If life is in the blood then there is a 22 day window when a woman may choose to terminate a pregnancy without taking a human life as the fetal heart starts beating on day 23.
This Biblical “fact” would be particularly politically convenient.

I have never found a scripture that supports the life begins at conception argument, though clearly scripture does support that life begins in the womb and life begins before birth.

What Tom Kelly has found is that the Bible does not support the argument for the sanctity of human life based on genetic identity and potential. But the Bible’s treatment of the fetus is far “worse” than he construes in his post.

Moses explicitly excludes the fetus from the protection of the law of personal injury and treats induced miscarriage (abortion) as a property loss subject to the payment of damages as litigated by the father before a judge. This is not such an astonishing rule for a nomadic desert tribe to adopt. A fetus unlike a born person is replaceable. The ancient Hebrews didn’t have the same moral agenda as evangelical Americans.

The problem with the heartbeat rule is that from the standpoint of essentialist philosophy, it’s arbitrary, valid only because God says so.

Report comment to moderator

Anlir,
Why does it matter to Pro-choicers whether abortions are reduced? I understand that the motive is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, but why? Is it for convenience sake?

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

ANLIR: “One thing is for sure – this country is never going to agree on abortion.”

Pro-lifers need to be forced to agree this is so for the time being. But how to get them to make this concession? They won’t. People universally agree about the wrongness of murder but differ sharply about the wrongness of abortion. If (or since)abortion is murder, how come many good, admirable people think it’s ethically permissible? Pro-lifers have given up any effort to persuade or reach a moral consensus. All they care about is getting 51% of the voters to outlaw it.

Here’s the deal: Pro-lifers have to be compelled to admit that their primary objective is saving the life of the fetus at all costs. If government will not assist in this cause, Christians can destroy it, because sooner or later, God will.

Report comment to moderator

My “Biblical” belief is that life does not begin at conception. I believe, as is it says directly in Leviticus and is a major theme of the Bible, that “life is in the blood”.

If life is in the blood then there is a 22 day window when a woman may choose to terminate a pregnancy without taking a human life as the fetal heart starts beating on day 23.

This Biblical “fact” would be particularly politically convenient. We could, as committed Christians, support both a women’s right to choose and have an absolute abolition on abortion after the life potential cells have been transformed into a human life.

I have never found a scripture that supports the life begins at conception argument, though clearly scripture does support that life begins in the womb and life begins before birth.

Has this idea been widely publicized yet? A few years ago it would have been a moot point, but now with day after conception pregnancy tests there is an option for a pre-human life pregnancy termination window.

Report comment to moderator

Abortion is very sad, but one reason I’m not worried about it too much is because just maybe we already have enough people in the world.

Here’s some interesting facts about the populations of the Great Ape species, including the human Great Apes:

Chimpanzees: 100,000
status: Endangered

Bonobos: 10,000
status: Endangered

Gorillas: 40,000
status: Endangered

Orangutans: 15,000
status: Vulnerable

Humans: 6,627,000,000
status: rapidly growing – 2.37 humans added, including births and deaths, every single second. These Great Apes are actively trashing the oceans, destroying forests, and wiping out entire species, including our close relatives, the other Great Apes.

One reason normal people have better moral values than the creationists, is because normal people have more respect for other life besides humans, because they know all life is related.

Report comment to moderator

Pro-choice people tend not to favor abstinence education–the one surefire way to reduce the need for abortion. They tend to promote contraception methods, which young people often don’t use even when taught and which sometimes fail and which do not all prevent STD’s even if they do prevent pregnancy.

They tend not to favor a requirement to inform pregnant teen girls what their options are, or what really goes on in the “procedure,” or that the abortion clinic does not usually have life-saving equipment should an emergency arise.

They tend not to require that the fathers take financial responsiblity for their offspring or even give them the chance to do so by informing them or requiring their consent.

Report comment to moderator

Those of us on the “pro-choice” side are perfectly willing to work with the other side on reducing the need for abortions, which would be a good thing for all. Sadly, the “anti-choice” side is not interested.

One thing is for sure – this country is never going to agree on abortion. Everyone believes passionately that their side is right, and the other side is wrong.

Even if the “anti-choicers” were to get their wish and have Roe vs Wade overturned, it will not end the fighting. It will simply move to the 50 states, and the battles will continue ad infinitum. Neither side can force the other side to agree with them.

As for the movie itself, I’d like to see it before I comment on it. I’m certainly not going to take the word of a reviewer who works for an “anti-choice” organization.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

—————–

Stephen, what can both sides say that hasn’t already been said? For those of us who believe that abortion is just plain wrong, there’s not really another side. Some things don’t have two equally valid sides to them–like child abuse or slave trafficking.

Report comment to moderator