Is the Fetus a Human Being?

[Aldebaran]

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.

Does that have anything to do with your profile status?

 

[redleghunter]

"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.

Indeed it is true we 'come as we are' but that does not mean we stay that way.

 

[ubicaritas]

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

It's certainly not a reason to be having more kids, necessarily.

 

[ubicaritas]

Indeed it is true we 'come as we are' but that does not mean we stay that way.

God does things in our life of course, that's why we call it a vocation. But that isn't what justifies us.

 

[Hillsage]

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.

Great response and personal testimony. A 'pastor friend' of mine in Lion's club, both got 'take ticket' duty at our annual pancake feed. Abortion was a 'big news' item at that point 15??? years back. He surprised me with his story. He was adamantly anti abortion. Then a couple in the church whose daughter got 'knocked up' at 15, and whose parents were in a divided debate concerning what to do (dad anti mom pro). Pastor pushed them to not abort. He said that decision ended up with the mother and father divorcing and the estranged daughter ending up on welfare and living in GOVERNMENT supported housing feeling totally defeated by life with no future. He then told me I saw 4 lives and a family destroyed, but just not dead.

He Also shared about how he had a small group of adults that he fellowships with. Only he knew one of the couples had had an abortion in the past. But the judgment they felt from the group, who made their judgmental opinions known to everybody, left this couple feeling guilty and condemned, instead of forgiven, in their own church.

He then said; “Now I counsel all involved in these situations, as to potential future outcomes and agree to help them all, as to whatever decision they make.” I personally believe he has come to a position that the nominal church does not even understand. IF abortion is sin it is just ‘A’ sin and not ‘THE’ sin. And only he who is without sin is qualified to cast a stone. I agree with the one who spoke ‘That Word’ 100%.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's certainly not a reason to be having more kids, necessarily.

He didn't say it was a reason to have more kids.

 

[ubicaritas]

Great response and personal testimony. A 'pastor friend' of mine in Lion's club, both got 'take ticket' duty at our annual pancake feed. Abortion was a 'big news' item at that point 15??? years back. He surprised me with his story. He was adamantly anti abortion. Then a couple in the church whose daughter got 'knocked up' at 15, and whose parents were in a divided debate concerning what to do (dad anti mom pro). Pastor pushed them to not abort. He said that decision ended up with the mother and father divorcing and the estranged daughter ending up on welfare and living in GOVERNMENT supported housing feeling totally defeated by life with no future. He then told me I saw 4 lives and a family destroyed, but just not dead.

He Also shared about how he had a small group of adults that he fellowships with. Only he knew one of the couples had had an abortion in the past. But the judgment they felt from the group, who made their judgmental opinions known to everybody, left this couple feeling guilty and condemned, instead of forgiven, in their own church.

He then said; “Now I counsel all involved in these situations, as to potential future outcomes and agree to help them all, as to whatever decision they make.” I personally believe he has come to a position that the nominal church does not even understand. Abortion is just ‘A’ sin and not ‘THE’ sin. And only he who is without sin is qualified to cast a stone. I agree with the one who spoke ‘That Word’ 100%.

Wow, sounds almost Lutheran in its logic. That's close to our attitude on the subject as well. Nobody has the right to make you a martyr for moral purity. Some things are deeply personal and they are between you and God.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

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.

The Earth is mostly empty. Seriously. 7 billion people could all fit inside Texas - with a comfortable townhouse on about 33′ x 33′ of land for each person. Most people live with families, so there would be realistically be even more space between houses and room for roads.

It's food production and infrastructure that take up the most 'space.' And this is not a problem of Earth being 'too small' but rather some 1st world countries consuming far more than they need and the human tendency to not want to spread out to less desirable locations.

(For example, about 5 gallons of water per person per day, to drink/bathe/wash is enough for comfortable and safe living. In the U.S. every person uses approx 80-100 gallons per day. That's enough to support 16-20 people. Or, consider that people in the U.S. throw out 200,000 tons of edible food daily. A person needs about 3-5 pounds of food per day (less if younger) so 200,000 tons. Let's be generous and give everyone five pounds (whis is pretty high as it is almost a ton per year):
400000000/5 = 80000000
So U.S. throw away waste alone could feed 80 million people.
And while there are many crowded cities in the U.S. there is a lot of land which hasn't even been touched yet.

And then there is the fact that food production is not linear over time. Despite Malthus and others gloomily predicting overpopulation and famine due to linear food production and exponential population growth, in reality food production has well outpaced population growth.

Between 1900 and 2000, for example, the global population quadrupled (1.6 to 6.1 billion) but grain production quintupled (from 400 million to 1.9 billion tons.) Current population growth has slowed, but food production is still increasing and malnutrition decreasing as advances in infrastructure and production methods make food faster to grow, resistant to disease, etc. If food production increases follow this trend there should be plenty of food to go around. https://theconversation.com/we-dont-need-to-double-world-food-production-by-2050-heres-why-74211

In the 1920s it was thought that a living density of 4,000 people within a square mile would be 'ridiculous' and put a cap on population growth - but many modern cities now house tens of thousands of people per square mile. Forecasts freaking out over population increases often forget to take into account human innovation and advancement. This is why God's blessing was not just to fill the Earth, but to subdue it and make the Earth work for us.

 

[Hillsage]

Wow, sounds almost Lutheran in its logic. That's close to our attitude on the subject as well. Nobody has the right to make you a martyr for moral purity. Some things are deeply personal and they are between you and God.

he was actually Presbyterian. And I was an X born and raised Catholic as well as an X 2 year old American Synod Lutheran ha ha.

 

[ubicaritas]

The Earth is mostly empty. Seriously. 7 billion people could all fit inside Texas - with a comfortable townhouse on about 33′ x 33′ of land for each person. Most people live with families, so there would be realistically be even more space between houses and room for roads.

It's food production and infrastructure that take up the most 'space.' And this is not a problem of Earth being 'too small' but rather some 1st world countries consuming far more than they need and the human tendency to not want to spread out to less desirable locations.

(For example, about 5 gallons of water per person per day, to drink/bathe/wash is enough for comfortable and safe living. In the U.S. every person uses approx 80-100 gallons per day. That's enough to support 16-20 people. Or, consider that people in the U.S. throw out 200,000 tons of edible food daily. A person needs about 3-5 pounds of food per day (less if younger) so 200,000 tons. Let's be generous and give everyone five pounds (whis is pretty high as it is almost a ton per year):
400000000/5 = 80000000
So U.S. throw away waste alone could feed 80 million people.
And while there are many crowded cities in the U.S. there is a lot of land which hasn't even been touched yet.

And then there is the fact that food production is not linear over time. Despite Malthus and others gloomily predicting overpopulation and famine due to linear food production and exponential population growth, in reality food production has well outpaced population growth.

Between 1900 and 2000, for example, the global population quadrupled (1.6 to 6.1 billion) but grain production quintupled (from 400 million to 1.9 billion tons.) Current population growth has slowed, but food production is still increasing and malnutrition decreasing as advances in infrastructure and production methods make food faster to grow, resistant to disease, etc. If food production increases follow this trend there should be plenty of food to go around. https://theconversation.com/we-dont-need-to-double-world-food-production-by-2050-heres-why-74211

In the 1920s it was thought that a living density of 4,000 people within a square mile would be 'ridiculous' and put a cap on population growth - but many modern cities now house tens of thousands of people per square mile. Forecasts freaking out over population increases often forget to take into account human innovation and advancement. This is why God's blessing was not just to fill the Earth, but to subdue it and make the Earth work for us.

There is a real problem with energy supply and the environmental health of the planet. I think that's reason enough to question whether ten billion people will really be a good thing. Many scientists think the carrying capacity of the earth long term should be no more than 2 billion or so.

It's selfish to look at parenthood decisions and only think about ourselves and not future generations.

 

[redleghunter]

God does things in our life of course, that's why we call it a vocation. But that isn't what justifies us.

Who said it did? That's been your assumption all along. No one is advocating justification by works. Most of us here are either Reformed or Wesleyan, so yeah we got that.

 

[ubicaritas]

Who said it did? That's been your assumption all along. No one is advocating justification by works. Most of us here are either Reformed or Wesleyan, so yeah we got that.

But we do not emphasize the obligation to live a holy life the way Reformed or Wesleyans do. Pastor Fisk makes that clear in that video I reference earlier. Our material principle is justification of sinners, not the glorification of God. Other churches tend to have a distorted view of what sanctification is and use it as a yardstick for Christian living, measuring even who has a real church or real faith by what amounts to arbitrary standards that overturn the Gospel of grace.

 

[Aldebaran]

There is a real problem with energy supply and the environmental health of the planet. I think that's reason enough to question whether ten billion people will really be a good thing. Many scientists think the carrying capacity of the earth long term should be no more than 2 billion or so.

It's selfish to look at parenthood decisions and only think about ourselves and not future generations.

One good reason not to abort a baby. The baby could grow up and have offspring of their own.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

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.

Are the 10 Commandments 'fundamentally misguided' as well?

"Thou shalt not covet your neighbors wife" - not 'Well, coveting is usually bad but your individual situation might excuse it based on your personality, how hot your neighbors wife is, and your personal experiences with your own spouse or that neighbor'

"Though shalt not murder" - not, 'murder can be wrong or right depending on if you really felt you needed to murder the other person, or if they were really annoying, or the circumstances leading up to the murder.'

Etc. Certainly courts can take into account the circumstances of an individual - that's why judges are generally needed in society. They can weigh whether something was self-defense or murder, for example, but can also lessen or increase penalties based on the cognizance of the perpetrator or other details of the case.

But human laws, themselves, have to start with the abstraction. Even the Jewish law took abstract principles derived from specific scenarios that God gave to then apply to different scenarios.

And God's standard of righteousness, which is far above any human law, starts with a target to meet (don't covet, honor your parents, etc.)

Any system of ethics has to start with defining right and wrong - such as meta-ethics, truth values, morality, etc. Only when these underlying ethics have been determined can they start being turned into practical laws or general modes of conduct. (For example, the value judgement 'it's wrong to take innocent human life' can be made practical by laws punishing murder or giving alleged criminals fair trials.) Then it can be determined what would be ethical (though not necessarily legally commanded) for a person to do in a general situation. (For example, if you can safely help someone in danger it is ethical to do so, though not legally required.) These ethical situations can vary somewhat based on personal circumstance, so generally contain caveats such as "if you can" or "if given opportunity" etc. (For example, a society that considered it ethical (not required) to stand for singing the national anthem would not consider those who physically can't stand to follow those general ethics)

Where situation/experience/personalities come in more specifically is if a law has been broken and someone is evaluating the case. They may decide the perpetrator was too young to fully grasp the actions, or was unduly influenced by another actor, etc. Those situational variances don't overturn the underlying ethics and meta-ethics, however.

 

[ubicaritas]

Are the 10 Commandments 'fundamentally misguided' as well?

"Thou shalt not covet your neighbors wife" - not 'Well, coveting is usually bad but your individual situation might excuse it based on your personality, how hot your neighbors wife is, and your personal experiences with your own spouse or that neighbor'

"Though shalt not murder" - not, 'murder can be wrong or right depending on if you really felt you needed to murder the other person, or if they were really annoying, or the circumstances leading up to the murder.'

Etc. Certainly courts can take into account the circumstances of an individual - that's why judges are generally needed in society. They can weigh whether something was self-defense or murder, for example, but can also lessen or increase penalties based on the cognizance of the perpetrator or other details of the case.

But human laws, themselves, have to start with the abstraction. Even the Jewish law took abstract principles derived from specific scenarios that God gave to then apply to different scenarios.

And God's standard of righteousness, which is far above any human law, starts with a target to meet (don't covet, honor your parents, etc.)

Any system of ethics has to start with defining right and wrong - such as meta-ethics, truth values, morality, etc. Only when these underlying ethics have been determined can they start being turned into practical laws or general modes of conduct. (For example, the value judgement 'it's wrong to take innocent human life' can be made practical by laws punishing murder or giving alleged criminals fair trials.) Then it can be determined what would be ethical (though not necessarily legally commanded) for a person to do in a general situation. (For example, if you can safely help someone in danger it is ethical to do so, though not legally required.) These ethical situations can vary somewhat based on personal circumstance, so generally contain caveats such as "if you can" or "if given opportunity" etc. (For example, a society that considered it ethical (not required) to stand for singing the national anthem would not consider those who physically can't stand to follow those general ethics)

Where situation/experience/personalities come in more specifically is if a law has been broken and someone is evaluating the case. They may decide the perpetrator was too young to fully grasp the actions, or was unduly influenced by another actor, etc. Those situational variances don't overturn the underlying ethics and meta-ethics, however.

The ten commandments are a decent start for the bronze age as guidelines for living a moral life. They are not ethical absolutes.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus is listening........ it's not going to be good for some .....

 

[Aldebaran]

The ten commandments are a decent start for the bronze age as guidelines for living a moral life. They are not ethical absolutes.

When they were given by God, He seemed to think they were rather important. Breaking one meant breaking them all and being condemned. It took the infinite suffering and death of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, to fulfill that law. So yes, it's safe to call them "absolutes".

 

[Phil 1:21]

There is a real problem with energy supply and the environmental health of the planet. I think that's reason enough to question whether ten billion people will really be a good thing. Many scientists think the carrying capacity of the earth long term should be no more than 2 billion or so.

Luckily, we know what causes pregnancy...and how to avoid it.

It's selfish to look at parenthood decisions and only think about ourselves and not future generations.

But it's not selfish to kill a baby out of convenience?

 

[ubicaritas]

When they were given by God, He seemed to think they were rather important. Breaking one meant breaking them all and being condemned. It took the infinite suffering and death of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, to fulfill that law. So yes, it's safe to call them "absolutes".

I'm not quite sure Lutherans view it exactly in that manner. There are differences between Lutherans and the Reformed in how we view the Law. Jesus made satisfaction to God for sin by becoming an object of wrath, but that doesn't necessarily imply that God is a legalist. I am not an expert here I just know I've heard Pr. Fisk in that previous video explain that we see the law differently.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

But we do not emphasize the obligation to live a holy life the way Reformed or Wesleyans do. Pastor Fisk makes that clear in that video I reference earlier. Our material principle is justification of sinners, not the glorification of God. Other churches tend to have a distorted view of what sanctification is and use it as a yardstick for Christian living, measuring even who has a real church or real faith by what amounts to arbitrary standards that overturn the Gospel of grace.

Most of us just believe that sin remains sin whether we engage in it or not. The amount of sins we commit doesn't make us more or less a Christian - what matters is whether we are growing and walking by the Spirit, not what 'level' we are at. Certainly living a holy life is good - but the way to that isn't by measuring specific goods and detracting points for evils, it's simply by continuing in relationship with Christ and seeking to walk by the Spirit (II PEt 1:3-11, etc.) That is, meekness bears the fruit of good deeds, but good deeds cannot bear meekness. The fruit of love leads to our acts of compassion, but outward acts of compassion do not grow love. This is why Jesus focused on the heart, not the outward appearance.

However, if we willfully engage in sin, refuse to let the Holy Spirit work in us, and gleefully revel in our depravity as if it doesn't matter there is a *huge* problem in our relationship with Christ. If we aren't viewing sin rightly through God's eyes, but feel we can define it for ourselves, then we may stop feeling as if we even need a saviour. If we aren't growing by remaining in relationship with Christ then we are 'blind' and have forgotten Jesus forgave our sins (II Pet 1:3-11.) If we deliberately are serving sin as well as God we have the dilemma of serving two masters (Matt 6:19-24.)

"Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you hold bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere." James 3:10-17

Note that spiritual wisdom stems from meekness and bears out in good deeds, but Earthly 'demonic' wisdom comes from holding envy and selfish ambition. Holding/possessing here is an active, ongoing state. It even has connotations of 'wearing' like a garment. This doesn't refer to small struggles we may have with envy and ambition, but our clinging to them. And it's the same with any sin - when we harbor sin and treat it like a garment and seek to serve it, rather than submitting to the mind of Christ and putting to death the deeds of the flesh, then we are acting like slaves to sin and not slaves to righteousness.

A Christian is not perfected by 'good deeds' but by the Spirit (Gal 3:3.) That doesn't mean that a Christian should willingly redefine or embrace sin and that's A-OK.