Is the Fetus a Human Being?

[ubicaritas]

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]

Many readings of the Bible do marginalize or repress the voices of women. Fortunately, this is a criticism that my church takes seriously.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

She was the daughter of a Reformed Baptist pastor. She had justification by faith alone down pretty good. Yeah she was competent. Had her own Masters of Divinity and was teaching.

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.

As a son to a mother and especially a husband to a wife, from the time of conception to birth and beyond, there are two concerns with mother's to be. That would be concern for one's own health to not negatively affect the pregnancy and concern whether or not they will be good mothers after birth. So yes, she as a woman had this heavily on her mind in prayers and thoughts.

 

[SPF]

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:




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.

It's altogether possible (and realistic) to have different people hold different beliefs within a denomination. However, each person ought to be able to defend their beliefs as logical, not self-contradicting, and consistent.

Unfortunately, what ubi caritas has proposed is self-defeating, inconsistent, and not logically sound. The same can be said of the statement his denomination put out concerning abortion.

So ubi caritas, if you disagree, I welcome you to actually put forth a positive, logically sound argument for how abortion committed for convenience reasons can be morally acceptable when you acknowledge that a human being possess intrinsic moral worth and value from fertilization.

 

[ubicaritas]

It's altogether possible (and realistic) to have different people hold different beliefs within a denomination. However, each person ought to be able to defend their beliefs as logical, not self-contradicting, and consistent.

Unfortunately, what ubi caritas has proposed is self-defeating, inconsistent, and not logically sound. The same can be said of the statement his denomination put out concerning abortion.

So ubi caritas, if you disagree, I welcome you to actually put forth a positive, logically sound argument for how abortion committed for convenience reasons can be morally acceptable when you acknowledge that a human being possess intrinsic moral worth and value from fertilization.

I'm saying the basic way you do ethics is fundamentally misguided because it considers humanity in abstraction instead of considering the needs of the concrete person, the neighbor, and their lived experience.

 

[SPF]

I'm saying the basic way you do ethics is fundamentally misguided because it considers humanity in abstraction instead of considering the needs of the concrete person, the neighbor.

And I'm suggesting that beliefs should be internally consistent and not self contradictory. One can consider the needs of the concrete person, the neighbor, and they should - but their beliefs and views should still be logically sound.

God is not a God of confusion, of contradiction. Holding to beliefs that are not logical and defensible is nothing short of plain stupid.

 

[ubicaritas]

And I'm suggesting that beliefs should be internally consistent and not self contradictory. One can consider the needs of the concrete person, the neighbor, and they should - but their beliefs and views should still be logically sound.

Love cannot be reduced to a logical syllogism.

 

[SPF]

Love cannot be reduced to a logical syllogism.

No, but God is not a God of confusion and just as 2+2=4 and not 5, our beliefs should always be internally consistent - otherwise they're wrong.

You're holding onto a moral position that is not consistent and you cannot even defend.

 

[ubicaritas]

Some people seem to be confused. Our social statements are not like what the Catholic Church issues that give clearcut rules and expectations for behavior, necessarily. They are more "food for thought" that individuals and congregations use to help them engage in moral deliberation. They are not the final word in ethics, and are not intended to be. Our church is liberal minded and people are expected to exercise moral agency for themselves.

Our justification is that our religious tradition is 5 centuries old and we have been using something like this approach to ethics all along. Luther thought the prohibition on divorce, for instance was not absolute. Not on strictly biblicist grounds so much as just out of the desire to not scandalize the Gospel of grace.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Let me quote something written by Pr. Ed Knudson on how our church does ethics.

Let me quote something spoken by Jesus on how we are to walk with Him.

46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. 48 They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

Luke 6:46-49

 

[ubicaritas]

No, but God is not a God of confusion and just as 2+2=4 and not 5, our beliefs should always be internally consistent - otherwise they're wrong.

You're holding onto a moral position that is not consistent and you cannot even defend.

My defense is in the Cross where God justifies the ungodly.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Love cannot be reduced to a logical syllogism.

There is nothing loving about dismembering a baby in the womb and scraping it into a pulp.

My defense is in the Cross where God justifies the ungodly.

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" Romans 6:1-2

 

[ubicaritas]

There is nothing loving about dismembering a baby in the womb and scraping it into a pulp.

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" Romans 6:1-2

More Law. Is it all Law, all the time for you?

I live in a bold confidence that nothing can separate me from the love of God in Christ. For that I am not ashamed. It is the Gospel.

 

[ubicaritas]

Let me quote something spoken by Jesus on how we are to walk with Him.

46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. 48 They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

Luke 6:46-49

I do try to put Jesus words into practice, and you have no right to be an accuser of the brethren in this matter.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

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?

Are you forgetting the rest of the verse?

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."" Gen 1:28

Our multiplying (procreation) is a blessing God gave us. Biology is a blessing, just like the laws of physics are a blessing (we aren't 'slaves to gravity' as if it owned us, but we are subject to its effects as it is a blessing God put in place for the order of the universe.) Procreation isn't a curse or disease or limitation following the fall, it was a blessing .

Can we do things to make our lives easier? Sure - we have tools to help with physical toil, and many current jobs don't even require physical labor anymore. We have medicine to easy pregnancy and childbirth, and knowledge to help make raising children easier. We have a lot of tools to help plan out our families (no murder required.)

Can we do things that follow natural laws but allow us to 'transcend' our own human limitations? Sure. We have cars, airplanes, the internet, etc. that allow us speedy transportation, flight, near instant communication, etc. - all things that we could not do by ourselves as biological humans. But none of these break the natural laws of physics.

 

[ubicaritas]

Good gravy... you do realize we have more than filled the earth at 7 1/2 billion people? To most rational people it looks like human beings are breeding ourselves into extinction.

The rest of your argument is just naive, it's confusing what is natural with what is ethical.

 

[Phil 1:21]

More Law. Is it all Law, all the time for you?

If you have a problem with scripture, take it up with God. He breathed it.

I live in a bold confidence that nothing can separate me from the love of God in Christ. For that I am not ashamed. It is the Gospel.

Scripture also says "Thou shall not murder", but here you are in this discussion anyway, advocating for killing unborn babies.

I do try to put Jesus words into practice, and you have no right to be an accuser of the brethren in this matter.

You try to put Jesus' words into practice by supporting the butchering of unborn babies? And when someone wraps themselves in the banner of Christianity while advocating for something so clearly abhorrent to our Lord, followers have every right (duty even) to rebuke accordingly. That's also in scripture, in case you're wondering.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

More Law. Is it all Law, all the time for you?

I live in a bold confidence that nothing can separate me from the love of God in Christ. For that I am not ashamed. It is the Gospel.

"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom 6:15-23

We don't 'not sin' because we are trying to keep the law to merit salvation. We try not to sin because we are now slaves of righteousness through faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit given to us helps us recognize sin so that we will avoid it or repent from it.

The idea, "I have faith therefore I can commit murder all I want" or "Since I'm declared righteous through Christ I don't even have to care about what sin is and isn't and can just please myself" is not what the gospel is about. Our faith in Christ and relationship with Him grows over time. We put sin to death, adding knowledge and virtue to faith, etc. (II Pet 1:3-11) We certainly don't purposefully try to have our sin and Jesus too - that just leads to being double minded, attempting to serve two masters, and lukewarm or stagnating spiritual growth.

 

[ubicaritas]

If you have a problem with scripture, take it up with God. He breathed it.

Scripture also says "Thou shall not murder", but here you are in this discussion anyway, advocating for killing unborn babies.

You try to put Jesus' words into practice by supporting the butchering of unborn babies? And when someone wraps themselves in the banner of Christianity while advocating for something so clearly abhorrent to our Lord, followers have every right (duty even) to rebuke accordingly. That's also in scripture, in case you're wondering.

You aren't my pastor, you have no spiritual relationship to me and we aren't even in communion with one another. So... whatever.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Good gravy... you do realize we have more than filled the earth at 7 1/2 billion people? To most rational people it looks like human beings are breeding ourselves into extinction.

The rest of your argument is just naive, it's confusing what is natural with what is ethical.

We can now add "population control" to your growing list of reasons to kill babies.

 

[Phil 1:21]

You aren't my pastor, you have no spiritual relationship to me and we aren't even in communion with one another. So... whatever.

If I was your pastor you'd be acquainted with 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 by now.