I may have changed my mind about abortion

[rojse]

I think we all would agree that at conception, the fetus is, to some degree, human life. Right? And as a christian I believe that the spirit enters the body before birth. (Luke 1:15, for example.) Since we don't know exactly when that happens, that's enough for me to be against abortion.

Conception is an extremely arbitrary point to me. What about women that take the pill? Have they prevented a child from coming into the world? What about people that have sex with condoms? Haven't they stopped a potential life, too? Or what about a man that gets a vasectomy, or a woman who ties her tubes? Haven't they prevented life?

I do, however, believe that abortion should remain legal for those who have been raped or whose lives are in jeopardy.

I agree with you on those, but I also think there are other circumstances where it should be considered. That, however, is a debate for another thread.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Conception is an extremely arbitrary point to me. What about women that take the pill? Have they prevented a child from coming into the world? What about people that have sex with condoms? Haven't they stopped a potential life, too? Or what about a man that gets a vasectomy, or a woman who ties her tubes? Haven't they prevented life?

Yeah, the Catholic church is pretty consistent with their view. Life begins at conception, so no birth control at all... no recreational sex either. Just like the Pythagoreans...

 

[McBell]

I think we all would agree that at conception, the fetus is, to some degree, human life. Right? And as a christian I believe that the spirit enters the body before birth. (Luke 1:15, for example.) Since we don't know exactly when that happens, that's enough for me to be against abortion. I do, however, believe that abortion should remain legal for those who have been raped or whose lives are in jeopardy.

Why conception?
It is still a living human sperm that fertilizes a living human egg.

 

[Starfish]

Why conception?
It is still a living human sperm that fertilizes a living human egg.

Your inference would suggest that every sperm and every egg must be fertilized, or else life is cut short. This is ridiculous, but I think you already knew that when you posted it.

 

[McBell]

Your inference would suggest that every sperm and every egg must be fertilized, or else life is cut short. This is ridiculous, but I think you already knew that when you posted it.

No more ridiculous than claiming life begins at conception.
For if either the sperm or the egg were dead, conception could not take place.

 

[zookeeper]

No more ridiculous than claiming life begins at conception.
For if either the sperm or the egg were dead, conception could not take place.

I go by conception because sex is procreation, to create life. When people decide to have sex, that is when they have to consider the consequences and should be held responsible for their creation.

 

[McBell]

I go by conception because sex is procreation, to create life. When people decide to have sex, that is when they have to consider the consequences and should be held responsible for their creation.

So sex is for procreation?
Is it your position that sex is for procreation ONLY?
If not. then your statement is moot.
If so, then you do realize that there are only 4, maybe five, days out the month where you can "justify" your having sex.

 

[nocturn321]

I appreciate your struggle. The issue must be the existence of the soul. There are two Christian views: 1) that each soul is individually created at conception; 2) that soul is inherited (this is called traducianism). I believe the later is correct. I realize the Bible does not directly shed any light on this matter. However, consider that there really is not a separation between the soul and the body. The separation of the two in death was not the intent of creation. As individuals inherit personality traits from their parents and still have their own personality, so individuals inherit soul from their parents even though their soul distinct from their parents. The other thing to realize is that not all taking of life is murder. Murder involves motive and intent. Therefore, the taking of the life of a fetus may be necessary under certain circumstances. I certainly would not tell the mother of a 14 year rape victim that she may not have her daughter receive a procedure that might terminate the fetus. Some abortions -- probably most, are murder. People must accept responsibility for their actions.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Since this thread has become a debate, I have moved it to the debate forum.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't see it going out of style. There are many reasons for abortions, and to say that these reasons will be disregarded because of the emotional blackmail of colour images and pictures is quite simplistic.

I think that the parents make a tough choice in the abortion process, because they have to sit down, and discuss the situation, and the possible choices they have, and that would not change no matter how you wish to show the baby to the prospective parents/aborters.

I mean, of course, surgical abortions. I think that the color pictures and videos of living fetuses being popularly known will change the dialog - change style. That is, when a woman gets unexpectedly pregnant and talks with her family and friends, the first question won't be about surgical abortion. Perhaps the morning after pill will also contribute to this, or other abortificants that are not surgical. I don't think that all abortions will cease - but I do forsee surgical abortions becoming as taboo as late term or partial-birth abortion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So what is driving your studies? (If I may ask...) I have very strong feelings about abortion and wonder what information others base there views on.

Basically, I was reading some early Christian writings and found that they were using the same arguments and bible verses that I've heard used against abortion for my whole life in the church. I had thought that the ancients didn't practice surgical abortion (at least - I knew about exposure) and therefore the verses were taken out of context. It turns out I was wrong.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why conception?
It is still a living human sperm that fertilizes a living human egg.

By life, I mean human life. By conception, I mean a fertilized egg attached to the uterus. So I would still be fine with contraceptives and birth control pills that prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

 

[McBell]

By life, I mean human life. By conception, I mean a fertilized egg attached to the uterus. So I would still be fine with contraceptives and birth control pills that prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

Understood.

Though it seems strange the idea of adding "human" to the term life when speaking of human conception.

 

[doppelganger]

So what exactly changed? Your assumption that there was no surgical abortion in the ancient world? Or that you now think "life begins at conception" rather than whatever you thought before? If the latter, what does an ancient Christian moral standard have to do with what you think about a subject as subjective as "when does life begin"?

 

[doppelganger]

By life, I mean human life. By conception, I mean a fertilized egg attached to the uterus. So I would still be fine with contraceptives and birth control pills that prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

The "Rhythm method," is actually very likely to cause fertilized zygotes attached to the uterine wall to be flushed. Timing intercourse to avoid high fertility stages can increase the likelihood of a fertilized egg attaching too late or too early in the cycle to remain viable.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Understood.

Though it seems strange the idea of adding "human" to the term life when speaking of human conception.

Yes, it is odd. Like I said, I am toying with the idea.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So what exactly changed? Your assumption that there was no surgical abortion in the ancient world?

Definately that. Not only that there was no surgical abortion in the ancient world, but that Christians were addressing it using the same arguments that they do today.

Or that you now think "life begins at conception" rather than whatever you thought before? If the latter, what does an ancient Christian moral standard have to do with what you think about a subject as subjective as "when does life begin"?

That's the question I'm asking myself, dopp. I see a fairly strong contact between the modern and ancient Christian stances on the subject, and to be frank, I am humbled by it.

On the other hand, the counter-arguments are just as ancient (if not more so...).

 

[doppelganger]

That's the question I'm asking myself, dopp. I see a fairly strong contact between the modern and ancient Christian stances on the subject, and to be frank, I am humbled by it.

That seems very un-"Daddy"-like, if you know what I mean.

On the other hand, the counter-arguments are just as ancient (if not more so...).

I think Pythagoras pre-dates Plato. But that's all window-dressing isn't it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That seems very un-"Daddy"-like, if you know what I mean.

Ha! Don't put the horse before the cart.

I'm writing an article about this, and in the first paragraph I outline my previous thoughts concerning abortion and that I haven't changed my mind because of this study.

I think Pythagoras pre-dates Plato. But that's all window-dressing isn't it?

Yeah, they sure do, but I'm not sure if we know exactly what they thought. I think that most of the Pythagorean statements concerning conception are fragments preserved in later writers - beginning with Plato. I've read that Pythagoreans thought that life begins at conception, but they considered the thinking of the male and female during sex as conducive to the formation of the soul of the child. I don't see Pythagorean influence in early Christianity - other than, of course Christians arguing specifically against them at certain points.

 

[McBell]

Personally, I never understood the "when does life begin" debate when it comes to abortion.
Seems to me that life began long long ago and is a continuous ongoing process.

Which causes me to suspect that when people use the word 'life' in the 'when does life begin' debate, they are most likely meaning something different.

Most times when I bring this up, people merely get more specific.
They say "human life".
It strikes me as odd that they specify human life when discussing human conception and human abortion.

I cannot help but wonder if they think people might be thinking that dogs, or frogs, or {insert non-human life form here}, are being thought of even though the discussion is about humans.