Abortion stuff from "Conservativism/Christianity"

[_asbestosman]

If everyone is agreeable I'll split it off to a new thread (perhaps in the Celestial to start?)

I suppose that's acceptable. I started it here because I wanted to allow some more wiggle room in unscholarly speculation as well as allowing a bit more in making harsh statements about conservativism. But if the Celestial forum is the only way to avoid a hijack into abortion, then I'll accept that.

[_Sam Harris]

If everyone is agreeable I'll split it off to a new thread (perhaps in the Celestial to start?)

Abortion being a hot topic, sounds like a good idea to me. And perhaps Celestial will keep everyone's hands un-smudged...

:-)

[_Bond...James Bond]

If everyone is agreeable I'll split it off to a new thread (perhaps in the Celestial to start?)

I suppose that's acceptable. I started it here because I wanted to allow some more wiggle room in unscholarly speculation as well as allowing a bit more in making harsh statements about conservativism. But if the Celestial forum is the only way to avoid a hijack into abortion, then I'll accept that.

Since this is asbestosman's thread I'll split the abortion stuff off into a celestial thread and leave this thread in the terrestrial.

[_asbestosman]

Abortion and Embryonic Stem-Cell cell research are both fairly easy topics to see why there is wide spread opposition within the church.

#1 Science unequivocally tells us when life begins that point is fertilization/conception. If we were to test the sperm and egg before implantation the DNA test would come back as Sally and Jake. After the egg is fertilized the test would come back as the son/daughter of Sally and Jake. From this point forward every cell in its body will be genetically distinct and recognizably different from either of its parents.

But how many persons is a fertzilized egg? Does science tell us? What if it develops into identical twins--will science tell us when the happens? What if the twins don't completely separate and there is one head, but 2 abdomens and 4 legs? How many people is it?

Is a fetus-in-fetu human? Is it the brother/sister of the host who carries it? Is a teratoma human? Is the placenta human? How about the embryonic sac or embryonic fluids?

Is a cancer cell human? They have human DNA and they are alive.

Also, does God care if I remove my foreskin in circumcision? Does God care if I remove my appendix or tonsils?

If a fertilized egg is human life, then what about adult stem cells? If those are not human, then what about adult stem cells that are able to act like embryonic stem cells through proper treatment? Yes, it has been done in mice and the mice started growing fetuses from adult stem cells without using DNA-transfer cloning technology. The pregnancy was only done to demonstrate that embryonic-stem cells can be made from adult stem cells--at least in mice. Would it be wrong to use human adult stem cells that now act like embryonic stem cells? If so, why do you think it's fine to use adult stem cells that haven't been treated to act as embryonic stem cells?

#2 GOD says human life is intrinsically valuable and precious Young-old, healthy-sick, guilty-innocent, happy-sad, All of it, no exceptions.

What about the Amalekites or Midianites in the Old Testament times?

[_asbestosman]

Well, I think life and sentience are two separate states. A fertilized egg is as alive as bacteria is. Whether there is a moral difference between destroying the two is the question.

I think it can be immoral to destroy things that aren't alive too. I think it's immoral to destroy another man's property. I think it's immoral to destroy criminal evidence. I think it's immoral to burn books ala Farenheit 451.

[_Moniker]

Okay... why would a thread on abortion (likely to get heated) be moved to Celestial and the other thread that stayed mainly on track be left to stay in Terrestrial? I don't geddit!

Anyway, this statement by jonLinn made me pause:

[quote]These to two arguments mean that virtually all Christian churches range from gravely troubled by to rabidly opposed to Abortion.[/quote]

That's just not the case. That denominations differ on their opinion when life begins, as well as some being pro-choice shows how there is the ability to read the scriptures and come to different conclusions.

I hear this a lot and it makes me think that we all have different definitions of life, maybe?

[quote]It might not be convenient or politically palatable but the science is very clear human life begins at conception. [/quote]

What is human life? What is LIFE? Even without looking at this scientifically ('cause I try to avoid that as I'm a luddite when it comes to scientific matters) it doesn't appear to me that something that is merely conceived is life, at all. If I was a mass of tissue without a clear form, without any thoughts, desires, fears, yearnings, stimuli, etc... I wouldn't consider myself alive. If there was no brain activity I would not consider myself alive. I wouldn't consider any of my loved ones alive either. So, if life is considered at an end, by some, when we're brain dead why can't we use this same determination to consider when life begins?

Also, there was mention of stem cell research. There are denominations that support stem cell research with those embryos that would be discarded. I can't fathom why ANYONE would be against this!

I hate posting in Celestial... and why won't my quotes work??

[_jonLinn]

This was not supposed to be a stand alone abortion debate. The post originally asked how come so many churches (even absent an overseeing Prophet) seem to come down on the same side of issues such abortion or embryonic stem-cell research despite the fact that Jesus never said the words “abortion” or “Embryonic-Stem cell”. My Answer was: they try and figure out the mind of god through what he has said and where possible apply the principals they glean to social and even economic issues. However since we seem to be talking abortion...

“But how many persons is a fertzilized egg? Does science tell us?

Yes. One baby

What if it develops into identical twins--will science tell us when the happens?

Yes. Two baby’s. (in science they call this “Counting”) :)

What if the twins don't completely separate and there is one head, but 2 abdomens and 4 legs? How many people is it?

Uhh... sounds like one person. Why is this a question? People who have extra fingers, toes, or appendages are not more or less of a human.

Is a fetus-in-fetu human? Is a teratoma human? Is the placenta human? How about the embryonic sac or embryonic fluids? Is a cancer cell human? They have human DNA and they are alive. Also, does God care if I remove my foreskin in circumcision? Does God care if I remove my appendix or tonsils?

None of these fit the topic of a “new human life” or baby. Removing a tumor for instance is totally different from terminating a helpless and dependant human life who would continue to grow and prosper absent outside persons seeking to due it harm. Nor due any of them seem to me to deal with pressing moral issues such as when is it ok to take a human life?

If a fertilized egg is human life, then what about adult stem cells? If those are not human, then what about adult stem cells that are able to act like embryonic stem cells through proper treatment? The pregnancy was only done to demonstrate that embryonic-stem cells can be made from adult stem cells--at least in mice. Would it be wrong to use human adult stem cells that now act like embryonic stem cells? If so, why do you think it's fine to use adult stem cells that haven't been treated to act as embryonic stem cells?

As far as I can tell there would be few if any moral or religious objections to using adult stem-cells in virtually any way as long as we are not creating human life for the express purpose of harvesting tissues and organs or of using it for research.

“Well, I think life and sentience are two separate states. A fertilized egg is as alive as bacteria is. Whether there is a moral difference between destroying the two is the question.”

This is kind of the next level of the arguments.

If I was having this discussion with an evolutionist atheist who believed that since everything came into existence through random chance and there was no god given moral code or after life, love, mercy, and belief in god(s) was simply the result of chemical cascades affecting the operating code of the meat machines we call humans then I would need to start the discussion at a different point.

I believe that from a Christian point of view a human life is unequivocally different from and more precious then any sample of bacterial, viral, fungal, plant, or animal life.
Human life is created in the image god, has free will, the capability to freely worship him, etc, etc.)

If you read or listen to debates from the college professors on the subject they usually move past the question of what it is pretty fast. When life starts and what kind of life it is so bedrock science that it gets little discussion.

As nehor and others have pointed out the talk usually moves on to philosophical discussions as to when is it ok to take a human life and when should we consider someone a "person" ? And how do we weigh their respective rights when conflicts arise.

I find the concept of governments or society’s trying to decide who is to be considered a full, partial, or non person very disturbing.
I believe that if you are human you should have all the rights and protections as anybody else regardless or your developmental stage, social status, mental capabilities or physical prowess.
If you develop sever Alzheimer’s or are in a car crash and laps into a non-responsive vegetative coma you still have the right to be treated with respect as a person.
I would apply the same standard to those humans in the earliest stages of development.

Some people find it odd that I and most Christians I know do not oppose ALL abortions. If abortions were only preformed for medical reasons by doctors who saw themselves as advocates for both mother and child abortions would be rare and would be moved from the relm of “a public policy of dehumanizing mass murder” to private family tragedies not needing public debate.

The question of what it is we are talking about is critical to answer.
If it is a meaningless blob of her body’s tissue then society should have no say in what happens. Partial birth abortion hey no problem.

If at some point it is human life then we need to know when that point is and what rights it should have at that point.

[_Moniker]

This was not supposed to be a stand alone abortion debate. The post originally asked how come so many churches (even absent an overseeing Prophet) seem to come down on the same side of issues such abortion or embryonic stem-cell research despite the fact that Jesus never said the words “abortion” or “Embryonic-Stem cell”. My Answer was: they try and figure out the mind of god through what he has said and where possible apply the principals they glean to social and even economic issues.

The OP asked why they were mostly conservative. The 3rd largest Protestant Church in America (UMC) is pro-choice as well as supportive of stem-cell research on those embryos that would be discarded. In 1996 the Church came under attack for its pro-choice stance from congregants and did not change their position and stayed pro-choice. :) In 2000 the UMC stated that they opposed partial birth abortions and the use of abortion for gender selection. Yet, their pro-choice stance is stilll a thorn in the side of conservative congregants. The original premise that all Christian Churches are in agreement with this issue is faulty. There was a political tidal wave of Conservatism in the late 80's -- the congregants of some denominations wanted their Churches to change their stances on the abortion issue. So, they didn't follow God -- they followed the whim of the political ideology of MAN!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html (1988)

Liberal Protestants have long been among the most ardent supporters of a woman's right to abortion. Consider the Rev. Howard Moody of Manhattan's Judson Memorial Church. In 1967, more than five years before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws that prohibited abortions, the Baptist pastor organized a referral and counseling service for women seeking the then illegal procedure. Moody was a minister in the American Baptist Convention, a confederation of congregations that was adopting its own high-profile prochoice position. In 1968 the denomination officially sanctioned abortions during the first three months of pregnancy "at the request of the individual" and during the last six months under special circumstances. Five years later, the A.B.C. became a charter member of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, a strongly prochoice lobbying network of religious agencies.


Last week, in an unprecedented change of heart, the American Baptist Churches (membership: 1.6 million; the name was changed in 1972) became the first Protestant denomination to abandon its eager embrace of the prochoice position. After a three-year task force study, the A.B.C.'s decision-making General Board, meeting at Green Lake, Wis., voted 161 to 9 to revise its 1981 policy statement. The former position had asserted that having an abortion should be a "responsible, personal decision." The denomination now acknowledges a "diversity of deeply held convictions" in its ranks, from the prolife view that "abortion is immoral and a destruction of a human being created in God's image," to the prochoice position that abortion "can be a morally acceptable action." But it baptizes no one view.

The change came as a result of grass-roots pressure for an abortion stance that better reflected the diverse opinions of American Baptists, who include many conservatives along with more liberal members. It is a pressure being felt by other mainline denominations, a vaguely defined group of predominantly white, moderate-to-liberal churches accounting for about 25 million of America's 75 million Protestants. "The mood is swinging toward a real serious look at a new abortion position," says Louisa Rucker, executive director of the National Organization of Episcopalians for Life.

If I was having this discussion with an evolutionist atheist who believed that since everything came into existence through random chance and there was no god given moral code or after life, love, mercy, and belief in god(s) was simply the result of chemical cascades affecting the operating code of the meat machines we call humans then I would need to start the discussion at a different point.

Hi, I'm an "evolutionist atheist" that understands that evolution is not a random chance process, that there are moral codes derived from man, that there is no life after death so I am compelled to do all I can in the here and now, that my life is filled with love, mercy, charity, and meaning. So, how would your comments be different when talking to me? :)

If you read or listen to debates from the college professors on the subject they usually move past the question of what it is pretty fast. When life starts and what kind of life it is so bedrock science that it gets little discussion.

Fortunately for you we have some college professors on this board! If you scroll up this thread you should notice the Sun, that's your guy!

I find the concept of governments or society’s trying to decide who is to be considered a full, partial, or non person very disturbing.

You don't want society to decide who is a "full" person? How else do we come to this understanding? God isn't quite clear on this, neither was Jesus... oh, and the Churches aren't in agreement either. So, should we just leave it up to the individuals to decide?

Some people find it odd that I and most Christians I know do not oppose ALL abortions. If abortions were only preformed for medical reasons by doctors who saw themselves as advocates for both mother and child abortions would be rare and would be moved from the relm of “a public policy of dehumanizing mass murder” to private family tragedies not needing public debate.

I don't find it odd. I know many Christians that are pro-choice. I find it odd that most people assume that Christians usually oppose ALL abortions other than when the mother is in jeopardy -- that's just not the case. I don't understand what you mean about "private family tragedies"? Is that in regards to an unplanned pregnancy? Or the abortion?

[_asbestosman]

What if the twins don't completely separate and there is one head, but 2 abdomens and 4 legs? How many people is it?

Uhh... sounds like one person. Why is this a question? People who have extra fingers, toes, or appendages are not more or less of a human.

I agree. However, what about siamese twins? The difference between having two abdomens and having two heads is the location at which a split towards identical twins started occurring but did not complete. In the one case I would argue that it's two humans (siamese twins) where two heads are involved, but otherwise it is one human. Science, however, does not tell us that. We as humans have decided the criteria that humanness has something to do with having a functional brain or perhaps in the case of a fertilized egg, the natural pre-disposition to grow said human brain if we do not interfere.

Is a fetus-in-fetu human? Is a teratoma human? Is the placenta human? How about the embryonic sac or embryonic fluids? Is a cancer cell human? They have human DNA and they are alive. Also, does God care if I remove my foreskin in circumcision? Does God care if I remove my appendix or tonsils?

None of these fit the topic of a “new human life” or baby. Removing a tumor for instance is totally different from terminating a helpless and dependant human life who would continue to grow and prosper absent outside persons seeking to due it harm. Nor due any of them seem to me to deal with pressing moral issues such as when is it ok to take a human life?

Sure, but keep in mind that a fertilized egg used for in-vitro fertiliziation would not continue to grow naturally because it has never seen the inside of a womb. It was unnaturally fertilized outside the womb and must be unnaturally placed back inside in order to continue development.

As far as I can tell there would be few if any moral or religious objections to using adult stem-cells in virtually any way as long as we are not creating human life for the express purpose of harvesting tissues and organs or of using it for research.

Is it fine to create human organs in other animals such as pigs? This has already been done. The human organs are grown in chimera pigs by a careful mixing of human and pig cells in a developing pig fetus.

If you read or listen to debates from the college professors on the subject they usually move past the question of what it is pretty fast. When life starts and what kind of life it is so bedrock science that it gets little discussion.

I agree that the beginning of my particular 46 chromosones began when my father's sperm joined with my mother's egg. However I have some identical twin brothers. While their 46 chromosone also began under similar circumstances, They started off as one fertilized egg. So even in assuming that a fertilized egg is the begining of human life, all we know is that it is at least one human life--we won't know if it'll end up becoming more that that. My brothers are separate persons even though they share the exact same location and time of that beginning.

I find the concept of governments or society’s trying to decide who is to be considered a full, partial, or non person very disturbing.

As do I, but even you have judged a fetus-in-fetu and a teratoma to be a non-human.

I believe that if you are human you should have all the rights and protections as anybody else regardless or your developmental stage, social status, mental capabilities or physical prowess.

As do most of the non-religious.

If you develop sever Alzheimer’s or are in a car crash and laps into a non-responsive vegetative coma you still have the right to be treated with respect as a person.

Most would agree with one caveat: most would allow a person to determine whether they would like life-sustaining medicine for themselves if they are ever under extreme conditions such a coma. I myself would not want those measures taken, but I don't wish to pull the plug on others who would like it.

If at some point it is human life then we need to know when that point is and what rights it should have at that point.

That's the key question and that is the reason these discusions often go into philosophy instead of sticking with the science about the when one's unique pattern of 46 (or 47 if you have have various conditions) chromosones begins. While I agree that fertilization is a natural spot to draw the line, I can see why drawing the line there isn't without controversy or problems.

I also think Moniker's post about the Methodists and other Christians who are or were pro-choice is interesting. Perhaps then it isn't very clear-cut even for Christians.

I appreciate your perspective on the matter.