month they conceived.) That many sex-ed classes deliberately misinform and try to act as if contraception is near foolproof doesn't mean the human body is going to subject itself to those misconceptions. What does biology care about the opinions of man?

In the case of conception, the female body releases eggs monthly to hopefully be fertilized by incoming sperm - it isn't an error of sex or malfunction. Contraception can make it harder for this to take place (blocking implantation and leading to the death of a potentially fertilized egg, changing hormones to lessen the chance of conception, blocking sperm, etc.) but simply taking contraception doesn't mean one can claim that "I didn't know this was possible" or "I didn't consent, therefore it justifies me murdering a child who is present in my body due to my own actions and none of their own."

The egg her own body released and the sperm the father released fertilized an egg, which was moved by her body into the womb. The new human life had no say or 'consent' over it's new abode. She cannot claim any person, let alone her unborn child, removed her consent. She can rail against her own biology or scream at God for making pregnancy possible, but that isn't going to change the fact that she is half responsible for the child's location and that the child hasn't violated the rights of anyone.

Might I remind you one of the creational mandates was to subdue the earth and have dominion? Why is merely being a slave to biology somehow sacred? Might this be a limitation on the sacred that Jesus wished to dispel by healing disease and overcoming death?