Religion and Moral Status of the Pre-born

Ana the Ist · Jun 28, 2022

durangodawood said:
Politically wound up Americans. Sorry Ive been vague about this.

But I could see other previously docile Americans, who are less theocratically inclined, getting politically riled up in light of recent events.

Nah.

Frankly I could probably make a better argument than half the board (I'm declaring myself average) but such arguments can be considered endorsement of the forbidden act.

This is against forum rules.

When I say against forum rules....I mean I once tried to start a thread to find a middle ground policy position which a majority could hypothetically agree on....it didn't make it to page 3 before I was reported and the whole thread deleted.

Which I find astounding....Given I was just attempting to see if a middle ground position existed, and for the past week or so, I've seen more posters arguing for abortion than I can count.

Did the forum rules change or something?

Daniel9v9 · Jun 28, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
How do we care for all life?

I believe that how we care for and love people, practically speaking, is shaped by the Commandments. If you want to know what this means, I can invite you to read our short explanation of the Ten Commandments, here:

The Small Catechism – Luco

Ana the Ist · Jun 28, 2022

Daniel9v9 said:
I believe that how we care for and love people, practically speaking, is shaped by the Commandments. If you want to know what this means, I can invite you to read our short explanation of the Ten Commandments, here:

The Small Catechism – Luco

Oh I thought you meant "we" the United States.

I'm not Christian.

zippy2006 · Jun 28, 2022

jayem said:
The link largely invokes Blackstone's Commentary. Which relates to English law, and is irrelevant to American jurisprudence.

It's not irrelevant if you understand where the United States came from, how our legal system was devised, and other general historical conditions of our country. Blackstone may be the most cited authority in the entirety of the history of our courts. In any case, only the first half of that article is intent on using Blackstone as an early legal context.

jayem said:
If the unborn are persons, with 14th Amendment rights, then why did SCOTUS not include this in their opinion?

Apparently courts which overturn their own decisions aren't infallible, and that should answer your question.

But the point is that your claim was false. It's not at all crystal clear.

jayem said:
And honestly, Dodds was a monumentally stupid decision. It has settled nothing, and will only lead to more conflict and division.

That is a horrendously bad non-argument, and it is the best thing I have seen from the left all week.

Daniel9v9 · Jun 28, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
Oh I thought you meant "we" the United States.

I'm not Christian.

Yep, and I'm not American.

My point was that how we care for people in praxis, as human beings, is up for debate. What I'm saying is that the framework that I operate under is the Commandments.

So, to take an example: Universal healthcare. The Bible says nothing directly for or against this, because universal healthcare as we know it is a modern invention, so here we can reason in accordance with our conscience. Personally, I'm in favour of universal healthcare. I think the fact that many in the US suffer economic hardship and even bankruptcy when falling ill or having been in an accident is lamentable. But I also understand that this is not a simple policy matter, but it's a complex subject and in many ways a cultural issue. So I wouldn't know what the best way would be to attempt a reform, other than to offer an unhelpful suggestion that you'd have to gradually change the culture somehow.

Now, it's not that I'm particularly interested in discussing healthcare, but I'm using this as a practical example of how we care for our neighbours is something that can be discussed and considered. Abortion, however, I believe is very different. For while abortion may help the life of the parent(s) in some way, it is at the cost of the life of the child, and that I believe is wrong. In short: Instead of resorting to murder, I'd rather look at other things we can do to help where the whole family can benefit, including the child.

Daniel9v9 · Jun 28, 2022

Halbhh said:
A person I knew very well had a health directive that in the case of complete mental incapacitation or something like that, that no special mechanical life support would be continued after several doctors had concurred that the complete irreversible incapacitation of the brain had happened. In accord with their directive, in time, the mechanic ventilator was withdrawn, and so then the body perished.

But of course she didn't perish.

Her real fate will be decided by the Lord. She may live forever in Eternal Life.

Do you think that withdrawal of the ventilator after the brain had mostly died was the right thing? (it's not up to us, of course, and we aren't judging them, but rather talking in terms of what we ourselves think/believe)

The thing is, are we really who we are once consciousness is entirely gone through brain death, irreversibly? Some like me would think the death of the brain also means the soul has already left the body, so that what remains is only flesh without a soul any longer.

Let me first say that there are no easy short answers to cases like this, but in general, I'd say that we are to trust God to be the one to give and take life. If someone is on life support, going from better to worse, or with no prospect of getting better, I think, generally speaking, it is better to take them off life support. I do not believe it's a sin to let nature take its course, so to say. That is, if someone is in the process of dying and we only have the means to slow the process down, it is better to leave the person in the hands of God.

Ana the Ist · Jun 28, 2022

Daniel9v9 said:
Yep, and I'm not American.

My point was that how we care for people in praxis, as human beings, is up for debate. What I'm saying is that the framework that I operate under is the Commandments.

So, to take an example: Universal healthcare. The Bible says nothing directly for or against this, because universal healthcare as we know it is a modern invention, so here we can reason in accordance with our conscience. Personally, I'm in favour of universal healthcare. I think the fact that many in the US suffer economic hardship and even bankruptcy when falling ill or having been in an accident is lamentable. But I also understand that this is not a simple policy matter, but it's a complex subject and in many ways a cultural issue. So I wouldn't know what the best way would be to attempt a reform, other than to offer an unhelpful suggestion that you'd have to gradually change the culture somehow.

Now, it's not that I'm particularly interested in discussing healthcare, but I'm using this as a practical example of how we care for our neighbours is something that can be discussed and considered. Abortion, however, I believe is very different. For while abortion may help the life of the parent(s) in some way, it is at the cost of the life of the child, and that I believe is wrong. In short: Instead of resorting to murder, I'd rather look at other things we can do to help where the whole family can benefit, including the child.

Right....but why wouldn't this be a personal choice?

Do you assume the ability to judge and impose your moral opinions upon others?

Daniel9v9 · Jun 28, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
Right....but why wouldn't this be a personal choice?

Do you assume the ability to judge and impose your moral opinions upon others?

I explain this in my other posts.

In short, to view this as a matter of me imposing my own moral opinion upon others is problematic, because any law that has to do with morals or ethical questions has someone's beliefs imposed upon others. This is not a religion vs politics debate, but it's a clash of a spectrum of beliefs and worldviews. And I think if we can at least agree on that murder is wrong, then we can reason from there.

So, to repeat what I wrote earlier:

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.

Ana the Ist · Jun 28, 2022

Daniel9v9 said:
I explain this in my other posts.

In short, to view this as a matter of me imposing my own moral opinion upon others is problematic, because any law that has to do with morals or ethical questions has someone's beliefs imposed upon others. This is not a religion vs politics debate, but it's a clash of a spectrum of beliefs and worldviews. And I think if we can at least agree on that murder is wrong, then we can reason from there.

I haven't checked upon international threats to Japan or the measures we currently take to reduce them lately.

But surely you are aware of what we do with drones to people in foreign lands and the deaths that result from these behaviors.

Is that not murder?

Daniel9v9 · Jun 28, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
I haven't checked upon international threats to Japan or the measures we currently take to reduce them lately.

But surely you are aware of what we do with drones to people in foreign lands and the deaths that result from these behaviors.

Is that not murder?

What the government does through military force is a big topic in and of itself, but if they ever abuse their power to murder innocent life, then that is also wrong.

mark46 · Jun 28, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
I haven't checked upon international threats to Japan or the measures we currently take to reduce them lately.

But surely you are aware of what we do with drones to people in foreign lands and the deaths that result from these behaviors.

Is that not murder?

Pacificism and a path of non-violence are fine paths of life.

That being said there is a difference between "Thou shall not kill" and "Thou shall not murder".

You suggest that war is murder. That is indeed a reasonable moral approach, but certainly not the only acceptable one. If one is engaged in war, it is not all clear whether the use of drones results in more or fewer deaths and injuries. Most would suggest that we use them because fewer are expected to be die and/or be injured.

mark46 · Jun 28, 2022

Harming a fetus, certainly on beyond 28 weeks is a crime in many states.

State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women (ncsl.org)

There will now be hundreds of new laws (and lawsuits) addressing this issue.

mark46 · Jun 28, 2022

Daniel9v9 said:
What the government does through military force is a big topic in and of itself, but if they ever abuse their power to murder innocent life, then that is also wrong.

It is also a big topic to define "innocent life" and "abuse of power".

Daniel9v9 · Jun 28, 2022

mark46 said:
It is also a big topic to define "innocent life" and "abuse of power".

Yes, I agree.

disciple Clint · Jun 29, 2022

mark46 said:
I think that you need evidence if you are to change the status quo. There is nothing in law treats a fetus in the same way as a child. There is no birth certificate. The fetus isn't a dependent for tax purposes. A fetus isn't counted in the census. There are literally hundreds of other situations.

To treat a fetus (even a 3rd term one) as a child would require major changes in hundreds of laws and administrative situations.

not at all.
Life begins at conception: Why a Human Being Begins At Conception - NAAPC
The law recognizes an unborn child as a crime victim when the mother is killed.
Murder of Pregnant Woman Could Bring Death Penalty
Human DNA begins at conception. There is no doubt that a human child exists from the moment of conception.

disciple Clint · Jun 29, 2022

Akita Suggagaki said:
That is the debate. Is a fertilized egg = a child?

See my post #95

disciple Clint · Jun 29, 2022

durangodawood said:
That view is widely disputed in way totally unlike for a born child....which should tell us something.

widely disputed based on what? Do we follow the science that should tell us something.

SimplyMe · Jun 29, 2022

Daniel9v9 said:
I explain this in my other posts.

In short, to view this as a matter of me imposing my own moral opinion upon others is problematic, because any law that has to do with morals or ethical questions has someone's beliefs imposed upon others. This is not a religion vs politics debate, but it's a clash of a spectrum of beliefs and worldviews. And I think if we can at least agree on that murder is wrong, then we can reason from there.

So, to repeat what I wrote earlier:

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.

To answer your main question, "Is the unborn alive or not alive, scientifically speaking?" the answer would be no, at least prior to about 24 weeks. For a human to be "alive" -- as defined medically (if not scientifically), there must be higher brain function -- the ability for conscious thought. In a human embryo, this does not typically occur until between the 24th and 25th weeks.

disciple Clint · Jun 29, 2022

SimplyMe said:
To answer your main question, "Is the unborn alive or not alive, scientifically speaking?" the answer would be no, at least prior to about 24 weeks. For a human to be "alive" -- as defined medically (if not scientifically), there must be higher brain function -- the ability for conscious thought. In a human embryo, this does not typically occur until between the 24th and 25th weeks.

How can it not be alive? it is growing, moving, experiencing pain. If I am flat lined am I not still alive even though I have no brain waves?

SimplyMe · Jun 29, 2022

disciple Clint said:
How can it not be alive? it is growing, moving, experiencing pain. If I am flat lined am I not still alive even though I have no brain waves?

If you have flatlined, you are considered to be medically dead. Perhaps you think we should grant "live" status to Molar Pregnancies? After all, it is growing and is composed completely of human DNA -- how, by your definition, is it not "human." I guess no abortions for women with molar pregnancies?

He asked scientifically -- and scientifically (medically) we judge "human life" by having upper level brain waves that indicate consciousness.

Religion and Moral Status of the Pre-born

Aggressively serene!

†

Aggressively serene!

Dragonsworn

†

†

Aggressively serene!

†

Aggressively serene!

†

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

†

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency