Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion

Oh for pete's sake. I thought YOU were pointing out that the unborn child does not have equal legal status as a human being, I haven't said anything about that side of things because I'm only interested at this point in arguing that it is in fact a human life, as against all those rationalizations that turn it into a bit of tissue or a process and whatnot. As for its legal status I just thought you were reiterating that it isn't treated in the Bible as a fullfledged human being, or in our laws either. I'm not arguing about that side of things at ALL, so all your accusations about my somehow now objecting to equality are just ridiculous and a perfect example of leftist character assassination pasted on me from out of the blue, all set up by you, not me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which is why I often qualify it with a phrase along the lines of "if it's healthy" or "under the right circumstances." But it is also true for the born baby or the toddler or the five-year old, that they could not live by themselves without the care of adults. Nor could many elderly live on their own either. Separately the ingredients won't turn into a baby, conception is needed for that. That's why Tangle was using the term "potential" human life. But if you want to make taking its first breath your criterion, then it is not a human being until it is born, and if you want to make that the line you'd draw before which it's OK to kill it you are accepting the killing of a fully formed baby. Well but there is concern for that stage too, since I've said I think it is morally wrong to kill it that early as well as later because it is also a stage of human growth. But I'm not arguing all the stages are equal since I agree with Tangle that our emotional and moral feelings grow as the fetus grows, I'm just saying there's no stage at which it is right to kill it. I think we all know this unconsciously at least, because it's a matter of common knowledge, but of course some would be more sensitive to the knowledge than others. I've mentioned the fact that many women get depressed over an abortion which I think reflects this knowledge, and my own dream told me I knew it too although I thought it was "just a piece of tissue" before. But if you want to point out that many women have no feeling about it at all, I'll accept that. I'll also go on to say that objectively it IS s developing human being no matter what anyone feels about it.It's the OBJECTIVE fact that I want to emphasize, that it is NOT a mere "process" or a "piece of tissue" at any stage after conception.Hippocrates considered abortion to be a "harm," that's all I know about his views.

Although I think abortion is killing a human life, I don't want to criminalize it, I want to educate people to see it as killing a human life and phase it out rather than making it a crime and forbidding it. The biggest problem I see is that it continues to be rationalized away as just s "process" or a nonliving "piece of tissue" or some such, and that an organization like Planned Parenthood fights the attempts by Pro-Life advocates to make the pregnant woman aware of it as a developing human being. It is the propaganda that says it is not a living human being that feeds the abortion industry, so if that is countered I think we'd have a lot fewer abortions, especially if services to help women in all their needs through a pregnancy was the main offering to pregnant women instead of abortion.Although I oppose abortion for all the reasons I've been giving, if you really want to offer a CHOICE you have to make it plain that the choice involves ending a human life even while continuing to offer abortion as a choice. There are certainly problems with this as a solution too but there are problems with all possible solutions and this is the one at the moment that I'd propose. It puts the decision in the hands of the woman but after arming her with facts that have previously been kept from her by the abortion industry. It is easy to show that a developing fetus is truly human, we have the means to show that now. Let her become aware of the truth about that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Genetically it is a human life; developmentally it goes through different stages about which we have increasing degrees of emotional or moral feeling. We can't legitimately call it anything but a human life simply because we know it will inexorably become a full human being if nothing interferes, because genetically it is unquestionably human.The only distinction that can be made has to do with stage of development. So if we want to include the subjective factor we'd want to make abortion legal only before our moral feelings are engaged. However, since I had a dream about losing a child with an abortion at only eight weeks -- it was probably about 18 months old in my dream -- I have to think of it as human at every stage from conception.Nevertheless I don't want to impose my view on others since abortion has become so entrenched in society. I don't want to criminalize it despite my view of it, I want to see it acknowledged as a human life in the terms I'm discussing here in the hope that the number of abortions could be dramatically reduced over time since I see it as largely a problem of education.The number of abortions has declined in the US roughly by half from well over a million a year in the nineties to around 600 thousand a year, making the total since Roe v Wade over 45 million in 2014 according to this site. That's a good trend but still way too many abortions for a civilized society.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is absurd to use common natural interferences as an excuse to kill the fetus, which both Tangle and I have objected to.l People die all the time but we nevertheless object to murder.I do not want to argue about contraception. What I said is that the emay be some problems with it for a Christian. I'm certainly not going to impose it on unbelievers.

xcept it's a moral problem for society so whatever can be done to reduce it would be good for the nation as a whole.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to be multiplying complications to no purpose that I can see. Is it a human life or not? If it is then killing it is a moral problem for society just as murder is, and not just for the woman. There may be mitigating circumstances just as there are in the case of any wrongful death, but we have to start with the simple fact that if we kill it we are in fact committing a wrongful death because it is a human life. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Forgive me for misspeaking. Let me put it this way: I have no DESIRE to impose it on unbelievers because i see it as concerning Christians in particular, and beyond that I don't have any desire to see anything forced on them either. The implicit context I have in mind is changes to the law concerning these things but abortion in particular. But it IS the argument. We are talking about abortion so if you are arguing the fetus is not inevitably going to become a human being then in this context you are arguing for abortion.The point is that if it is healthy and other circumstances are favorable and we don't kill it, it will continue to grow based on all the genetic stuff that makes it a human being. Genetically it is a human being from conception, and a very particular human being at that, and developmentally it is recognizably human on the twelve week ultrasound. And NATURAL interferences with its growth are not a moral problem, but intentionally killing it IS a moral problem because it IS a human life at conception, though at different stages of development from that point. I don't see how you can say it's not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to be using the term "morality" in some odd way. Is murder a moral offense? Does it concern society or just the murderer and his victim? Is stealing a moral offense? Does it concern society or just the robber and his victim? Is fraud a moral offense? Does it concern society or just the defrauder and his victim?

GENETICALLY/BIOLOGICALLY it is a human life at conception. Are you disputing that?DEVELOPMENTALLY it is recognizably human by at least twelve weeks when we can SEE that it is a human baby with all the biological parts, and even in many ways ACTAING like a human baby. Are3 you disputing that?THESE are the only "lines" I'm drawing. All the others you bring up are situational and to my mind the only circumstance that could justify killing this biologically human being is harm to the mother. If you want to add biological defects I'm not arguing on that level, those things need to be decided case by case, and they don't change the fact that we're talking about a biologically human life. Although I understand the psychological trauma of being pregnant by a rapist, to my mind it's a living innocent human being in the womb and killing it is still morally wrong.BUT I'm just concerned here to establish that it IS a biologically human life at all stages beginning with conception because that is so often denied. This is the primary moral factor. Again, situational factors can be decided case by case or by law of whatever, but we need to establish this basic fact that we're talking about a human life.In fact, usually when all those other situational factors are brought up it is because it is being denied that we're talking about a human life, so it all amounts to a distraction from the main concern.LEGALLY ringo says it's not a human being until birth but we haven't been talking abouit its legal status. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think it is now clear that since you dispute the biological/genetic humanness from conception, and even its obvious humanness at twelve weeks, that's why you get so caught up in those secondary situational issues, because if you recognized its essential humanness you would be a lot more cautious about ANY situational argument in favor of killing it. The sperm and egg were discussed far back in this discussion. You might benefit from reading from a few pages back.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I've worked out my opinion and I want to persuade others of it.I suppose I might have had some of the same thoughts you have years ago but I'm now so convinced of the inherent living humanness of the fetus/baby from conception to birth I find all the "difficult" questions fairly easily answered against killing it. It would have to be a very serious difficulty indeed for me to consider that. And it does seem to me that most of the difficulties arise in people's minds because it is not thought of as a human life.I don't see how you can deny that genetically the fertilized egg is human. If nothing interferes it will inexorably grow into a human being and everybody knows that without getting scientific about it.But since you do deny it, and you even deny its humanness at twelve weeks when most of us see a living baby there, where WOULD you "draw the line?" At some particular age or size? How would you choose it?What if you just start at the fully formed baby within minutes of birth: why or why not do you regard it as human and would you ever support aborting it at that stage and for what reasons?How about a month before its due date? Two months? Three months? and so on. Until you find the point at which you definitely don't think of it as human and definitely think abortion is a reasonable solution to what you regard as a difficult situation?

What I said to Stile is my answer to you too. I think it all comes down to recognizing the growing fetus as a human being, which I think is recognized at least by the fact that as long as nothing interferes it will grow to be a human being.I don't want to split hairs about any of these things. "Healthy" means healthy enough to grow into a recognizable human being. We all have some sort of health problems but they don't keep us from being human. It's a simple point: we all know if it's healthy and nothing interferes with its development it will become a recognizable human being and that's a major criterion for defining it as a human being from conception.

I disagree.

Kiling a human being cannot possibly sanely be construed as a merely personal matter.And just to counter another of your wacko opinions, forcing Christians to accept gay marriage as legitimate is a violation of freedom of religion.