Even if the fetus looked like a deformed tadpole for 8 months and three weeks, and then in the last week of gestation suddenly aqcuired perferct human characteristics, abortion would still be wrong. So the pictures do weaken your argument. You are implying that a fetus should not be killed because it has human features. The logical converse of that is that a fetus which doesn't have human features is ok to kill, and I know you don't think that. Your belief in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception really has nothing to do with how human the fetus appears to be at any given stage of development.
Stop. The Bible takes no view of abortion. None whatsoever. It's not even mentioned. How can you formulate a correct Christian position on an issue that the Bible never deals with?
Yes - I think that preserving the legality of abortion means promoting it. There are perhaps one million legal abortions in the U.S. each year and yet, as you note, very few people, promote abortion in the sense of promoting something to increase its frequency. I do equate promoting the "right" to choose with promoting the choice based on the obvious results of promoting that right. Let's say that all but a precious few abortion supporters voiced their support by saying it was morally wrong, but legally available. If that had been the context for the discussion of abortion rights, Roe would, I think, already be reversed. You don't recall describing all people who want to make abortion illegal as far right Christian "fundies?" No - I projected on you a position that you are taking, but merely don't realize it.
Sorry, some of this I just don't get and am trying to understand the logic. Is a child with a birth defect in a sinful condition? Are all children with Down's Syndrome, for example, sinful?
So you would say that the Bible is irrelevant to a Christian's response regarding any modern issue not dealt with specifically by the Bible? And there's always Psalm 139:13-16, so the Bible is not totally silent on whether a fetus is a person. 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. - NIV translation
From God: Exo 21:22-23 "If men who are fighting, hit a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury to the woman, the offender will surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand from him; therefore he will pay damages as the judge decides. But if there is any further injury to that woman beyond the miscarriage, then you will appoint as the penalty a life for a life." Obviously, God values the health of a woman over the life of a fetus.
Point taken. Perhaps you're right - one can't defend a person's right to choose something without at least implying that that choice is morally acceptable. So in that sense, it could be said that all abortion rights advocates "promote" abortion. So does it follow that the only morally correct alternative is to advocate banning abortion, lest it appear that I think abortion is acceptable? If those are my options, then fine, I will promote abortion. In fact, I think abortion's grand. I think the government should provide them for free and every woman should be required to have at least one. Right now I'm going to go to a high school and convince some teenage girls that they should have abortions. Even if they're not pregnant yet. Abortion "supporters" (as you call them), in the context of Roe v. Wade, did not argue that abortion was morally right. Their point was, and continues to be, that morality is not the relevant consideration. So they don't comment on whether abortion is morally right or wrong. I recall describing them as "far right." If you think "far right" is synonymous with "callous and uncaring for either the fetus or the woman," then that's your problem.
All people are born in a sinful condition. Down's Syndrome is just an obvious manifestation of the sinful condition that has tainted or poisoned all creation, including healthy babies. The main result of the sinful condition under which all creation suffers is, most obviously, death. But I'd rather not hijack this thread into a discussion of original sin, election or other Christian doctrines.
Well - at least you are being honest with yourself now. I'd like to know why you think abortion is "grand." Also, at what point does it stop being grand and start being a crime? Finally, why is the point in time you have selected logical? How convenient for them that morality is irrelevant
Ditto for most pre-Roe criminal abortion statutes which prescribed lesser penalties for abortion than for homicide. I have no problem with a lesser penalty for the crime of abortion than for homicide.
I didn't quite mean to imply that you were dishonest, but that your position on abortion is unaffected by any analysis of fetal development. If you're going to show pictures of fetuses to support the view that they are humans, doesn't it follow that earlier fetuses aren't? Doesn't it work both ways?
The reference is to the injury of a woman- not just the death of a woman. God is saying that to hurt a woman is worse than killing a fetus. In other words, God hates coathangers, too. At least you recognize the fact that fetuses aren't people.
Touche' - very clever. I suppose that I could be rigidly consistent and insist on applying the 1st degree murder statute, but I don't. And at what point between conception and birth do you think a fetus magically takes on "person" status? Or is terminating the pregnancy at any time prior to birth basically Mom's decision depending on whether she feels like she "wants" to acquire the thing inside her?
Except, that's not really the case. It's theorized that over 50% (potentially well over that mark) of all conceptions end in miscarriage. It's just over so quickly the woman never realized she was pregnant. Pregnancy is a difficult row to hoe. That a conception will automatically result in a healthy birth 9 months later is not a foregone conclusion. Even if the mother wants it to be. There is no "left alone", most of the time, as witnessed by the effect pre-natal care has on worldwide infant mortality rates.
The most basic beliefs in Christianity are: 1. God created the world good. 2. Man is responsible for sin. 3. God is holy and just. 4. God's justice required punishment for sin. 5. The punishment was death. 6. God is also merciful. 7. God planned a redemption of his creation including man. 8. All men sin and no man is able to atone for his own sin. 9. The sacrifice of Jesus was necessary to achieve reconciliation of God and man. 10. Belief in Jesus as Savior is necessary and sufficient to gain eternal life. This is standard Christian doctrine from Jesus to Paul to Augustine to Aquinas to the Reformers on down. Perhaps before you run down the beliefs of mainstream Christians, now and historically, as fundie mumbo jumbo, you should try to understand what you are talking about. Especially since, as I recall, you identify yourself as a Christian.
Why would you? God didn't do it. In fact, he very explicitly states that "only" hurting a woman deserves more punishment than killing a fetus. This is all laid out very straightforwardly in the Bible. And you don't even have to interpret some highly obtuse and abstract Psalm to make it your Biblical position.
Why are you bringing Ronald Reagan into this? We do, as a rule, provide more respect under the law to people who have actually lived than to those who might have a life. ... And that's fine by me. It's only an issue when someone decides to legislate that morality into an absolute one way or another that it becomes a problem.
It’s refreshing to see a rational discussion of this matter. But I have some disagreement with the premise that "the refusal to accept limitations on self will is the nature of sin." Freedom is a necessary, rather than sufficient component for sin, e.g. the refusal to heed the impulse to commit a wrongful act obviously does not make one a sinner. Rather, I see sin as the exercise of free will contrary to a moral code. (Sometimes the acquiesce to obstacles to self will is a sin in itself.) But a righteous man will exercise his free will consistent with a given morality. Free will is essential to morality. Why doesn't God prevent us from crashing airplanes into crowded skyscrapers? Because doing so would negate our ability to choose good from evil, Light from dark. Our existence would then be utterly meaningless. Autonomy thus goes to the core of all moral codes. Our legal system also recognizes the necessity of free will. The problem comes when we attempt to enforce a moral code proscribing abortion through legal means. A law forbidding abortion would turn a biological difference with no necessary social consequence into a social disadvantage. Such a law would not simply let nature run its course; it would also necessarily compel some women to become involuntary incubators. Such a cooptation of human bodies for the protection of third parties would be unconstitutional, even if we agree that those third parties have fully vested human rights. The state simply has no authority to involuntarily bind the human body in such a manner. And this view remains unaltered by the status of the fetus, or zygote, which is an entirely different question involving matters of faith (life begining at conception or birth) and science/law (viability, sense and sentience). To me, this is a case-by-case question that can be determined only by the woman. As painful and horrible as this decision may be, it properly belongs within the purview of morality, not law.
And none of them back your ridiculous assertion that "Down's Syndrome is just an obvious manifestation of the sinful condition that has tainted or poisoned all creation, including healthy babies." This is not the belief of mainstream Christians. This is a quite rare and self-hating brand of Christianity that is advanced by the less-educated and unenlightened in our society. The people who believe that birth defects are God's punishment are the ones who want to stop embryonic research, lest we rid the world of birth defects and prove them wrong. The people who believe that birth defects are God's punishment also believed that polio was God's punishment. Lucky for us that a few biologists and chemists kicked God's ass and made him stop doing it.
Many Christians believe #4 & 5 were contrived by religious leaders to consolidate political power. Sin is self-punishing and the punishment is estrangement from the Creator. And "atonement" or "at one ment" returns man to the Creator. See Emanuel Swedenborg. 10. This is not the stance of the Catholic religion, the oldest Christian Church. Faith wihtout works is empty.
I was being facetious. You knew that right? I know you're not so caught up in your misconceptions about abortion rights advocates that you actually thought i was serious. ... right? Morality is irrelevant from a legal standpoint in this case. How inconvenient for those who seek to impose their morality on everybody else.
Should murder be legalized? Isn't that imposing morality? It's terribly naive to not realize that morality informs all sides in this debate, including the Roe v. Wade decision.
What a tired and poorly thought out analogy. Not only does murder infringe on the rights of another individual, but there is also an unquestionable consensus as to its moral status. Abortion, on the other hand, inhabits a moral gray area where different people hold different views and there is no legal or cultural standard by which rightness or wrongness can be judged.