No, You Reallly Are Not "Pro-Choice"

[SPF]

When both the fetus and the pregnant woman are both at risk, why should the decision as to who lives be left in the hands of a third party. Why should the pregnant woman--the life in being--not be the one making that decision?

Imagine a small country town with only one doctor. There is a terrible car accident and two people are terribly injured. They are rushed to the doctor. The doctor quickly realizes that they are both on the verge of death and that he must act immediately if he is to save one. Yes, save one. He is the only person there capable of saving their lives, and there is only time to save one. They are both conscious and both asking to be saved. Who makes the choice on who gets to be saved? What if one was unconscious and the other was conscious, would the conscious one who could voice an opinion take precedence over the one that couldn't voice their opinion? What if one was older than the other, should the older person have the final say on who gets saved?

While exceedingly rare, we can conceive of a situation where we have a life threatening event in which a pregnant woman and a viable fetus are at mortal risk, and there is only time to save one life. As I said previously, unless the mother was demanding that the doctor do everything to save the life of her child, I would act to save the mother first and then hope that I could also by some miracle save the child. But my decision as the doctor would not be because I think the mother possesses and more inherent moral value than the unborn child, it would be because the mother possesses more utilitarian value.

The only time I think I might attempt to save the child first, despite what the mother said, would be if as a medical professional I knew that the mother had virtually no chance of survival and I knew that I could without question save the unborn child. In that instance, I would probably save the patient that I knew I could and then try everything to save the one that I was fairly certain wouldn't make it anyway.

Do you have a right to self defense? If so, what gives you the right to determine that your life is morally worth more than that of your attacker.

Yes, I believe self defense is Biblically permissible. Self defense does not require that I kill the attacker.

Do you have a right to self preservation? Why doesn't a pregnant woman than have that same right?

Yes, people have the right to self preservation. The pregnant woman and the unborn child both have that right equally.

 

[-V-]

When both the fetus and the pregnant woman are both at risk, why should the decision as to who lives be left in the hands of a third party. Why should the pregnant woman--the life in being--not be the one making that decision?

Conflict of interest and lack of impartiality, that's why.

Do you have a right to self defense? If so, what gives you the right to determine that your life is morally worth more than that of your attacker.

Apples & oranges. Unless you want to argue that the unborn is actively trying to kill the mother.

Do you have a right to self preservation? Why doesn't a pregnant woman than have that same right

We have that right so far as it doesn't infringe on another's right to survive.

the child's "right to life" does not trump the woman's right to self determination.

What "right to self determination"? Where does God give us that right? Answer: nowhere.

A "right to self determination" would mean we belong to ourselves. The Bible is clear we do NOT. "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." 1 Corinthians 6:19-20. God owns us, we don't own ourselves.

Paul wrote several things about slavery. Yet, not once did he instruct Christian slave owners to let their slaves go. Not once did he condemn slavery in and of itself. How could Paul so egregiously ignore this supposed God-given right of self determination when discussing slavery? Answer: because self determination NOT a God-given right.

Oh, the law says we have that right? I think we're more concerned with morality, not legality. The prophet Daniel lived in a country that made a law forcing people to commit idolatry. Daniel refused to obey. Would you have scolded Daniel, saying, "hey, it's our right, that makes it ok!"? I doubt it. Obviously, "legal" and "moral" are different standards.

 

[Roseonathorn]

I would say that people who hold this line of reasoning are mistaken. The first thing to recognize is that 99% of all abortions are done for convenience sake. So when we are talking about the rare instance where there is a life threatening event to both the mother and the unborn child, I personally think the prudent thing is for the doctor to look at both mother and child as his patients. As the doctor, it's his job to do his best to save the lives of both. However, in rare circumstances, this is not possible. I would say that in that terrible situation the doctor simply must make the best medical decision he can.

One mistake in discussing abortion that people often make is confusing the principle with the practice. When discussing the morality of action X, it will be determined completely independently from a practice that occurs.

For example, consider the death penalty. It is possible that an innocent person may receive the death penalty, and that would be a terrible thing to happen. There are also forms of carrying out the death penalty that we would not condone, such as dropping a man in a pool of hungry alligators. But, this is the important thing - the practice of the principle does not determine the morality of the principle.

The death penalty is either moral or immoral apart from whether or not innocent people may be condemned or the way in which it is carried out. The question we must answer first is whether or not it is in itself a moral thing to do. Then after that is determined we can examine the practice and try to figure out the best way to carry out the practice of the principle.

Same thing with abortion. The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we determine the value of the life inside the woman. It is not a woman's rights issue, it is a child in the womb's rights issue. Once we determine the morality of abortion, which is completely separate from any and all practices associated with the outcome of the principle, then we can move onto how to best handle the practice of the principle.

Dropping an innocent man in the pool of hungry alligators as death penalty, hm is not that very much how an abortion is carried out... an innocent childs limbs is torn limb by limb by some educated surgeon. The pain might be just as real no matter that the poor child has few rights in the law. I guess money or pride or convenience talk louder than the heart.

 

[Roseonathorn]

Imagine a small country town with only one doctor. There is a terrible car accident and two people are terribly injured. They are rushed to the doctor. The doctor quickly realizes that they are both on the verge of death and that he must act immediately if he is to save one. Yes, save one. He is the only person there capable of saving their lives, and there is only time to save one. They are both conscious and both asking to be saved. Who makes the choice on who gets to be saved? What if one was unconscious and the other was conscious, would the conscious one who could voice an opinion take precedence over the one that couldn't voice their opinion? What if one was older than the other, should the older person have the final say on who gets saved?

While exceedingly rare, we can conceive of a situation where we have a life threatening event in which a pregnant woman and a viable fetus are at mortal risk, and there is only time to save one life. As I said previously, unless the mother was demanding that the doctor do everything to save the life of her child, I would act to save the mother first and then hope that I could also by some miracle save the child. But my decision as the doctor would not be because I think the mother possesses and more inherent moral value than the unborn child, it would be because the mother possesses more utilitarian value.

The only time I think I might attempt to save the child first, despite what the mother said, would be if as a medical professional I knew that the mother had virtually no chance of survival and I knew that I could without question save the unborn child. In that instance, I would probably save the patient that I knew I could and then try everything to save the one that I was fairly certain wouldn't make it anyway.

Yes, I believe self defense is Biblically permissible. Self defense does not require that I kill the attacker.

Yes, people have the right to self preservation. The pregnant woman and the unborn child both have that right equally.

Speaking of selfdefence...it might just be good for some women to take some classes in selfdefence so You learn to use proper defence and the right amount of it. If You do not know selfdefence Correctly You might end up hurting the attacker worse or killing him by mistake. You really do not want to pay the price for that.

 

[Archivist]

I'm not sure what the significance of this is. I think we would both agree that law does not attempt to determine what is moral or immoral.

If you have studied the Common Law you are aware that its roots are based on Scripture. I would strongly recommend that you read "A Law above the Law: Christian Roots of the English Common Law" by Dean Augusto Zimmermann of Western Australia’s Murdoch University School of Law. It is available in the journal Glocal Conversations Vol 1(1) November 2013. Dean Zimmermann wrote that "At least until the early 19th century, the Common Law was heavily influenced by Christian philosophy. This philosophy argues that there is a divine reason for the existence of fundamental laws, and that such laws are superior to human-made legislation, thus reflecting universal and unchangeable principles by which everyone should live.

As Christians, we would agree that lust is a sin, but I don't think either of us would think that lusting should be illegal and people should be arrested for it.

That is a topic for a different thread. I don't think we are discussing lust here.

So whatever the law was, or is, has no bearing upon whether or not receiving an abortion is moral or immoral in the eyes of God.

It does if the law was based on the Bible. The problem is that scripture doesn't give us a definite command as to exactly when a fetus becomes a person, and sincere Christians have disagreed on that topic over the centuries. Some say that it is at the moment of conception. Others say that it is at the point when the fetus physically resembles a human being although that view, based on Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," has largely fallen out of favor. The view held by the Common Law and widely held by Christians at one time was at the moment of quickening (Luke 1:41, "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb." Our Jewish friends and many Christians say that it is at the moment the baby takes its first breath (Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.")

I know that you think that your view is the only possible view, but that is just wrongly thinking on your part. It is an issue upon which Christians can and do disagree.

And our Jewish friends also crucified Christ and don't believe He rose from the grave, so I think we would agree that they are not infallible.

Actually the Jews didn't crucify Christ, although they demanded it be done and said that Christ's blood would be on them and their children. It was the Romans who performed the physical act of crucifixion, not the Jews. But if you want to see who really crucified Christ try looking in a mirror. You did. So did I. So did all sinners, because He died for our sins.

 

[SPF]

That is a topic for a different thread. I don't think we are discussing lust here.

It was an analogy.

The problem is that scripture doesn't give us a definite command as to exactly when a fetus becomes a person

Actually, what Scripture doesn't give us is a reason to believe that there is a difference between a human being and a human person. The burden of proof rests with the person attempting to create a distinction between a human being that possesses moral worth and a human being that does not possess moral worth. And I have yet to see an objective case made for that.

It does if the law was based on the Bible

Which of course is why we have to look at what Scripture says, not the law.

I know that you think that your view is the only possible view, but that is just wrongly thinking on your part. It is an issue upon which Christians can and do disagree.

It's not particularly irenic to judge another person, but I can appreciate your straw-man here. The views that we are discussing are certainly mutually exclusive. I hold the beliefs I do because I believe they are true, as does everyone else on the planet. People can, and do disagree. But when views are mutually exclusive, engaging in dialogue to try and find the right view is usually a good thing.

 

[Archivist]

Imagine a small country town with only one doctor. There is a terrible car accident and two people are terribly injured. They are rushed to the doctor. The doctor quickly realizes that they are both on the verge of death and that he must act immediately if he is to save one. Yes, save one. He is the only person there capable of saving their lives, and there is only time to save one. They are both conscious and both asking to be saved. Who makes the choice on who gets to be saved? What if one was unconscious and the other was conscious, would the conscious one who could voice an opinion take precedence over the one that couldn't voice their opinion? What if one was older than the other, should the older person have the final say on who gets saved?

While exceedingly rare, we can conceive of a situation where we have a life threatening event in which a pregnant woman and a viable fetus are at mortal risk, and there is only time to save one life. As I said previously, unless the mother was demanding that the doctor do everything to save the life of her child, I would act to save the mother first and then hope that I could also by some miracle save the child. But my decision as the doctor would not be because I think the mother possesses and more inherent moral value than the unborn child, it would be because the mother possesses more utilitarian value.

The only time I think I might attempt to save the child first, despite what the mother said, would be if as a medical professional I knew that the mother had virtually no chance of survival and I knew that I could without question save the unborn child. In that instance, I would probably save the patient that I knew I could and then try everything to save the one that I was fairly certain wouldn't make it anyway.

But we aren't talking about two lives in being here. We are talking about one life in being and one potential life in being. In that contest the life in being wins in my book.

Yes, I believe self defense is Biblically permissible. Self defense does not require that I kill the attacker.

No, but you could kill him or her while defending yourself.

Now, if you can use force to defend yourself, why should a pregnant woman not have the same right to defend herself?

My former Amish neighbors are at least consistent. An Amish woman wouldn't have an abortion. But no Amish would raise a finger in self-defense.

Yes, people have the right to self preservation. The pregnant woman and the unborn child both have that right equally.

No, the pregnant woman is a life in being. She has achieved personhood. A fetus is not a life in being. It is a life, but has not achieved personhood.

 

[CrystalDragon]

People who are so-called "pro-choice" are nothing of the sort. If they were, then they would not be denying America's destroyed children the choice to live and to serve the Lord.

Thank God Almighty that our Lord Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, the Prophet Jeremiah, and Samson were not destroyed in their mothers' wombs. Jesus was called Lord before he was born (Luke 1:41-43). John was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was born (Luke 1:15). God "knew" Jeremiah before He "formed him in the womb." God "sanctified" Jeremiah before he was born (Jeremiah 1:5). Samson was ordained a Nazarite before he was born (Judges 13:5).

People who condone abortion had better fearfully consider who it is they are killing, want to kill, or enabling to be killed.

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10).

Are you pro-abortion? Well then, please carefully consider the past possibility of one of your current dear loved ones having been ripped limb from limb in their mother's womb.

Are you pro-abortion? Well then, it really would not have been morally corrupt if you had been ripped limb from limb in your mother's womb, correct? And of course, the children you have born, raised and loved would never have been born...but hey, that's not really a big deal either, right?

There's one thing I wonder though—what was with the Old Testament command of giving a woman bitter water to make her miscarry? If God's so against abortion, why basically command it under certain conditions back then?

(For the record I'm definitely pro-life, that just occurred to me)

 

[Archivist]

Conflict of interest and lack of impartiality, that's why.

Life in being vs. potential life in being.

Oh, and if the doctor was Jewish and believed that life began with the first breath and therefore automatically saved the pregnant woman that would be at all partial in your book.

Apples & oranges. Unless you want to argue that the unborn is actively trying to kill the mother.

You have a right to protect yourself against threats, whether active of not.

We have that right so far as it doesn't infringe on another's right to survive.

So you don't believe that you have any right to use deadly force to defend yourself?

 

[SPF]

But we aren't talking about two lives in being here. We are talking about one life in being and one potential life in being. In that contest the life in being wins in my book...No, the pregnant woman is a life in being. She has achieved personhood. A fetus is not a life in being. It is a life, but has not achieved personhood.

You're continually begging the question, assuming this as an axiom as opposed to actually providing a positive argument for your position.

You need to actually put forth a positive argument as to why there is a difference in inherent moral value between a life in being and a potential life in being. You have yet to do that.

Now, if you can use force to defend yourself, why should a pregnant woman not have the same right to defend herself?

She has just as much right to defend herself as the potential life in being has to defend itself. If you think otherwise, you need to put forth a positive argument as to why that is the case.

 

[SPF]

There's one thing I wonder though—what was with the Old Testament command of giving a woman bitter water to make her miscarry? If God's so against abortion, why basically command it under certain conditions back then?

(For the record I'm definitely pro-life, that just occurred to me)

Apparently what occurred to you is a total misunderstanding of the passage in question. I actually addressed this specific issue in another topic, you can read more about it HERE. But as I said there, the bitter waters was holy water taken from the basin in the temple mixed with a little dust. If you care to read about the actual jealousy offering, click the link to that post and you can read a commentary on it. Nobody forced any woman to miscarry.

 

[Archivist]

It was an analogy.

Not a good one as you tried to compare something that is not governed by law with something that commonly is.

Actually, what Scripture doesn't give us is a reason to believe that there is a difference between a human being and a human person. The burden of proof rests with the person attempting to create a distinction between a human being that possesses moral worth and a human being that does not possess moral worth. And I have yet to see an objective case made for that.

Sure it has. You keep ignoring an important word--"potential."

Which of course is why we have to look at what Scripture says, not the law.

And the law is, as I pointed out, based on Scripture.

It's not particularly irenic to judge another person, but I can appreciate your straw-man here. The views that we are discussing are certainly mutually exclusive. I hold the beliefs I do because I believe they are true, as does everyone else on the planet. People can, and do disagree. But when views are mutually exclusive, engaging in dialogue to try and find the right view is usually a good thing.

I don't think I've "judged" anyone in this thread.

 

[Archivist]

You're continually begging the question, assuming this as an axiom as opposed to actually providing a positive argument for your position.

You need to actually put forth a positive argument as to why there is a difference in inherent moral value between a life in being and a potential life in being. You have yet to do that.

I've done that multiple times, you have chosen to ignore it. Life in being vs. potential life in being.

She has just as much right to defend herself as the potential life in being has to defend itself. If you think otherwise, you need to put forth a positive argument as to why that is the case.

Once again, "potential." I have said it many times.

 

[SPF]

Not a good one as you tried to compare something that is not governed by law with something that commonly is.

That was actually the point I was making. We don't look to the secular law of government as our guide in determining whether or not an action is moral or immoral.

Sure it has. You keep ignoring an important word--"potential.

im not sure why you think simply using the word "potential" equals an argument supporting a position.

And the law is, as I pointed out, based on Scripture.

You've asserted this, but the secular law is created by fallible men, so you cannot point to the law and declare that an action is moral or immoral, you need to demonstrate that the lawmakers correctly interpreted Scripture.

I've done that multiple times, you have chosen to ignore it. Life in being vs. potential life in being.

Well again I will ask you to point me to the Reply # where you made this positive argument. I've looked back and can't find it, I've asked before for you to show me where and you haven't been able to do so.

Basically all you've done is asserted that human life located inside the womb (potential) possesses less inherent moral worth than human life located outside the womb (actual). Which is pretty much meaningless. You have to actually explain why that's the case. You say you've done that, but all I can see is where you assert it, not explain it. So again I ask, can you point me to where you put forth an argument supporting your assertion?

 

[-V-]

Life in being vs. potential life in being.

Since the fetus is already alive, it's not a "potential" life.

Oh, and if the doctor was Jewish and believed that life began with the first breath and therefore automatically saved the pregnant woman that would be at all partial in your book.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

You have a right to protect yourself against threats, whether active of not.

Again, we're concerned with morality, not legality. Find in the Bible, please, where God expresses that we have the right to kill someone who isn't even trying to cause harm.

So you don't believe that you have any right to use deadly force to defend yourself?

I never said that. I said that right extends only so far as not infringing on another's right to live.

 

[Archivist]

Since the fetus is already alive, it's not a "potential" life.

Never said it was. Try reading what I wrote.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Try reading your post to which I was responding.

Again, we're concerned with morality, not legality. Find in the Bible, please, where God expresses that we have the right to kill someone who isn't even trying to cause harm.

You said that you have a right to self defense.

I never said that. I said that right extends only so far as not infringing on another's right to live.

And no attacker is ever killed when someone is trying to defend themselves. Of course.

 

[-V-]

Never said it was. Try reading what I wrote.

Sounds like that's what you're saying. Perhaps you can explain it.

Try reading your post to which I was responding.

I did. Still no clue what you're talking about.

You said that you have a right to self defense.

So far as we don't infringe on other's rights.

And no attacker is ever killed when someone is trying to defend themselves. Of course.

Once again, apples & oranges. The unborn is not an "attacker". In case you never noticed, criminals lose certain rights when they commit crimes. The unborn don't commit any crimes, let alone capital offenses.

 

[Archivist]

Sounds like that's what you're saying. Perhaps you can explain it.

I've explained it before in the thread. A fetus is a potential life in being. One is not a life in being until birth.

I did. Still no clue what you're talking about.

I said that where the life of both pregnant woman and fetus were at risk the choice as to who lives should rest with the pregnant woman, a life in being. You said that it should rest with a doctor because it would otherwise be a conflict of interest and impartiality. So a Jewish doctor who follows his own religious views and saves the mother isn't partial at all, right?

So far as we don't infringe on other's rights.

And a fetus who is putting the pregnant woman's life at risk isn't infringing on her rights at all.

Once again, apples & oranges. The unborn is not an "attacker". In case you never noticed, criminals lose certain rights when they commit crimes. The unborn don't commit any crimes, let alone capital offenses.

You have a lot to learn. An attacker doesn't loose certain rights when he commits crimes. He looses those rights when he is convicted of commuting crimes.

 

[SPF]

I've explained it before in the thread. A fetus is a potential life in being. One is not a life in being until birth.

Actually, all you've done is make the assertion that there is a difference in inherent moral worth and value between the two. But unfortunately, an assertion is not an argument.

The determining factor in whether or not abortion is moral or immoral is based upon whether or not the "potential life in being" (your preferred term) possesses inherent moral value or not.

So far all you've done (over and over) is beg the question and assume there is. You haven't actually done any work at all in putting forth an argument explaining why we should believe your assertion.

So I'll keep patiently asking you to actually address the topic at hand and explain why there are some humans that possess moral worth and some that don't. If you already have like you keep saying, just point me to the post number you did so I can review it.

 

[-V-]

I've explained it before in the thread. A fetus is a potential life in being. One is not a life in being until birth.

But where does this term "potential life in being" come from? Why should we think it's anything other than a colorful way to excuse slaughtering the unborn?

I said that where the life of both pregnant woman and fetus were at risk the choice as to who lives should rest with the pregnant woman, a life in being. You said that it should rest with a doctor because it would otherwise be a conflict of interest and impartiality. So a Jewish doctor who follows his own religious views and saves the mother isn't partial at all, right?

I don't see how someone having an incorrect religious view and an incorrect view of when life begins justifies abortion.

And a fetus who is putting the pregnant woman's life at risk isn't infringing on her rights at all.

What is it about lack of intent that you consistently fail to grasp?

You have a lot to learn. An attacker doesn't loose certain rights when he commits crimes. He looses those rights when he is convicted of commuting crimes.

Then how is it legal to arrest people and confine them in jail before they're convicted? How is it legal for a cop to shoot & kill someone committing a crime if that criminal hasn't been convicted yet?