Perhaps you are. Yes, fertilization clearly marks such, yet the value you place on this new individual is as arbitrary as any other.
Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps you are. Yes, fertilization clearly marks such, yet the value you place on this new individual is as arbitrary as any other.
Samstarrett
New member
True enough. How's this for an answer: I think it's tactically foolish, though I have some sympathy for the idea.
mighty_duck
New member
This begs the question of whether ontology can exist sans circumstance. But regardless, there is nothing that stops us from choosing a definition based on what a thing can do given a circumstance.
I agree that the ontological definition is cleaner and closer to our way of thinking though.
The innocence of the fetus is not a factor here. Regardless of it's lack of guilt or intent, it is still using the mother's body against her will. Abortion is not a punishment to the fetus because of its guilt.
I find it similar to a case of sexsomnia, or sleep sex. Similar to sleep walking, this condition causes people to unconsciously rape others. They are innocent, yet from the point of view of the women who have their bodies used against their will, there is still a wrong done to them.
Samstarrett
New member
Would you take the position then that it is arbitrary to place value on any individual?
You'd have to define value in this context. Persons have a right to life thus have value under this legal/social context. Conversely, a murderer has no value thus forfeited his rights to life and freedoms.
Moreover, my family and friends hold more value to me than strangers.
Value is similarly hard to objectively qualify.
Samstarrett
New member
Well, I'm less concerned with value and more with rights. I believe the unborn child has a right to life that trumps whatever rights the mother might claim(unless her life is threatened, in which case I have a rather different line of reasoning). You were the one who brought up value. So my question to you is: Is it arbitrary to attribute rights to the unborn from the moment of fertilization, and, if so, is it equally arbitrary to attribute rights to anyone at all?
Do you hold that persons have a right to life simply because the law in this jurisdiction says so?
You have only "some" sympathy for the idea? If you truly believe that abortion is murder, why aren't you fully in favor of using lethal force against abortion clinics? Further, why don't you use lethal force yourself? I suspect that it is because you don't really believe the rhetoric which says that "abortion is murder".
I have no sympathy for the idea, and I believe what I say. I believe that abortion is heinously sinful, but I do not believe that abortion is "murder". Many things are sinful, but not all sins are illegal. For example, fornication is sinful, but it is not illegal. The same logic applies to abortion.
I believe that the answer to abortion rests in addressing the problems that lead people to consider abortion as a viable option. It is the duty of those who are against abortion to provide viable alternatives to abortion. In other words, be proactive. We can't just say abortion should be illegal and then walk away. People who are considering abortion need real, tangible solutions. This requires real work, charity, counseling, etc. to be provided by those who do not wish to see abortions take place. That is the only viable solution to abortion.
According to Deuteronomy 30:19, it is up to each of us to choose life. This means that we have a choice. Therefore, people have the right to choose.
Samstarrett
New member
Well, there are rather large problems associated with vigilante justice that give me pause.
I believe I already said it's tactically foolish.
Except that abortion has a clear victim; fornication does not.
All good ideas(and things many pro-lifers do), but making it illegal would be the biggest step of all towards eliminating it.
It's not up to us to choose death for others.
Should we really be so pragmatic when dealing with premeditated murder?
Abortions would still take place, even if it was made illegal.
Nor is it up to us to make reproductive choices for others.
One Eyed Jack
New member
So would murders, rapes, and robberies, all of which are already illegal. At least they wouldn't be happening with our tacit consent.
Some people don't seem responsible enough to make their own.
How are other people's reproductive choices up to you to decide through force of law?
Samstarrett
New member
Well, that'd be an interesting debate to have. I think isolated vigilantism would accomplish little; an organized revolution would probably be necessary to reduce abortions appreciably by violent means. It's hardly relevant to whether abortion ought to be legal, however.
A common choicer argument, and as always, a deeply flawed one, on two levels:
1. Many fewer abortions would take place if abortion were illegal.
2. So would all crimes. So what?
You're right. It's not. I don't get to choose who sleeps with whom or whether they use contraceptives. But abortion is no more a 'reproductive choice' than is infanticide.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . then I certainly hope you oppose the death penalty . . .
Yeah, we can get to whether Christians should judge others in a minute, if you like. I'd like to go back and address that assertion of yours that non-Christians can't determine whether murdering a baby is right or wrong first as part of the general question whether Christians should condemn murdering babies in the first place.
Right now I'm getting that non-Christians are incapable of, and Christians themselves forbidden from, determining whether anything is right or wrong. That's a whole big kettle of stupid fish there, so let's focus on one thing at a time. Sound good?
As citizens of a democratic republic, we've agreed and sworn to abide by any evil decisions our leaders and legislators might make in the process of representing us as a people, limiting our opposition only to what is allowed by law.
The only way around that would be to, as one might suggest, recognize our adoption into the body of Christ supersedes that politically and our first loyalty is to God. Or even taking it so far as to renounce our citizenship to this earthly government in favor of that, and all our earthly duties and responsibilities to that government as well. In either case we would be free and justified in opposing the otherwise lawful action of abortion, limited in that only by what God would approve of rather than any man-made law.
So. Most extreme case, then. Let's say you're a citizen of the body of Christ. Not of whatever country you're currently in. You have no loyalty to it and no duty to obey it's laws whatsoever. You are, for all intents and purposes, as far as you are concerned, an alien national dropped on the street of country 'x', right in front of an abortion clinic.
What do you do now?
I would not suggest barging into the place with a firearm and shooting and/or threatening folks would be the effective opposition to the (locally) legal, publicly supported, murders taking place in there. Because, whether you are a citizen or foreign national just passing through, beholden to obey it's law or not, these folks still consider these murders legally and, in most cases, morally justified.
For myself, I still consider myself both a Christian and US citizen. I'm required to obey both authorities right up to the point that one brings me into direct opposition with the other. Hence, I wouldn't have an abortion nor participate in one and would limit my opposition to it to what is lawful.
That's my thinking on this anyway. :idunno:
HisServant
New member
No its, not a kettle of stupid fish.
It's a basic understanding of the nature of mankind, the nature of salvation and regeneration and the purpose of common grace.
The bible specifically states that the darkness hates the light.. and when we shine the light on specific patterns of sin, they will rebel and fight it even to their deaths.
The other issue is this denial of the nature of life by christians.. we have this undue fear of death, but its an integral part of our nature... we are not meant to live forever.
No where in scripture does it call us to be political activists... Christ even said 'render unto caeser' and Paul calls us to be obedient to our governments because they are ruled by Jesus for his own purposes.
Our role is evangelism and ministry to the poor and those in trouble.
So no, its not stupid, and I resent that you classify it that way. The only way to stop abortion is one person at a time, if God wills it.
Okay, if you're going to continue to ignore the point I originally addressed and subsequently tried to get back to, then I guess I'll play along for a moment.
So how do you shine the light on specific patterns of sin, evangelize and minister without judging anything anyone is doing as wrong or they wrong for doing it?
You'll forgive me if I've lost a little interest in this discussion already though, I'm sure.
HisServant
New member
How did Christ handle this.. take the woman at the well for example.
John 4:15-18 (New King James Version)
15 The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”
17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”
Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”
This isn't the kind of judgment we're talking about? I guess because Jesus didn't specifically say, "...and that's wrong, and you've done wrong by doing that..." it doesn't count.
Okay.
Matthew 3:7 (New King James Version)
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers!...
Does that count or is that not the kind of judgment we're talking about? Maybe that's just an insult and not exactly judging...
Matthew 15:7 (New King James Version)
7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
He's definately judging someone to be a hypocrite, though, right?
But maybe we need an actual, identified sin someone is judged as guilty of...
Mark 7:9 (New King James Version)
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
There we go. Jesus accusing them of breaking the law.
But, wait...you'll probably need me to show Him not only judging someone a sinner but actually saying it's wrong to sin...
Look, maybe you just need to clarify exactly what you mean by "judging". I'm beginning to suspect you're unclear on that.
...
Also, should I point out that you're denying Christians point out to others when they sin while simultaneously claiming previously that unbelievers don't know any better? This is, after all, the original point of our discussion. Either unbelievers don't know any better and have to have it pointed out to them or they do know better and should be condemned for it. I don't see a third option here that doesn't throw them to the wolves.
Same. I think it's sad that an entire thread has been devoted to discussing the murder of babies by arguing when, exactly, it is acceptable to murder them.
- Status