Is the Fetus a Human Being?

[ubicaritas]

The sanctity of human life extends all the way back to Cain killing Abel. Written in stone “You shall not murder" in Exodus 20:13. Compare Exodus 23:7

Also see Genesis 9:5-6

I quoted the Didache because it gives us an indication on how the early church viewed abortion.

We see this also in the Epistle of Barnabas:

You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born. (Chapter 19)​

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0124.htm

And even a century later:

Tertullian (c. 160 - 240)

They [John and Jesus] were both alive while still in the womb. Elizabeth rejoiced as the infant leaped in her womb; Mary glorifies the Lord because Christ within inspired her. Each mother recognizes her child and each is known by her child who is alive, being not merely souls but also spirits.

- De Anima 26.4



Thus, you read the word of God, spoken to Jeremias: "Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee." If God forms us in the womb, He also breathes on us as He did in the beginning: "And God formed man and breathed into him the breath of life." Nor could God have known man in the womb unless he were a whole man. "And before thou camest forth from the womb, I sanctified thee." Was it, then, a dead body at that stage? Surely it was not, for "God is the God of the living and not the dead."

- De Anima 26.5



It is not permissible for us to destroy the seed by means of illicit manslaughter once it has been conceived in the womb, so long as blood remains in the person.

- Apologia, cap 25, line 42

In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man - killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed.

- Apologia 9.6​

Well, even if the early church did believe that ,that's not a substitute for moral deliberation in this century. The early church also believed generally you couldn't be a soldier and be a Christian, but my religious denomination does not accept this logic. We are well known for producing lots of soldiers and police.

 

[redleghunter]

I really don't see why that matters? Again, I'm a Lutheran, I don't assume its important to know that, just that Jesus is human in every way that I am or you are. In the meantime here below, there is no magic decoder ring for ethics in that sort of argument, anyways. Ethics is not based on some arcane science only the illuminati can know, such as theology, it's based on moral deliberation in community.

It matters. If Jesus's human nature is exactly like our own, does that not inform us on the sanctity of life at all stages of development?

 

[redleghunter]

Secular "worldviews" are very relevant to Christian ethics because we are called to engage with the world in our process of serving our neighbor.

But not to become like the world. Our current secular society views life as disposable. We are not to follow their ways but be beacons of light for Christ.

 

[ubicaritas]

All neighbors except those the most vulnerable in the womb. Got it.

Not necessarily. We are still in a process across peoples and time, but what is deeply inauthentic to the process is when people use inherently violent rhetoric in place of dialogue. There is no shortage of that among some quarters of the pro-life community (as demonstrated by my avatar, who was the victim of that sort of rhetoric). In those circumstances, moral deliberation becomes impossible with the other, because they have stopped listening altogether.

 

[ubicaritas]

It matters. If Jesus's human nature is exactly like our own, does that not inform us on the sanctity of life at all stages of development?

I don't see how that's relevant to what I have been discussing in terms of ethics in a pluralist, secular society.

Jesus incarnation inspires us, it does not dictate to my neighbor how to live.

 

[ubicaritas]

But not to become like the world. Our current secular society views life as disposable. We are not to follow their ways but be beacons of light for Christ.

I think that's an extreme attitude, and the sort of attitude we have no right to have in this world, not without first seriously considering we may be wrong.

I look around at this world and I see alot of people of goodwill, many of them not particularly religious or Christian. It would be wrong to discount their perspective merely because they are not a member of our tribe.

 

[redleghunter]

Not necessarily. We are still in a process across peoples and time, but what is deeply inauthentic to the process is when people use inherently violent rhetoric in place of dialogue. There is no shortage of that among some quarters of the pro-life community (as demonstrated by my avatar, who was the victim of that sort of rhetoric). In those circumstances, moral deliberation becomes impossible with the other, because they have stopped listening altogether.

The above I hope you realize is rhetoric.

Let's stay on topic. You have still not established a Christian basis for denying a fetus moral equality to other human beings made in the Image and according to the likeness of God.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't see how that's relevant to what I have been discussing in terms of ethics in a pluralist, secular society.

Jesus incarnation inspires us, it does not dictate to my neighbor how to live.

I see this is about non Christians and how we are to form a sort of Christian ethics based on the ways of the world.

Not be beacons of Light for Christ and His Gospel.

 

[redleghunter]

I think that's an extreme attitude, and the sort of attitude we have no right to have in this world, not without first seriously considering we may be wrong.

Huh? Jesus told us to shine the Light.

 

[ubicaritas]

I see this is about non Christians and how we are to form a sort of Christian ethics based on the ways of the world.

Not be beacons of Light for Christ and His Gospel.

Be careful you don't confuse Law and Gospel here. Jesus commanding us to be light is actually Law. Which is at best an aspirational ideal, but not necessarily a realistic ethic.

 

[ubicaritas]

The above I hope you realize is rhetoric.

Let's stay on topic. You have still not established a Christian basis for denying a fetus moral equality to other human beings made in the Image and according to the likeness of God.

Maybe there is no "Christian" basis at all either way? Why can't we rely upon the moral deliberation of humanity to answer this question pragmatically? Why infuse dead religion into an area it no longer belongs?

 

[Eloy Craft]

I don't see what that has to do with ethics. Lots of things are potentially seen as holy but our ethics aren't driven by moral purity.

What does that mean? Abortion is too broad a subject for ethics.

 

[ubicaritas]

What does that mean? Abortion is too broad a subject for ethics.

I don't think the place to start talking about the ethics of abortion is the incarnation. The incarnation should fuel our desire to engage with these questions, not force a conclusion.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21: 22 - 25

Apparently, in God's eyes the fetus is not a human being. Therefore, the abortion is not the murder.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. It states here that one must pay life for life if there is harm. If no harm then there is remuneration as per the judgement rendered.
The very fact that the unborn are addressed here separately tells us God views the unborn as living cherished humans in his care.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I'm a Lutheran, so the answer is easy. I was born dead, made alive in baptism and adopted as a child of God.

In Lutheranism the emphasis is on redemption, not creation. You put creation first you make an idol out of your ideas of God instead of how God has revealed himself in Christ.

Is it either redemption or creation? of course not because that would devalue what God creates. if it is not created it can't be redeemed. As a response to the discussion from your position your statement requires that God's purposes be denied. Born dead, it's ok to stay dead because Lutherans put redemption before creation.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I don't think the place to start talking about the ethics of abortion is the incarnation. The incarnation should fuel our desire to engage with these questions, not force a conclusion.

It should force a conclusion for a Christian.

 

[ubicaritas]

Is it either redemption or creation? of course not because that would devalue what God creates. if it is not created it can't be redeemed. As a response to the discussion from your position your statement requires that God's purposes be denied. Born dead, it's ok to stay dead because Lutherans put redemption before creation.

I think you are imposing some other idea of creation, like creation is an artifact of the past, sort of like Deism, of God establishing some kind of eternal ordering of the world, a great chain of being, etc. This is not how Lutherans think of creation . Creation and redemption are much more closely linked and are not necessarily completely discrete categories. But nonetheless, redemption is a more central focus in Lutheranism and I believe it is deserved because Christ the Redeemer is the only God we have we can know of (the "Hidden God" in Lutheranism is a terrifying mystery, unlike Calvin who pretends to know God's mind).

God can make children out of stones. He's not dependent on "nature" to make sons and daughters, as the prologue to John makes clear, even though we believe he has chosen specific natural ways, called sacraments, to give us his grace, those are not limitations on his creative or redeeming power. So all talk of "nature" or "natural law" is mostly irrelevant to our ethics.

 

[ubicaritas]

It should force a conclusion for a Christian.

That would be pretending to know God's mind and how God thinks, the big sin of Calvinism.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Every time I hear 'it's just human tissue' I think of our God who became what that person is referring to as a 'blob' and to hear it from a Christian who should understand that they are including Jesus in that definition of human life. " a blob of tissue" It borders on blasphemy.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I think you are imposing some other idea of creation, like creation is an artifact of the past, sort of like Deism, of God establishing some kind of eternal ordering of the world, a great chain of being, etc. This is not how Lutherans think of creation . Creation and redemption are much more closely linked and are not necessarily completely discrete categories. But nonetheless, redemption is a more central focus in Lutheranism and I believe it is deserved because Christ the Redeemer is the only God we have we can know of (the "Hidden God" in Lutheranism is a terrifying mystery, unlike Calvin who pretends to know God's mind).

God can make children out of stones. He's not dependent on "nature" to make sons and daughters, as the prologue to John makes clear, even though we believe he has chosen specific natural ways, called sacraments, to give us his grace, those are not limitations on his creative or redeeming power. So all talk of "nature" or "natural law" is mostly irrelevant to our ethics.

No sir. I'm thinking of the creation of an individual human being in the womb. I don't even believe the creation of all that is is happening in the past. It's happening at every moment. So when you say redemption before creation or creation becomes an idol.....that doesn't make sense. One thing I know is that as an argument for abortion it is a denial of God's reason for creating. Perhaps that's a knee jerk reaction from the fear of making creation an idol? Added: How can ethics be separated from human nature? Ethics flows from human nature.