The Pro-Life Conspiracy

[Sunstone]

(source?)

Please read the OP.

 

[Vancouversailor]

Thanks for a really good posting which puts the current political situation especially in the US in perspective. Donald Trump, a heathen and worshipper of mammon if there ever was one, realized, when his ego starting seeing himself as Pres of the US of A, that without the backing of the army of bible thumpers i.e. evangelicals that lend their support to republican candidates, he would fail. So he became an instant Christian, hired a religious advisor as coach, and selected that religious Nutcase Peace as his vice pres. It goes without saying that he became a pro-lifer (weird term as those guys usually are adamantly pro war, pro capital punishment and anti giving poor people a health plan that will allow them to live). However, the view of America in the eyes of the world is now at an all time low as most people outside the US have more reliable news sources than Fox news, the modern day equivalent of the Nazi propaganda machine. Time will show if this will signal an end to the era where America was thought to be a beacon for democracy, human rights and civilization - my guess is that it will. Ironic that just a couple of years ago most people were looking up to America, as the country had elected a black president, legalized same sex marriages and was seen as a world leader in equality. All that has gone down the drain with Trump and Peace.

"I am not a conspiracy nut. But in this case no other word than conspiracy will do. We did what we did covertly, telling supporters one thing, and telling leaders on the inside of the political establishment another thing.

"There was one agenda in public, another one behind closed doors. And we changed America for the worse." -- Frank Schaeffer​

Most of us today no longer remember back when abortion was opposed, mostly, only by Catholics. Indeed, there was a time when it was condoned even by some of the most religiously conservative denominations in America. For instance:

In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.” [Source]​

Southern Baptists were on record supporting abortion rights as late as 1976, and they did not officially reverse themselves until the 1980s. [Source]

So what caused the reversal? Why did abortion become the huge issue it is today for so many religious folks?

By most accounts, the one person who had the most to do with the reversal was Francis Schaeffer. He was Frank Schaeffer's father. Francis was also the Protestant theologian most responsible -- not only for creating the notion that abortion violated biblical teachings -- but for propagating it. He, along with other people, did everything they could to make sure it became a popular issue.

Francis' son, Frank, was heavily and intimately involved in his father's efforts. And, according to Frank, those efforts crucially involved conspiring with Republican leaders to turn abortion into a means of creating a reliable, Republican-voting block out of America's Evangelicals and other fundamentalists.

The deal was this: The Republicans would get the Evangelicals, etc delivered to them by the religious leaders in exchange for the religious leaders getting power and wealth.

So, in a vital way, the abortion issue boils down to the ancient story of political elites and religious elites finding reasons to be in cahoots with each other. That story has been a constantly recurring theme in human history since the first civilizations were founded 5,500 years ago.

Beyond that, I wonder how many of us are genuinely surprised by this? I know some of us will dismiss it and the evidence for it, but that's only human nature. I'm not all that interested in them. But I am interested in knowing if anyone has been genuinely surprised to hear that the anti-abortion movement had its origins more in politics, than in unquestioned biblical principles?


_______________________________
A Little Further Reading:

The Actual "Pro-Life" Conspiracy That Handed America to the Tea Party & Far Religious Right (An Insider's Perspective)

The Not so Lofty Origins of the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement

 

[Sunstone]

...that only speaks to the motives of the leadership of that movement. But the vast majority of "the regular folk" who supported the cause -- no duplicity there.

You are, of course, correct. I would only caution you -- or anyone else -- not to discount the influence leaders have on forming people's beliefs. While a leader's motives in no way logically determine whether the belief is true or false, humane or inhumane, etc, leaders do decide for most of us what we will believe or disbelieve. Oscar Wilde was quite correct to say that most people's opinions are "other people's opinions."

By the way, one does not have to be a conservative, evangelical Christian to oppose anortion.

Again, correct.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Absolutely. One example would be Paul's opinion on the development of Christianity.

You are, of course, correct. I would only caution you -- or anyone else -- not to discount the influence leaders have on forming people's beliefs. While a leader's motives in no way logically determine whether the belief is true or false, humane or inhumane, etc, leaders do decide for most of us what we will believe or disbelieve. Oscar Wilde was quite correct to say that most people's opinions are "other people's opinions."



Again, correct.

 

[Vouthon]

@Sunstone Truly, I knew nothing about this shady political provenance to the abortion debate in the U.S.

So I thank you for the very informative post.

It had always mystified me a little, though, why the Evangelicals were so passionately pro-life when abortion isn't even explicitly referred to in the Bible.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians have never claimed that our historic opposition to abortion (albeit, in earlier centuries it was largely about the termination of a formed, animate foetus) is in anyway scripturally derived. It comes from our sacred tradition - extra-canonical sources like the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Apostolic and Church Fathers - which to us is equivalent to the Bible as a source of divine revelation.

If we had just the Bible to go on, I can't quite see how or why we would have adopted such a strong stance on the issue. There's literally nothing to work from.

 

[Sunstone]

@Sunstone Truly, I knew nothing about this shady political provenance to the abortion debate in the U.S.

So I thank you for the very informative post.

It had always mystified me a little, though, why the Evangelicals were so passionately pro-life when abortion isn't even explicitly referred to in the Bible.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians have never claimed that our historic opposition to abortion (albeit, in earlier centuries it was largely about the termination of a formed, animate foetus) is in anyway scripturally derived. It comes from our sacred tradition - extra-canonical sources like the Didache, Epistle of Barnabus, Apostolic and Church Fathers - which to us is equivalent to the Bible as a source of divine revelation.

If we had just the Bible to go on, I can't quite see how or why we would have adopted such a strong stance on the issue. There's literally nothing to work from.

I wanted to link to your OP from awhile back that went into the Catholic history on abortion, but I couldn't find it. Do have a link to it?

 

[Vouthon]

I wanted to link to your OP from awhile back that went into the Catholic history on abortion, but I couldn't find it. Do have a link to it?

Sure thing, I wrote it across (I think) a few posts on this thread:

Irish abortion referendum

I'll actually just combine some of it together here, if that's ok? This is WAY more complicated than the Evangelical equivalent!

There was a long-standing debate in the early and medieval church, (between those espousing an Aristotelian and Pythagorean natural philosophy, respectively), over whether or not an unformed foetus should actually be considered "ensouled".

A number of church fathers, popes and theologians - such as St. Augustine of Hippo, the Apostolic Constitutions of the 4th century, Pope Innocent III, Gregory IX and St. Thomas Aquinas - argued that for a number of weeks post-conception, the foetus wasn't a person and so, while abortion of pre-ensouled foetuses was overwhelmingly viewed as still being a sinful or undesirable practice, it could not be equated with murder until the foetus "quickened" in the womb and became formed; such that excommunications or equivalent ecclesiastical sanctions were for a long time only issued forth against women who aborted 'formed' foetuses after their wombs had quickened, rather than early terminations of unformed foetal tissue.

It was only in the 1860s that the church started to gravitate firmly towards the "conception is point of ensoulement" tenet of belief, due to a reaction against increasing secularization and the decline of Aristotelian science, courtesy of advances in embryology.

But there remains legitimate room for some hard questions in this area, perhaps.

I suppose, if one wished to resurrect this earlier interpretation, it would need to be substantively proven that the reasons for rejecting the earlier stance were unsound - namely, that the eclipse of Aristotelian science in the 18th century did not mean that the understanding of gestation as one of "delayed hominization" had to be abandoned with it.

Most are simply unaware of the centuries-long predominance of this earlier doctrinal interpretation from circa. 700 - 1869, which was - effectively - rendered the standard position at the Council of Vienne in 1312, when the bishops embraced St. Thomas Aquinas's account of gestation based upon an Aristotelian conception of the soul as the 'form of the body' i.e.

History of Christian thought on abortion - Wikipedia

Several historians have written[53][54][55] that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard termination of pregnancy before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as an abortion...

Penitentials in the Middle Ages normally distinguished between the two, imposing heavier penances for late-term abortions and a less severe penance was imposed for the sin of abortion "before [the foetus] has life".[15]

Not only did they not view early abortions as being abortions, but many prominent Catholics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones. For example, in her treatises the 12th century abbess and later saint Hildegard of Bingen recommended tansy as an effective abortifacient.[56] In the 13th century physician and cleric Peter of Spain wrote a book called Thesaurus Pauperum (literally Treasure of the Poor) containing a long list of early-stage abortifacients, including rue, pennyroyal, and other mints.[57]:205-211 Peter of Spain became Pope John XXI in 1276...

Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder because, according to the Aristotelian concept of delayed ensoulment, the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present, a belief that passed into canon law.[23][24]Nonetheless, he harshly condemned the procedure (De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17 (15))

Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Gregory XIV also believed that a fetus does not have a soul until "quickening," or when the fetus begins to kick and move, and therefore early abortion was not murder, though later abortion was.[10][23]​

So recognition of this "counter-narrative" alongside the more hardline stance would be a good initial step. It should be noted that some early church fathers, such as St. Basil of Caesaria, condemned the distinction between "unformed" and "formed foetuses", favouring the more hardline stance we know today. However, that position was rejected during the medieval period and really up until 1869 in favour of the more moderate, Aristotelian "delayed hominization/ensoulement".

(continued....)​

 

[Vouthon]

I would note that under this earlier interpretation the termination of an unformed, inanimate foetus was grudgingly tolerated (a bit like prostitution, say) but as a strongly discouraged and sinful practice yet one that did not amount to homicide and so did not warrant excommunication or any form of punishment or legal penalty:

History of Christian thought on abortion - Wikipedia

Although the Decretum Gratiani, which remained the basis of Catholic canon law until replaced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, distinguished between early-term and late-term abortions, that canonical distinction was abolished for a period of three years by the bull of Pope Sixtus V, Effraenatam, of 28 October 1588...Sixtus's successor, Pope Gregory XIV, recognizing that the law was not producing the hoped-for effects, withdrew it three years later, limiting the punishments to abortion of a "formed" fetus.[44]

With his 1869 bull Apostolicae Sedis moderationi, Pope Pius IX rescinded Gregory XIV's not-yet-animated fetus exception with regard to the spiritual penalty of excommunication, declaring that those who procured an effective abortion incurred excommunication reserved to bishops or ordinaries.[45] From then on this penalty was incurred automatically through abortion at any stage of pregnancy, which had always been seen as a serious matter.[46]

In another respect Catholic canon law continued even after 1869 to maintain a distinction between abortion of a formed and of an unformed fetus...Pius IX made no ruling in its regard, with the result that the penalty of irregularity was still limited to late-term abortion at the time of the article "Abortion" in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia.[47] The 1917 Code of Canon Law finally did away with the distinction.[48]

In summary, with the exception of the three-year period 1588-1591, early abortion was not prohibited by Catholic canon law until 1869.
​

The position of the church was far more tolerant, therefore, on this point during the middle ages than today but it certainly didn't approve of early term abortions. It just didn't consider the aborted life to be an ensouled human person, meaning that one could 'excuse' people who terminated pregnancies at this stage but not after the foetus had 'quickened' and been infused with an immortal soul by God.

St. Thomas Aquinas summed up the general understanding in his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (1252):

"This sin, although grave and to be reckoned among misdeeds...is something less than homicide... nor is such to be judged irregular unless one procures the abortion of an already formed fetus."
​

The standard account can be read from Gratian's 12th century compendium of canon law, the Decretum (A.D.1140), which was essentially the medieval church's authoritative legal code:

§1. He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body. (Ibid. c. 8, C. 32, q.[2]). For even if an unformed embryo had, in some as yet unformed way, a soul (and one should not plunge into this great question and give a rash unreflective opinion), the law would not call it murder, because one cannot tell when a body that lacks sensation has a living soul.

(Decretum gratiani, part 5, Case 32, q II, C8)
​

And this view was confirmed by Gratian's reference to the Bible in the Septuagint translation (which transliterated a 'formed/unformed' foetal distinction into its rendering of Exodus that was to prove very influential):

Moses related that [cf. Ex. 21:22], ``If one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry, indeed, if it is formed, he shall render life for life, if it is unformed, he shall be answerable for a monetary fine.'' This proves that soul does not exist before there is a form. Thus, as it must be infused in an already formed body, this cannot occur at the conception of the body with the introduction of the seed. For if the soul existed as both seed and soul together, many souls would perish daily, whenever seed was emitted that did not result in a birth.
​

Until 1917 (when Gratian's compendium was replaced by a modern one) the official Roman Catholic canon law thus distinguished between the fetus inanimatus (the unformed, inanimate fetus) and the fetus animatus (the formed, animate fetus). However, in 1869 the papal bull Apostolicae Sedis moderationi of 1869, Pope Pius IX, had already abolished the limitation of automatic excommunication to abortion of a formed fetus alone (which had hitherto been the law of the church), so the ground-work was laid for a stricter interpretation more in line with St. Basil.

Officially, therefore, Catholic Christianity traditionally tended to support a doctrine of "mediate" animation, i.e., the fetus was not formed into a true person or soul until some time during pregnancy. The doctrine of "immediate animation" at conception gradually gained support as a consequence of the doctrine of the Virgin Mary's immaculate conception, proclaimed dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854. This doctrine assumed that Mary's soul was unstained in every way from the very moment of conception. The implication of this appeared to be that ordinary souls, even though not immaculate, were persons from conception.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), also dismisses the idea that the soul is infused at conception (i.e. that personhood is conferred upon fertilization) and actually uses the supernatural nature of Jesus's conception to clarify this:

THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Creed - Article III

"What surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man.

That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time."
​

And that was a statement of an ecumenical council, just like the 14th century council of Vienne that I mentioned earlier. It blithely and unquestioningly assumes the distinction between an "unensouled" fetus at conception and an "ensouled" fetus after a 'certain lapse of time'.

Jesus was thought to have been the only human animated at conception courtesy of a miracle of the Holy Spirit, whereas everyone else started out as unensouled fetal tissue until a certain lapse of time in which the fetus became 'quickened' in the womb (capable of sensation and movement).

The Church didn't define the length of the time lapse from conception, just that there was one. Generally, however, the quickening was long thought by theologians to occur at the time the woman first felt movement in her womb. If talking about specific time periods, it thus ranged from 40 - 80 days after conception but there was no completely agreed definition.

That was simply how the Catholic Church saw it in those days.

Even today though, the Church does not teach that we can be sure that the embryo is animated at the point of conception. The stance actually goes that probabilism may not be used where human life may be at stake, thus the 1992 Catholic Catechism notes that the embryo must be treated from conception "tamquam, "as if" a human person". That's an important qualifier. It further states that: "the church has not determined officially when human life [i.e. personhood] actually begins" and respect for life at all stages, even potential life, is generally the context of church documents.

Consider this Vatican document:

(Donum Vitae 1987)

This Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person...

Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul...The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion.
​

So it refrains from directly affirming the moment of ensoulement and leaves it open that the earlier, traditional Thomist understanding could still be the correct one. But a lot of Catholics don't realize this.​

 

[Sunstone]

@Vouthon, I've edited the OP to link to your two most recent posts. Thank you so much for them!

 

[Vouthon]

@Sunstone Again from the Catholic side of things, you may also find this of interest. It concerns St. Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), the medieval prophetess, early pioneer of medicine and "Sibyl of the Rhine":


Questions from a Ewe: Reflections on St. Hildegard of Bingen, Doctor of the Church

On October 7, 2012 Pope Benedict XVI declared St. Hildegard of Bingen a “Doctor of the Church”. This is a title given by the pope to saints whose writings convey "eminent learning" and "great sanctity." In addition to being saintly, they are considered the most important theological contributors throughout all church history. Since only some popes are canonized saints and only a few of them have been declared Doctors of the Church, one can infer that Church Doctors’ writings carry higher weighting than most papal encyclicals.

I've been reading some of Hildegard of Bingen's writings. Not only is she a Doctor of the Church, she was considered a doctor of her time. I was surprised to see her writings describe several plants she used as emmenagogues and abortifacients:

• asarum/haselwurtz (emmenagogue and abortifacient)
• farn (abortifacient)
• tanacetum (emmenagogue and abortifacient)
• feverfew (emmenagogue)
• white hellebore (emmenagogue)
• oleaster (abortifacient).

Emmenagogues regulate menstruation. They are used to prevent conception, address hormonal disorders or abort an unborn fetus.

It seems St. Hildegard, Doctor of the Church, advocated for if not facilitated contraception and abortion when it preserved the woman's health. For example, she writes regarding asarum/haselwurtz, “A pregnant woman will eat it either on account she languishes or she aborts an infant which is a danger to her body, or if she has not had a menstrual period for a time period so that it hurts.” Similarly she advises the use of oleaster for, “an abortion to a pregnant woman with a danger to her body.”

“A pregnant woman will eat it either on account she languishes or she aborts an infant which is a danger to her body, or if she has not had a menstrual period for a time period so that it hurts.” Similarly she advises the use of oleaster for, “an abortion to a pregnant woman with a danger to her body.” ​

 

[Ahau]

"I am not a conspiracy nut. But in this case no other word than conspiracy will do. We did what we did covertly, telling supporters one thing, and telling leaders on the inside of the political establishment another thing.

"There was one agenda in public, another one behind closed doors. And we changed America for the worse." -- Frank Schaeffer​

Most of us today no longer remember back when abortion was opposed, mostly, only by Catholics. Indeed, there was a time when it was condoned even by some of the most religiously conservative denominations in America. For instance:

In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.” [Source]​

Southern Baptists were on record supporting abortion rights as late as 1976, and they did not officially reverse themselves until the 1980s. [Source]

So what caused the reversal? Why did abortion become the huge issue it is today for so many religious folks?

By most accounts, the one person who had the most to do with the reversal was Francis Schaeffer. He was Frank Schaeffer's father. Francis was also the Protestant theologian most responsible -- not only for creating the notion that abortion violated biblical teachings -- but for propagating it. He, along with other people, did everything they could to make sure it became a popular issue.

Francis' son, Frank, was heavily and intimately involved in his father's efforts. And, according to Frank, those efforts crucially involved conspiring with Republican leaders to turn abortion into a means of creating a reliable, Republican-voting block out of America's Evangelicals and other fundamentalists.

The deal was this: The Republicans would get the Evangelicals, etc delivered to them by the religious leaders in exchange for the religious leaders getting power and wealth.

So, in a vital way, the abortion issue boils down to the ancient story of political elites and religious elites finding reasons to be in cahoots with each other. That story has been a constantly recurring theme in human history since the first civilizations were founded 5,500 years ago.

Beyond that, I wonder how many of us are genuinely surprised by this? I know some of us will dismiss it and the evidence for it, but that's only human nature. I'm not all that interested in them. But I am interested in knowing if anyone has been genuinely surprised to hear that the anti-abortion movement had its origins more in politics, than in unquestioned biblical principles?


_______________________________
A Little Further Reading:

The Actual "Pro-Life" Conspiracy That Handed America to the Tea Party & Far Religious Right (An Insider's Perspective)

The Not so Lofty Origins of the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement

Also see posts #27 and #28 in this thread for the Catholic take on abortion.

 

[CLee421]

If you look at the scripture the man quoted claiming it proves the death of an unborn baby is not a capital offense, it actually does say that the destruction of an unborn baby will be paid for life for life. I think most people assume it talks about the woman but it's talking about the baby as it says "child comes out -- no harm" .. "but if there is harm" he pays accordingly.

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

 

[CLee421]

Regarding abortion itself, God says He knew us even BEFORE He formed us "in the womb" .. and then He "saw our unformed substance" .. that state in our development when we don't LOOK human but indeed, are, and are alive.

The only difference in an unborn baby and a baby that's been born is : level of development and location.

Being inside a mother doesn't make one less human, it is supposed to be a safe place to grow. Like it or not, it's glamorized eugenics.

 

[Ahau]

There is a delicate and profound experience to be had in growing a child in utero. If the mother pays attention to the new life growing within she will become witness to the development of a distinct personality. The bonding influence of another soul over her own, guiding her and expressong itself through her before birth is seldom discussed but very real to women who take the time to connect and observe the phenomenon.

How anyone can live in denial of God and state with any certainty that they have scientific knowledge of things unseen is a manipulation by suffering high conflict vampire draining selfish narcissists who aparrently were neglected as children. The answer for unwanted children is not abortion. The answer is love.

If you don't want the child now you may change your mind in the future. If not it is your failing, because the child is a gift to you. It is because of workings of puny mind stuff that derails the best of men. If you are of this creed then get off your high horse, foregive yourself and make amends!

People I know personally who have chosen to get abortions have been haunted by their actions for the rest of their lives. There is a better way. Right diet, right nutrition, clean air, clean water, decent housing, nurture of loving and supportive relationships.

Therefore it falls upon the noble fathers of this land to get busy and provide this. The fathers of this land are responsible caretakers of the human condition. Continuing to rob mutilate, destroy and make war against babies is only a solution for greedy egotistical psychopaths.

Stop the slaughter of innocents. For your own sake, reclaim your lost soul and allow it to guide you into a life engendering attitude. Walk through your own graveyard, bury what should be buried and reclaim the bits and pieces of your fragmented self, heal and become whole, of wholeness, holy.

Then perhaps, this topic can be buried and forgotten as though it never existed. Makers of evil will always deny spiritual realities of creation and make instead a godless experience for anyone they catch in their web of lies. Don't be deceived and teach others the truth of your best and highest self. Then you will be able to accept the mysteries of God.

 

[pearl]

But I am interested in knowing if anyone has been genuinely surprised to hear that the anti-abortion movement had its origins more in politics, than in unquestioned biblical principles?

No surprise at all. Other than a political conspiracy what else could possibly draw the Catholic vote to Republicans, voting solely on the abortion issue?
The Supreme Court decided the Catholic Church did not have an official position on abortion 'till the 19th cent.

 

[CLee421]

No surprise at all. Other than a political conspiracy what else could possibly draw the Catholic vote to Republicans, voting solely on the abortion issue?
The Supreme Court decided the Catholic Church did not have an official position on abortion 'till the 19th cent.

It's a travesty that the government plays games with this issue to get people in office.

 

[pearl]

It's a travesty that the government plays games with this issue to get people in office.

The real travesty is that so many people swallow it.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Regarding abortion itself, God says He knew us even BEFORE He formed us "in the womb" .. and then He "saw our unformed substance" .. that state in our development when we don't LOOK human but indeed, are, and are alive.

The only difference in an unborn baby and a baby that's been born is : level of development and location.

Being inside a mother doesn't make one less human, it is supposed to be a safe place to grow. Like it or not, it's glamorized eugenics.

Well, a very strong case can be made that a fetus that has barely developed is not sentient, at least not nearly to the degree that a newly-born baby is. Just an aside (and I don't know your views on this, so I won't make assumptions), but far too many people that I know who profess to be "pro-life" (particularly males) also enjoy killing animals for sport. They mount deer heads on their walls and never eat the meat, or even put bears that they have killed on display. It's almost certain that these animals are more sentient and certainly far more capable of feeling pain than a barely developed fetus. Yet the people who claim to be "pro-life" enjoy killing these animals for sport alone. This is entirely inconsistent behavior, and it's what leads me to believe that many (though not all) people with the "pro-life" stance care less about the unborn children they claim to care about, and more about trying to control women's health decisions.

 

[CLee421]

Well, a very strong case can be made that a fetus that has barely developed is not sentient, at least not nearly to the degree that a newly-born baby is. Just an aside (and I don't know your views on this, so I won't make assumptions), but far too many people that I know who profess to be "pro-life" (particularly males) also enjoy killing animals for sport. They mount deer heads on their walls and never eat the meat, or even put stuffed bears that they have killed on display. It's almost certain that these animals are more sentient and certainly far more capable of feeling pain than a barely developed fetus. Yet the people who claim to be "pro-life" enjoy killing these animals for sport alone. This is entirely inconsistent behavior, and it's what leads me to believe that many (though not all) people with the "pro-life" stance care less about the unborn children they claim to care about, and more about trying to control women's health decisions.

The sentient argument is thin ice. Biologically we are alive at conception and our full strand of DNA is present. We are growing and receiving nourishment.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The sentient argument is thin ice. Biologically we are alive at conception and our full strand of DNA is present. We are growing and receiving nourishment.

But the brain is undeveloped. No offense intended, but I can't take you seriously if you think that a recently united sperm and egg is as sentient as a newborn baby.