Religion and Moral Status of the Pre-born

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,717
4,887
69
Midwest
✟278,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Since the status of the life in the womb from conception to birth is judged differently based on one's religion, why would we want the state regulating it?

"... a number of religious groups, including the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the two largest American Jewish movements – Reform and Conservative Judaism – favor a woman’s right to have an abortion with few or no exceptions.

Many of the nation’s largest mainline Protestant denominations – including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Methodists – also support abortion rights,

Where major religious groups stand on abortion

The recent ruling seems to me to be a violation of freedom of religion. It imposes the religious beliefs of those churches that oppose abortion (in fact seeing it as murder) on everyone including those who do not hold that belief.

What am I missing? Let churches ban it but not the government.
 

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Since the status of the life in the womb from conception to birth is judged differently based on one's religion, why would we want the state regulating it?

"... a number of religious groups, including the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the two largest American Jewish movements – Reform and Conservative Judaism – favor a woman’s right to have an abortion with few or no exceptions.

Many of the nation’s largest mainline Protestant denominations – including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Methodists – also support abortion rights,

Where major religious groups stand on abortion

The recent ruling seems to me to be a violation of freedom of religion. It imposes the religious beliefs of those churches that oppose abortion (in fact seeing it as murder) on everyone including those who do not hold that belief.

What am I missing? Let churches ban it but not the government.

The status of life in the womb is scientific, and it is settled. There is life there and it is human.

As to your other question: the Aztec religion requires child sacrifice. Is it your view that if some Aztecs move to the United States we would be forced to strike down our laws against infanticide?

(For the sake of argument assume that New York isn't an option for the Aztecs)
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,717
4,887
69
Midwest
✟278,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The status of life in the womb is scientific, and it is settled. There is life there and it is human.

As to your other question: the Aztec religion requires child sacrifice. Is it your view that if some Aztecs move to the United States we would be forced to strike down our laws against infanticide?
Thanks for responding but a child has already been born and has different moral status than OP question.

But you raise the point of where to draw the line.
" The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs."
Religious Discrimination


I don't think your Aztec would be accommodated. But there may be other religions and practices. Can you think of something more relevant?
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,717
4,887
69
Midwest
✟278,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was signed into law to clarify and expand upon the right to religious liberty. RFRA outlines that the government “should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification” and that it should only do so if it furthers a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive way possible.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf


Sacrificing a child would be considered "compelling justification". But again, where to draw the line?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: mark46
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟393,838.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The problem is that this is not a religion vs politics issue, nor straight white evangelical men vs women's freedom issue, but a religion vs philosophy issue; it's a clash of belief systems. And we the Church, are called to speak up and defend the weak. It's a very complex topic, but I think we can boil it down to this:

Can we agree on that murder is wrong? If yes, let's then consider this:

Is the unborn alive or not alive, scientifically speaking?
What species is the being in the womb?

If the answer to the above is "yes" and "human", then we must confess that we are dealing with a human life, and we should care for that child as we care for all life.

Beyond this, here's what I would like people to reflect on:

1. Any pro-abortion argument that can be applied to a 2 year old is not a good argument.
2. Who decides what qualifies as a human right?
3. It is possible to care for mothers and children alike.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Some believe that Scripture teaches that life is defined by Science, rather than the breath of life. Some believe that God breathes life into flesh and flesh becomes life. Choose to agree or not. However, insisting that one's personal religious beliefs be inflicted on others seems very wrong.
===========
And yes, the vast majority of Americans has come to want to protect a viable fetus. So, the vast majority Americans support the FL type legislation of forbidding abortion after 15 weeks, subject to medical exceptions. Yes, FLORIDA.
============
There are two very separate issues. One is how we as individuals would allow a pill or procedure that some would define as abortion. The more overriding issue is the degree to which I should force others to
obey my individual religious beliefs. If that is the case, we have absolutely no right to criticize the Taliban for making the state enforce their religious beliefs as state law.

We are deciding whether we are a democratic republic or a theocracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: camille70
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The problem is that this is not a religion vs politics issue, nor straight white evangelical men vs women's freedom issue, but a religion vs philosophy issue; it's a clash of belief systems. And we the Church, are called to speak up and defend the weak. It's a very complex topic, but I think we can boil it down to this:

Can we agree on that murder is wrong? If yes, let's then consider this:

Is the unborn alive or not alive, scientifically speaking?
What species is the being in the womb?

If the answer to the above is "yes" and "human", then we must confess that we are dealing with a human life, and we should care for that child as we care for all life.

Beyond this, here's what I would like people to reflect on:

1. Any pro-abortion argument that can be applied to a 2 year old is not a good argument.
2. Who decides what qualifies as a human right?
3. It is possible to care for mothers and children alike.

So, the morning after pill MUST be banned in the US because the egg is child that we are murdering. And certainly, the contraceptive pill is an abortion device since fertilized eggs may be killed. What herbs and vegetables should be illegal to be consumed by women, since so many might kill a newly fertilized egg.

You state a LEGAL proposition. If your position is to be accepted, then the all the eggs fertilized need to be given the status of "human" as you put it, with all the rights and priviliges.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,717
4,887
69
Midwest
✟278,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The problem is that this is not a religion vs politics issue, nor straight white evangelical men vs women's freedom issue, but a religion vs philosophy issue; it's a clash of belief systems. And we the Church, are called to speak up and defend the weak. It's a very complex topic, but I think we can boil it down to this:

Can we agree on that murder is wrong? If yes, let's then consider this:

Is the unborn alive or not alive, scientifically speaking?
What species is the being in the womb?

If the answer to the above is "yes" and "human", then we must confess that we are dealing with a human life, and we should care for that child as we care for all life.

Beyond this, here's what I would like people to reflect on:

1. Any pro-abortion argument that can be applied to a 2 year old is not a good argument.
2. Who decides what qualifies as a human right?
3. It is possible to care for mothers and children alike.
Great reply Daniel, Thanks.
Though it is "human" and "life" the religious /philosophical question of moral status remains debatable especially as the fertilized egg develops into a fetus. Should a blastocyst have the same rights as a 20 year old woman? Different churches have different opinions.

"It is possible to care for mothers and children alike?" Of course it is and so it should be. Unfortunately is is often not so.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel9v9
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,491
7,061
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟952,359.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We are deciding whether we are a democratic republic or a theocracy.
Acknowledging fetal humanity (and subsequent rights) is not an exercise in theocracy.
It is just compulsively spun that way by the opposition... and they know it!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,717
4,887
69
Midwest
✟278,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Acknowledging fetal humanity (and subsequent rights) is not an exercise in theocracy.
It is just compulsively spun that way by the opposition... and they know it!
Well, when people pray, bring God into it and use personal beliefs it sure looks theocratic.

But I think we can separate religion from philosophy.

I was discussing with a prochoice person and I brought up entelechy, the potential. A single fertilized egg has the same entelechy as an adult. And since life must precede happiness or fulfillment the right to live should precede the right to happiness or fulfillment.

This issue must be disencumbered from religious beliefs. Until we can make a sound philosophical case without theological beliefs we should not expect government to intervene.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,491
7,061
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟952,359.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This issue must be disencumbered from religious beliefs.
And it has been.
It is only the Left who keeps trying to conflate fetal status with religion (for the sake of rhetoric).
Take that away and they have no leg to stand on.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,717
4,887
69
Midwest
✟278,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And it has been.
It is only the Left who keeps trying to conflate fetal status with religion (for the sake of rhetoric).
Take that away and they have no leg to stand on.
I think just the opposite is true. On what basis other than religious can one claim that the fetal status rights outweigh the adult status rights?
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Should a blastocyst have the same rights as a 20 year old woman? Different churches have different opinions.

.

Please list the churches and relevant documents that maintain that blastocysts should have the same rights as 20 year old woman.

I have never seen a church suggest citizenship, ownership rights and other rights being considered the same for the two.

And, yes, this would be a huge change for the US. Determining that, by law, a blastocyst (or even 3month old embryo/fetus) is a person that has rights would have a profound effect. Surely, we would start with issuing the equivalent of birth certificates for these newly defined persons.

In the US, an embryo becomes a person at birth, when God breathes life into flesh.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟393,838.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
So, the morning after pill MUST be banned in the US because the egg is child that we are murdering. And certainly, the contraceptive pill is an abortion device since fertilized eggs may be killed. What herbs and vegetables should be illegal to be consumed by women, since so many might kill a newly fertilized egg.

You state a LEGAL proposition. If your position is to be accepted, then the all the eggs fertilized need to be given the status of "human" as you put it, with all the rights and priviliges.

Great reply Daniel, Thanks.
Though it is "human" and "life" the religious /philosophical question of moral status remains debatable especially as the fertilized egg develops into a fetus. Should a blastocyst have the same rights as a 20 year old woman? Different churches have different opinions.

"It is possible to care for mothers and children alike?" Of course it is and so it should be. Unfortunately is is often not so.

Yes, I think we should treat children in all stages of development with dignity and respect because they are living human beings, even if small and in an early stage. I see no good reason why an unborn can't share the same legal rights as a child that has just been born — or at the very least, the right not to have their life violently taken away from them. Positively, I think we should support and care for them and their family.

A big part of the problem is that our generation is bent on understanding the world through the lens of rights, privileges, and oppression, whereas historically, we have understood things primarily as gifts. So, I would talk about the "gift of life" but another of the "right of life", and in this, you see two very different philosophical frameworks. However, if we are to talk about rights, what I'm interested in learning is where those rights come from. That is, to say something to the effect that "abortion is a human right" is problematic. For, to expand a bit on the above, who decides what qualifies as a human right? The society? Which society? And who in the society? The government? The majority? The influential? The oppressed? Which class of oppressed? The more we reflect on this, the more we begin to see how complex the issue is and how shallow much of the debate is.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,491
7,061
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟952,359.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
On what basis other than religious can one claim that the fetal status rights outweigh the adult status rights?
On whatever basis that drove this ruling.
It has been held "religiously" long before now, but has only recently been shown to be scientifically, hence legally, relevant.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, I think we should treat children in all stages of development with dignity and respect because they are living human beings, even if small and in an early stage. I see no good reason why an unborn can't share the same legal rights as a child that has just been born — or at the very least, the right not to have their life violently taken away from them. Positively, I think we should support and care for them and their family.

A big part of the problem is that our generation is bent on understanding the world through the lens of rights, privileges, and oppression, whereas historically, we have understood things primarily as gifts. So, I would talk about the "gift of life" but another of the "right of life", and in this, you see two very different philosophical frameworks. However, if we are to talk about rights, what I'm interested in learning is where those rights come from. That is, to say something to the effect that "abortion is a human right" is problematic. For, to expand a bit on the above, who decides what qualifies as a human right? The society? Which society? And who in the society? The government? The majority? The influential? The oppressed? Which class of oppressed? The more we reflect on this, the more we begin to see how complex the issue is and how shallow much of the debate is.

Your emphasis seems to be on conferring rights on one day old blastocysts. Some of the left wants no rights or protections to be provided before birth. Most of Americans want viable fetuses to be protected.

But, I am going off-topic. You asked about morality and religion. Surely, we don't believe that one religion should force its beliefs on others using the state to enforce those beliefs.

As a religious issue, different faiths and denomination have different beliefs with regard to when an embryo/fetus should be provided protections. Some seem to have the very strange idea that the mother is the one that should be provided the primary protection.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Make no mistake. The political target is to prevent early term abortions supported by the vast majority of Americans, those 93% that take place in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.

I suspect that 75% would vote to support the new FL law, banning abortions after 15 weeks (lowering the limit from 24), with significant health exceptions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟393,838.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Your emphasis seems to be on conferring rights on one day old blastocysts. Some of the left wants no rights or protections to be provided before birth. Most of Americans want viable fetuses to be protected.
But, I am going off-topic. You asked about morality a religion. Surely, we don't believe that one religion should force its beliefs on others.

As a religious issue, different faiths and denomination have different beliefs with regard to when an embryo/fetus should be provided protections. Some seem to have the very strange idea that the mother is the one that should be provided the primary protection.

Well, everyone who discusses this has some kind of belief, and as such, it would be shallow to dismiss some people's beliefs as being "religious". There is always going to be one belief system that is forced upon others. That goes for every law that has to do with morality. What I want to emphasise, however, is that a child in the womb is objectively a living human being. The humanity of children does not lie within the decision of their parents. So, then we need to ask: When does life begin? I hold that the answer to this is at conception. And because I believe in the sanctity of life, I think that we should protect and care for that life.

Hey, as a Christian, do you believe that the aborted children have an afterlife? If we think this through, then we begin to see another dimension of complexity to the issue.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, everyone who discusses this has some kind of belief, and as such, it would be shallow to dismiss some people's beliefs as being "religious". There is always going to be one belief system that is forced upon others. That goes for every law that has to do with morality. What I want to emphasise, however, is that a child in the womb is objectively a living human being. The humanity of children does not lie within the decision of their parents. So, then we need to ask: When does life begin? I hold that the answer to this is at conception. And because I believe in the sanctity of life, I think that we should protect and care for that life.

Hey, as a Christian, do you believe that the aborted children have an afterlife? If we think this through, then we begin to see another dimension of complexity to the issue.

You are free to state that life begins at conception as many times as you wish. That doesn't make it so. Different faith communities have different views.

For many communities, what is key is when the soul enters the body. Some think this at 40-80 days, some believe at 4 months, and some at birth. I would think that many now believe that that time is at viability. Many think it strange for the biological event to be dispositive of spiritual life, with no consideration for the soul or the spirit. For many, it is difficult to read Genesis and believe anything but that the God breathes life into flesh which then and therefore has life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0