Sickening
Update: While the vote to eliminate the RCRC relationship failed narrowly (52-48, I think), there was some good pro-life progress at the convention.
As the United Methodist General conference proceeds, one of the inititatives is to end an alliance with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, one of the most sickening organizations I’ve ever seen. I mean, I’m not surprised with secular organizations like Planned Parenthood being pro-abortion, but the religious types in favor of abortion really bother me.
The only reason the partnership wasn’t killed at the 2004 conference was due to some serious lying about the RCRC’s views.
(By the way, the picture to the right is not RCRC related and is actually pro-life. It says Now that I’m safe I’m pro-choice and points out how no one inside the womb is pro-legalized-abortion.)
The RCRC site has deceptive slogans such as “Trust women” and “Abortion is between a woman and her God” followed by “What does your religion say?” Mine says that regardless of how much you trust someone she should not have her unborn children killed, and that if you ask God if you should have an abortion He’ll say, “No.” (Unless your own life is at stake.)
Then there is the picture with a lady holding a toddler and a “prayerfully pro-choice” sign. Some things you just don’t need to pray about. It seems weird to say, “Dear Jesus, I don’t want to be pregnant. Should I pay a stranger to crush and dismember this living human being inside of me? Amen.” Do these people seriously think God answered their prayers in the affirmative? (”Yes, I created the universe and everything in it and I created you and your unborn child. But I’m all out of ideas on how to help you in your current situation, so by all means, go ahead and have the abortion.”)
The most morbidly ironic picture says, “All life is sacred. What does your religion say?” I guess they have never seen an ultrasound before, because those human beings look really, really alive to me.
One UMC Bishop, Beverly Shamana, who is a disgrace to Methodism, Christianity and rational thinking, had this to say, among other nonsense (emphasis added):
Basic to the values we hold as United Methodists is the belief that women are capable decision makers regarding their bodies and the gift of childbirth. For Christians, choice is a central tenet of our faith and a gift of God. From Genesis onward, God offers the freedom of choice to the human family.
Sure, lady. The Bible is all about giving you the choice to destroy your family members. That bit of “reasoning” supports infanticide, gender selection abortions, euthanasia and who knows what else (although mercifully they usually use anesthesia for the elderly).
GBCS [the General Board of Church and Society] serves, in part, “to bring the whole of human life … into conformity with the will of God” (¶1002, 2004 Book of Discipline). While no one can presume to fully know God’s will, as Christians, we believe the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ teaches us that God honors and values each person as worthy of an intimate relationship with God.
As with most pro-legalized-abortionists she begs the question and assumes that the unborn aren’t human beings worthy of protection. It is the typical anti-science view.
And while we don’t know God’s detailed sovereign will, He went to great lengths to share his moral will with us. Here’s part of it: Don’t murder.
This passage comes to mind when thinking of the pro-abortion religious folks such as this Bishop:
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
The RCRC has special programs for the black church, which is not surprising given that the rate of abortion in the black community is 3x that of whites. But it seems to me that black churches would realize that the RCRC is the enemy who is helping to destroy their folks at a faster pace than the KKK ever dreamed of.
Side note: Interestingly, the pro-abortion and pro-gay theology protestors at the conference seem to be well united. Go figure.
Filed under: Pro-life | Tagged: abortion, Methodist, Pro-life, religion
At some point denominations stop protecting principles and begin serving the consensus.
It’s sad when that happens.
-Brad
http://www.SimplyOneLife.org
It is sad to hear about all this flavors of christianity.
Brad has a good point - we tend to the people…instead of God.
I think it is shocking to see the amount of worldliness that is creeping into mainstream Christianity. If Christians would simply read our Bibles more, we would see the pure truth and standards of righteousness for the Body of Christ. There should be no equivocation in matters of Christian faith, doctrine, and practice. It is mind-boggling that the Church is not united 100% on the issue of the sanctity of the unborn human life.
Of course, the trickier issues and the most interesting dialogue (and where the debate should be centered) is whether and how to incorporate Biblical truth in the realm of government.
Anyone who knows me, knows that I am pro-life. I think abortion should be illegal except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk and maybe rape cases. I think the fathers who are accessories to abortion should be criminally prosecuted also along with the doctors and mothers after a showing of criminal intent. Sentences for rapists should be enhanced where the victim chooses to end the pregnancy. For some reason, men are continually exempt from any responsiblity in the abortion issue, and that has to change.
But practically speaking, I understand that enforcement would be difficult. And the next major question this nation faces is to what extent then do we protect the unborn by the force and power of government? How far may the government intrude on reproductive issues? That’s where the real difficult debate lies.
But in the realm of the Church? It should be a no-brainer.
It is of course obvious why Christians disagree on this issue - there is no verse in the Bible that clearly indicates that an embryo is a full human being. While some quite obviously pronounce that personhood begins before birth, none of them seem to show it begins at conception.
Neil said: Hi Joshua - I think that is incorrect for all the reasons Jay noted, and it also does not reflect the clear science on the view that God is certainly aware of. It also ignores the obvious: Even if we weren’t sure when life begins, we should err on the side of life.
“there is no verse in the Bible that clearly indicates that an embryo is a full human being”
Joshua, is there a verse that indicates that YOU are a full human being embryo or not? The Scriptures clearly teach that the unborn human life is a very special creation of God and many Scriptures teach believers to honor and protect life:
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” –Deuteronomy 30:19
“For thou has possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them.” –Psalm 139:13-16
“If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? And he that keepeth thy soul, doth he not know it? And shall not he render to every man according to his works?” –Proverbs 24:11-12
Joshua, you would do well to read your Bible. Let me shift the burden of proof on you for a moment. Why don’t you show me Scripture that advocates a right of Chrisitan believers to destroy unborn human life?
And by the way, there is no question about when a human life is created: http://oldfordroad.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/human-life-begins-at-fertilization/
Thank you Jay!
Neil,
I thank God every day the UMC I belong to currently has a Pastor who maintains biblical authority. Sadly the “wolves” are still at the door and some are already walking the halls.
Great info. !
Nope, can’t see anything there that indicates life begins at conception.
Maybe you can point it out to me more clearly. Which verse, and how.
No true there is nothing that says to Christians to destroy unborn life (although the Old Testament is full of God’s people destroying women who were with child, but I guess they were enemies so that was ok). But, there is nothing to suggest that life begins at fertilisation.
Abortion is such a sticky issue. It’s something both sides feel so passionate about because the consequences ( having your life altered in a HUGE way by having a baby you don’t want (for the pro-choicers), and for the pro-lifers, murder) - the consequences are so grave, for both. And at the same time, neither side can (and maybe never will be able to) prove that they’re right. Pro-choicers can’t definitively say that an zygote doesn’t have a soul. They can’t point at a timeline of a pregnancy and say “here, this is where life begins.” And pro-lifers can’t prove that a zygote is not, in fact, just a ball of cells, nothing more. I can see where both sides are coming from and have a certain amount of empathy for both.
— “Mine says that regardless of how much you trust someone she should not have her unborn children killed, and that if you ask God if you should have an abortion He’ll say, “No.” ” —
Where in the bible does it say this? Which book, what verse? As long as it doesn’t, anyone who considers themselves a Christian can choose to believe life starts at whenever, and they’d still be Christian, same as you.
Abortion is really an issue of when life begins, not religion, not liberalness or conservativeness. The bible doesn’t tell us this. Neither does science, or philosophy. For now, it’s going to be up to each individual person to decide for themselves when they believe that is.
“But, there is nothing to suggest that life begins at fertilisation.”
You’re right there is nothing to say its a SUGGESTION. Life beginning at conception/fertilization is more than just a suggestion. It is a Biblical fact.
Here you go.
God knows and moves in people before they are born:
Psalm 139: 13-16
13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[a]
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
Luke 1:39-45
39 Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, 40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.”
Isaiah 44: 1-5
“Yet hear me now, O Jacob My servant,
And Israel whom I have chosen.
2 Thus says the LORD who made you
And formed you from the womb, who will help you:
‘ Fear not, O Jacob My servant;
And you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.
3 For I will pour water on him who is thirsty,
And floods on the dry ground;
I will pour My Spirit on your descendants,
And My blessing on your offspring;
4 They will spring up among the grass
Like willows by the watercourses.’
5 One will say, ‘I am the LORD’s’;
Another will call himself by the name of Jacob;
Another will write with his hand, ‘The LORD’s,’
And name himself by the name of Israel.
Jeremiah 1: 4
4 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:
5 “ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Malachi 2:10
10 Have we not all one Father?
Has not one God created us?
Why do we deal treacherously with one another
By profaning the covenant of the fathers?
Jacob and Esau: (BTW- Jacob means “grabber”. He was born grabbing the heal of Esau.)
Gen. 25:22
22 But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?|” So she went to inquire of the LORD.
Hosea 12:3
3 He took his brother by the heel in the womb,
And in his strength he struggled with God.
We are sinful since conception:
Romans 5:12-19
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Psalm 51: 3-6
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me.
4 Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight—
That You may be found just when You speak,[a]
And blameless when You judge.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
6 Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts,
And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.
(Even the term “fetus” means “little one” in the original language.)
As for abortion being condemned, here’s a start.
We are commanded to protect life:
Proverbs 31: 6-9
6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing,
And wine to those who are bitter of heart.
7 Let him drink and forget his poverty,
And remember his misery no more.
8 Open your mouth for the speechless,
In the cause of all who are appointed to die.[a]
9 Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And plead the cause of the poor and needy.
The Bible considers killing of children heinous:
Leviticus 18:21, 20:1-5 and Deuteronomy 12:31.
There is a great article explaining a lot of this at http://www.epm.org/articles/aborbibl.html. There are extra-biblical writings listed there as well for more historical evidence.
I imagine that other’s better than I can give you more Biblical evidence, if you’d like it. However, that depends upon whether you actually believe and accept the Bible or not.
Shamana is obviously a tare amount the wheat. Sad that she rose so high in the ranks and has such a position of influence.
Tuesday & Joshua,
Before responding further, please answer this for me: If you are legitimately unclear on when life begins, then why wouldn’t you err on the side of caution? Your premise seems to be that we might be crushing and dismembering a human life, but some people aren’t sure if it is a human life, so go ahead and do it.
Even if the Bible didn’t say life begins at conception (see Elisa’s verses above), remember that all truth is God’s truth. So if science shows us that the unborn are living human beings then abortion is murder.
Also, please view the images here and see if that helps you decide if these entities were living human beings at some point - http://abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-warning.html .
Having said that, there is no scientific dispute about when a new human being is formed. Just check out the secular embryology textbooks.
The “personhood” argument is easily debunked but irrelevant to this discussion. It only came up when those pesky ultrasounds made it impossible for people to trot out the “just a blob of tissue” arguments.
Go check out the original Hippocratic oath (a secular document) and see what it said about abortion. It took a couple thousand years for society to rationalize the killing of the unborn. Ironically, they did it just before science gave us ultrasounds and even more evidence of the human lives being destroyed.
Hey, even Planned Parenthood used to be pro-life.
“Where in the bible does it say this? Which book, what verse? As long as it doesn’t, anyone who considers themselves a Christian can choose to believe life starts at whenever, and they’d still be Christian, same as you.”
The Bible says, “Do not murder.” Abortion is murder. People who are pro-legalized-abortion might be Christians (only God knows their hearts). But they are uninformed Christians at best.
Neil,
That images video is powerful, powerful, powerful…
I’ve seen similar pictures before, with coins used as reference points for size and all, but this time–I really noticed that the juxtaposition of money, money that says “In God We Trust” next to the tragedy that is abortion is sadly extremely revealing. It shows us the worst that money can make people do to themselves, their families, and their nation.
Hi Jay - thanks for pointing out the “In God We Trust” part. I hadn’t noticed that. Money is indeed at the root of much of this, especially if you trace the movement back to the 60’s when the deceptive marketing plan was getting in full gear.
As soon as the sperm penetrates the egg, the process begins. All the DNA is there and the living, progressing human story of this individual is unfolding. Life begins at the beginning. Anything else is arbitrary. Where is the reverence for so great a miracle? No other gift given to woman has the awesome wonder of this one, and it is worth whatever sacrifices must be made to preserve it. That is why a child, in God’s plan, is to be conceived by two parents who have already committed themselves to one another and to whatever children God sends them.
Elisa, let’s look at these verses:
All the verses saying God knows and moves in people before they are born mention something along the lines of God forming people in the womb. But how do we know when that process of formation is complete, and a person fully exists? There is no indication of this in the whole Bible - the only fact to be gained from the Bible is that that some time before birth, a person is formed.
The only verse about sin at conception says “And in sin my mother conceived me.” This doesn’t at all indicate that personhood begins at conception, but only that it was sinful sex that led to David’s conception (I think Ps. 51 was one of David’s - could be wrong).
So, if there is no indication that an embryo is a person, there is nothing wrong with it. Sure, the embryo is alive, and is comprised of human cells of unique genetic composition, but so is a tumour.
Neil, arguments from gut instinct (as those pictures) or tradition (as with the Hippocratic oath) do not tell us truth. Sometimes, what is true makes us feel uneasy, and what is true is not what was thought to be true for the last few millennia.
michellespagefornonni, the process has never stopped. Sperm and eggs are living cells and contain DNA. Life doesn’t begin at conception - it began about 4 billion years ago with the first lifeforms and hasn’t stopped since.
Joshua, you are mistaken on many levels.
First, you ignored the question I asked you to answer before posting anything else. Don’t comment again until you do so: If you are legitimately unclear on when life begins, then why wouldn’t you err on the side of caution? Your premise seems to be that we might be crushing and dismembering a human life, but some people aren’t sure if it is a human life, so go ahead and do it. That sounds like pretty foolish reasoning to me.
“So, if there is no indication that an embryo is a person,”
You create an artificial philosophical distinction of personhood and attempt to use that to rationalize destroying human beings. And you try to use the Bible to justify it, which is pretty bizarre.
The embryo is a human being at the stage of development she is supposed to be at the time, just like newborns, toddlers, teens, etc. She is a human being at every stage and worthy of protection.
Pictures aren’t gut instinct, they are representive of what exists.
“Sperm and eggs are living cells and contain DNA.”
Here’s an important scientific point: They don’t contain the unique DNA of a new human being. But the fertilized egg doesn’t have the DNA of the mother or the father. It has her own DNA. She is connected to her mother, but she isn’t her mother - unless you want to claim that the mother has two hearts, 4 legs, etc.
Science shows what people have known for millenia until they suppressed the truth in unrighteousness: The unborn are living human beings.
“Life doesn’t begin at conception”
Yes, it does. Check the embryology textbooks. You don’t need the Bible to make the pro-life case.
And again, if you aren’t sure when life begins, err on the side of life. Seems pretty obvious to me.
More on the “personhood” falsehood here: http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/05/07/personhood/
Ok. I am not actually unsure on when life begins. I told you that life began about 4 billion years ago.
Neil said: Using that reasoning, no life has ever ended so if you were murdered that wouldn’t be immoral.
I am also not at all unsure about the moral status of embryos and foetuses - they do not yet have a right to life. I don’t care what people think - some people think we should protect trees because they have feelings. We can’t make our laws based on what people think - we have to make them based on sound argument.
Neil said: That’s odd, because you have yet to make a sound argument. Everything you have said flies in the face of science. Saying the unborn don’t have a right to life isn’t an argument, it’s an assertion. You’ve done nothing to back it up.
I was only using the Bible because the pro-life camp always does, and I wanted to point out a flaw in that argument.
Neil said: That is another misstatement of fact. I know many pro-lifers that just use secular reasoning. There are pro-life atheist groups. When I teach pro-life training I specifically break the reasoning into Biblical and secular - http://www.4simpsons.com/Pro%20Life.htm . I only use Biblical reasoning with Christians. I’ll be glad to just debate the secular points with anyone.
The sperm or egg, zygote, embryo and foetus are all stages that must be gone through to create a human being. But they are not human beings themselves.
Neil said: Scientifically speaking you are wrong. From the zygote on there is a human being with unique DNA, etc.
How do you know whether a set of unique DNA is that of a new human being? Sure, the embryo has different DNA to the cells of her mother, but tumours also have different DNA to the mother due to mutations. How do you know when different DNA makes a new human being? If you get skin cells and induce them into becoming embryo-like cells, as was recently done, you change the DNA - making a new person, perhaps? (Also, technically the first cell formed after fertilisation still has the mother’s and father’s DNA in seperate pronuclei - the DNA don’t come together until it first divides).
And you are still ignoring what I said about life and conception. Show me an embryology book that says the sperm and egg are not alive but the zygote is, and I will show you an incorrect textbook.
Neil said: You conceded your disingenuousness re. the beginning of life claims and once again you have dodged the question of why we wouldn’t err on the side of life if there was any uncertainty about when life begins. Your “personhood” argument proves too much, as it would justify infanticide, killing people in comas, etc.
Life ends whenever something dies - cells, plants, people. Murder is not wrong becuase it ends life, but because it ends consciousness or violates a person’s will to live.
And I have no issue with infanticide or killing people in comas from which they would unlikely awake. If they would likely wake up, then our requirement to preserve consciousness would require us to keep them alive until they regain their consciousness.
Pro-legalized infanticide? Wow, the title of the post applies to your comments as well. I do appreciate the candor, though, as it helps put the rest in context.
“Murder is not wrong becuase it ends life, but because it ends consciousness or violates a person’s will to live.”
Of course, you’ve never introduced evidence to support your consciousness argument and why that trumps the life argument.
And as Theobromophile has noted: People who are asleep or in comas don’t have consciousness. To legally remove someone from life support who is not conscious you must do the following, and abortion fails on both counts:
1. You need to demonstrate that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious.
2. There must be little or no hope of recovery.
My view is that we must preserve consciousness. Life is not something to preserve, because all our cells are living, and we have no issue killing human cells through drinking alcohol or other means. Just because something has human DNA and alive, that doesn’t mean it has a right to life.
Neil said: Can you see the difference between choosing to kill some of your own cells versus choosing to kill all of another human being’s cells?
To clarify my preservation of consciousness argument - an unconscious person still has the same brain structure - so upon regaining consciousness will retain memories, personality and awareness of self. Embryos (and foetuses, and even infants under 18 months of age) have never been conscious, so there is nothing to preserve. Brain-dead people can’t be conscious again, so preservation is impossible. A sleeping or comatose individual has something to preserve, and preservation is possible - therefore we should do it.
Neil said: You are using philosophical arguments (and baseless and inconsistent ones at that), not scientific ones.
Well Josh, I visited you blog:
“Disapproves of the influence public opinion has on matters of governance, as too many issues are beyond the public comprehension for them to have enough understanding to make decisions.”
Can we say young smug elitist? But you don’t seem to understand very much yourself. I find it interesting that you reject values and morality and cling to science, but then reject the science that proves abortion kills human life. University work hasn’t done you any good if you can’t distinguish between an embryo and a tumor.
Professing yourself wise, yet looking like a fool.
Neil, I can see there is a difference, but it’s not significant. Why don’t you tell me a morally significant difference between the cells of an embryo and the cells of a kidney or something.
Jay, you too may like to give me a morally significant difference between a tumour and an embryo.
Neil said: Joshua, are you a pro-lifer in disguise writing comment after comment designed to make pro-legalized-abortionists look foolish? If you are you are doing a fine job, but I don’t think it is an ethical thing to do.
What your point is really asking is if there is a morally significant difference to taking a cell from a kidney or tumor and destroying them versus crushing and dismembering a pre-born human being. The answer is, “Yes.”
I’m asking a key question here. I know it seems painfully obvious, but in moral philosophy sometimes we have to ask obvious questions to see if the answers are any good.
Neil said: Yes! The obvious! That which you continue to overlook, and must resort to bizarre and still faulty exceptions to try to make a point, and which leaves you with an even more bizarre and judgmental problem: If life doesn’t begin at conception, you must decide where it begins. I already pointed out the flaws in your elusive and arbitrary consciousness distinction.
And if you can’t define clearly where it begins, then you should err on the side of life. You’ve endlessly dodged that question. Instead, take the Dr. Nick Riviera (of The Simpsons) approach: “Just to be on the safe side, we better pull the plug.”
I do give you credit for taking your worldview to its logical conclusions, namely that if abortion is moral then of course infanticide is as well. Props to you and Peter for being consistently bizarre. Most of your pro-abort friends haven’t made the connection, but with folks like you speaking out it does help make the pro-life case.
This is getting tiresome, so I deleted the rest of your comment. The good news is that with opponents like you the middle ground should be easy to persuade. All we have to do is show pictures of a kidney cell and that of a 4-D ultrasound. You get to defend why you think they it is morally equivalent to annihilate either one without anesthetic. Good luck with that!
A couple things:
First: Scientifically and Legally: life’s end is defined as the moment brain waves are no longer measurable. Commonly called “brain death”.
Babies in utero have measurable brain waves within 10 days of conception.
Why not set the legal standard at least to the same as end of life? If the brain waves are measurable, the embryo is a human and subject to all the rights and protections of the same.
Second: Religiously and Philosophically: Why open ourselves up to the possibly greater condemnation?
Why do we assume that since we have not accepted a precise and verifiable set of criteria to determine the beginning of life that it is justifiable for us to assume the least common factor and allow abortion up until time X (insert your favored cut off time here)?
Were you to arrive before the throne of a holy and just God who views His entire creation as valuable and who judges not just your actions, but the deepest thoughts of your heart, and were He to show you some proof which convicts you of the moral depravity of your position on this issue. Would be able to plead ignorance of the law?
God has written His law on our hearts, that is a biblical absolute, and so we each stand convicted before Him even if we have justified to ourselves the righteousness of our own positions.
Why don’t we default to the position of greatest mercy and life?
If we don’t know if it is “alive” why do we then insist it’s OK to kill it?
If I did not know something of such moral import I would not default to a lax and permissive position for fear of my standing before God.
Sickening is the word I would use to describe RCRC.
Some of the same ones who support the gay christian movement are linked to this abomination too.
Its a habitation of foul spirits and demon influences.
Death becomes them. I pray one day that God has mercy on them and does not return to them the wickedness they have sown.
Nothing good to say about them.
No Matt. Flies have brain waves too, and they are not human. You need more brain functioning than just waves.
Neil said: So you aren’t sure if the entities in those 4-d ultrasounds are flies or humans?
Although a strong pro-lifer since a teenager recent technological advances have left me unable to give precise answers in every case. The texts referred to above can be interpreted as being universal, but could also be particular. David, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Jesus - were all individuals that God the Father had a particular interest in. A certain number of embryos fail to implant - they were never in the mother’s womb.- or if they implant never grow to maturity. Although I suspect the pro-choice party greatly exagerate the numbers, there are certainly some. Do these, often grossly malformed embryos or fetuses, enjoy the status of individuals in God’s sight?
What about embryological stem cells derived from mature skin cells? Recently genetic engineering has made it possible to turn skin fibroblasts into cells with the pluripotent characteristics of embryological stem cells. Another way of doing this is to stick the DNA from a skin cell into the shell of a cow ovum. This process makes use of cow mitochondria but otherwise produces a pluripotent stem cell coded for by the individual’s DNA. We already happily make use of animal tissue and organs - pig heart valves, baboon livers for temporary perfusion while waiting for a donor organ. In making monoclonal antibodies we fuse together human immune cells with cancer cell lines derived from mice.
There is a case for saying that intent is the most important criterion. Those who abort a fetus for anything other than self defence (the fetus would otherwise kill the mother) are intending to kill, not just a potential human being, but a future human being. They are obviously not concerned about disposing of a fetus that will spontaneously abort anyway. They are out to get the ones that will grow up.
I think what science says about embryos is half the argument in the abortion debate. The other half revolves around abortionists own motives. The number one reason women have abortions is because they believe that the baby when born, will cause an “economic hardship.” That right there proves they believe that the embryo is human. They assume that the baby will go to term and be born. Once born and an “economic hardship” to the mother, it is illegal to murder the baby. It’s already a human in their minds, for they are planning for that baby’s “future.”
I just don’t understand why adoption isn’t more prominent. There are so many parents on waiting lists wanting to adopt. Many of them have no problem paying for the medical expenses for the mother in her pregnancy. So many children are being murdered when so many parents want them desperately and are waiting for years to adopt.
Neil, it isn’t that I’m doing whether a human embryo is human or is a fly - rather, I’m doubting whether it being human makes it morally worth more than a fly.
Neil said: Thanks for the clarification.
And Elisa, by that logic people who purchase gravesites or make funeral plans before they die are already considering themselves to be corpses. They are already dead in their minds, and are planning for their death.
As for adoption, there aren’t really very many young children to adopt. There are quite a few older children, over the age of 6, but very few babies or toddlers. And for some reason, people don’t want to adopt a teenager…
Neil said: Thanks for the setup. Uh, maybe if we didn’t abort all these innocents . . .
Joshua,
Your reasoning is no better than the Fascist Nazis. You actually have taken the time (and wasted ours) with this idiotic and insidious belief that unborn human life is no more special than tumors or flys and this strange concept that all cells are cells and nothing more.
You Sir, cannot even begin to describe how or why any particualr cell does what it does as most renowned scientists view the most simple single-cell organism as being more complex than the known universe. Who do you think you are? Who do you think you’re kidding?
You are ignoring any particular cell’s purpose and therefore ignoring its significance. This is how society decides what is worth protecting. Human reproductive cells joined to create human life do not have the same purpose as tumor cells for example. This is why society invests in drugs and vaccines to kill harmful cells, etc.
But you already know this truth. You are just choosing to ignore it. Continue to ignore your conscience and you really won’t know the difference between a given cell, unborn human life, babies, adults, Black Adults, Jewish Adults, etc. (kinda like the Nazis).
You’ll be so morally bankrupt you will soon realize that your own life is worth no more than a tumor cell or a fly if you listen to your own jibberish long enough.
A single cell is hardly more complex than the known universe, seeing as the known universe contains more cells, but whatever. Sure, cells are complicated - your point?
As for purpose, how do we know purpose? We know eyes allow us to see, but we don’t know they were there for seeing. We know legs allow us to walk, but we don’t know that their purpose is for walking. Purpose is something we can’t know, unless we know the mind of the creator (if there is one).
Neil said: Actually, we do know the purposes. Eyes are for seeing, legs for walking.
We don’t know 100% of the mind of the creator, but we know a lot of it. Just read the Bible.
I’m fairly sure the criteria I have used so far have meant that most adults (black or Jewish) like myself would be protected. It’s not like we can actually use our conscience - morality should be reasoned, not intuitive (it was, after all, intuitive that black people were inferior).
Neil said: Intuition can be wrong, but it isn’t always wrong.
But if I have wasted your time, then I shall stop.
Neil said: It seems like a waste of time because these things are so clear. But I let these go on a bit sometimes to show just how clearly in someone’s own words they can lay out such transparently false ideas.