[Christians ONLY] Can Christians be prochoice?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A one day old baby is still physically dependent on the mother body to feed him/her - or somebody's body. And will be an existential threat to her body because if she neglects the baby, she will be in jail.

It is ludicrous to think that somehow a baby in the womb at 8 months is a not a person so we call it a "fetus" to assuage our conscience but a born 8 month and 1 minute fetus is somehow metamorphosed into a baby.


I think this is false unless you can explain. If on the books it say robbery is a punishable offense, it would seem to me it is to enforce a position of morality. You may not change the heart but it is enforcing morality--it is the purpose of law.

Until relatively recently, it WAS generally acceptable to kill an infant while it was still dependant on its mother physically. The ancients called it "exposure", and it was perfectly legal. In more recent times, the process was more sanitised, with the infant given to a foundling hospital or orphanage, to give a thin veneer of moral legitimacy to the process, but if you look at the survival rates of infants given to such institutions in the 18th and 19th century (as high as 100% mortality in many cases) it's pretty clear that everyone involved knew they were participating in the killing of unwanted infants after birth just as active as any abortion provider killing them before birth.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Christ said, "I have come that they may have life and that they may have it more abundantly." Christ is for life. Only the wicked God-haters love death. Devils seek to murder helpless children. The people of God contend for the truth. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Even to ask this question shows the depravity that mankind has inherently, passed down from Adam due to his disobedience and the subsequent curse placed on him and his posterity by God.
But God gives a new heart to those He will, and these children of His, love life, and praise God and defend the helpless. Anything else is depraved and murderous.

6 billion humans on the planet. We're pretty abundant now.

 

[Kenny]

Until relatively recently, it WAS generally acceptable to kill an infant while it was still dependant on its mother physically. The ancients called it "exposure", and it was perfectly legal. In more recent times, the process was more sanitised, with the infant given to a foundling hospital or orphanage, to give a thin veneer of moral legitimacy to the process, but if you look at the survival rates of infants given to such institutions in the 18th and 19th century (as high as 100% mortality in many cases) it's pretty clear that everyone involved knew they were participating in the killing of unwanted infants after birth just as active as any abortion provider killing them before birth.

Absolutely. Slavery was accepted too as well as human sacrifices. Given time of thousands of years, it is also relatively recent that those things changed - Certainly the Tanakh was a change of what was the norm.

 

[PureX]

A one day old baby is still physically dependent on the mother body to feed him/her - or somebody's body. And will be an existential threat to her body because if she neglects the baby, she will be in jail.

My arm is an example of "human life" that is existentially dependent on it's 'host body' for its existence. This is the kind of existential dependency that negates autonomy in the eyes of the courts.

It is ludicrous to think that somehow a baby in the womb at 8 months is a not a person so we call it a "fetus" to assuage our conscience but a born 8 month and 1 minute fetus is somehow metamorphosed into a baby.

What you or anyone else thinks is ludicrous is irrelevant. We are all free to think what we like. It's not the purpose of the law to impose or enforce our ideas of reasonableness.

I think this is false unless you can explain. If on the books it say robbery is a punishable offense, it would seem to me it is to enforce a position of morality.

That's only because punishing thieves agrees with your morality. But enforcing your morality is not why stealing is against the law. Maintaining the fair and orderly function and security of the society being governed by the laws is why our society has established such laws. Whether or not your agree with them morally is your own business.

 

[Kenny]

My arm is an example of "human life" that is existentially dependent on it's 'host body' for its existence. This is the kind of existential dependency that negates autonomy in the eyes of the courts.

You can live without your arm but your arm cannot live without your body feeding it. A mother can live without the baby, but the baby will die without the mom feeding it.

What you or anyone else thinks is ludicrous is irrelevant. We are all free to think what we like. It's not the purpose of the law to impose or enforce our ideas of reasonableness.

I disagree unless you have a viewpoint that "whatever the culture decides is good enough". It is reasonable to say "You can't take what is in my home". They should enforce our ideas of reasonableness.

hat's only because punishing thieves agrees with your morality. But enforcing your morality is not why stealing is against the law. Maintaining the fair and orderly function and security of the society being governed by the laws is why our society has established such laws. Whether or not your agree with them morally is your own business.

That's a great play on words. "Maintaining the fair and orderly function... of the society" is a moral stance.

 

[PureX]

You can live without your arm but your arm cannot live without your body feeding it. A mother can live without the baby, but the baby will die without the mom feeding it.

"Feeding" is not the proper term to apply, here. Because there is far more to it then that in both instances. But yes, neither the arm nor the fetus is an autonomous being until the fetus reaches a certain point in it's development. And it is at that point that the courts have deemed them legally autonomous. But even then, they are only partially autonomous, and so exceptions have been allowed regarding the mother's right to end the pregnancy when to continue it would threaten her own existential being. Just as we will sever an arm to save the man to whom the arm is attached if the arm is threatening the existential well-being of the man.

"Maintaining the fair and orderly function... of the society" is a moral stance.

No, it's not. It's a functional stance. It just happens to align with your sense of moral righteousness, so you think it's a moral imperative. But it's only an imperative of social functionality. Whatever you think it is beyond that is your own opinion, and your own business. Not ours.

 

[metis]

I am pro-life (all three areas: against abortion, against the death penalty, and against war), but where my hesitation kicks in is what right do I have to tell a woman what to do with that which is inside her?

So, I have these tugs-of-war in my head (there's plenty of others as well), so this issue has long been a conundrum to me.

 

[PureX]

I am pro-life (all three areas: against abortion, against the death penalty, and against war), but where my hesitation kicks in is what right do I have to tell a woman what to do with that which is inside her?

So, I have these tugs-of-war in my head (there's plenty of others as well), so this issue has long been a conundrum to me.

I think that the solution is to understand that in all of these instances, reality is not going to accommodate the ideal. War is wrong. War is always wrong. And yet there will be times in our experience of reality when war becomes necessary as the better of a set of options that are ALL wrong. Same goes for abortion, euthanasia, and criminal execution. I agree with you that these are ALL, ALWAYS, wrong. Yet, because reality does not always accommodate the ideal, we may find ourselves having to choose them as the best possible course of action of those that are being presented to us. It's unfortunate, but that's just the way it is.

 

[Deeje]

LIFE begins at conception, and I doubt anyone w9uld disagree. OP, however, sa8d PERSONHOOD begins with brainwaves, which is a very different claim.

Humans tend to want to label things for their own reasons. What on earth is "PERSONHOOD" ? And why would we need a label like that if it it wasn't to justify the termination of a human life? It's not yet a person, so it's not murder???? Really? Who said?

Since all the DNA is in place for just about eveything that a human being will become, including their personality, at conception, I am inclined to believe that God sees human life, even in its earliest stages as a living being. It might technically be a parasite, but it is a separate entity.....it is not part of the mother, but is relying on its mother to feed and protect it.....that is the right of every child IMO.

 

[Kenny]

No, it's not. It's a functional stance. It just happens to align with your sense of moral righteousness, so you think it's a moral imperative. But it's only an imperative of social functionality. Whatever you think it is beyond that is your own opinion, and your own business. Not ours.

I disagree... I think it just aligns with your sense of moral righteousness. Moral righteousness is a functional stance.

 

[Anna Therese]

So I am a prochoice Christian, and I want to debate Christians about whether I am a contradiction or not. I believe personhood and rights becin when the fetus first has brainwaves.

Where is the choice for the unborn baby?

 

[shmogie]

I meant dependent on another person's physical body for it's own physical existence. This is the factor that the courts have used to determine legal autonomy.
Late term abortions are based on the exception that the fetus is still physically dependent upon the mother's body and is posing an existential threat to her body because of it.

Our constitution does not define when or by what reasoning a fetus becomes an autonomous being. It only speaks to our rights AS autonomous beings. So it is of no use in resolving this dilemma. However, the whole point of our having established this government to begin with was to establish and protect individual freedom within the context of social function and necessity. Which means that individual freedom of choice trumps society's and government's desire to impose it's moral opinions. The purpose of the law is to protect us from each other, not to enable a moral majority to impose their morality on everyone else. Laws are not written to enforce morality. They are written to protect individual security and autonomy within the context of a functional society. The question of when this individual autonomy occurs has been determined by the courts (and by popular opinion) by the viability of the fetus apart from the host's body. It's a crude and inexact demarcation, but it's all we have, for now. The morality of this demarcation is NOT RELEVANT because it is not the purpose of the law to enforce morality.

Morality is not the issue. Late term abortions are done often, and the continued pregnancy has nothing to do with the mothers health, other than she is distressed at having a baby. It is used as a form of birth control, period.

Popular opinion is irrelevant.

We all agree that a human begins at conception and lives till it dies. It is a continuous line. Any place along that line where this human is deemed a person under the law is arbitrary. Roe is insane because it arbitrarily places the point of legal person at birth, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ABORTION. Yet, a person can shoot a pregnant woman, at any stage, and is legally charged with two counts of murder. You can only murder a person.
A woman can have a premature baby that cannot survive without life support equipment. If she visits the NICU, and stabs her baby to death ,she is guilty of first degree murder. Yet, a full term baby can be partially born, and be killed by the doctor stabbing it in the brain with the mothers permission and neither are guilty of anything.

Morality is not a legal concept. The right to live and equal protection under the law are. Reasonableness is also a legal concept.

The choice to kill a fully formed functioning human for no reasonable reason should be illegal. Killing a person because it might be inconvenient is not a reasonable reason.

From a moral perspective I believe no Christian should support any abortion but in the direst circumstances. However, that is between they and God. I believe they will be held to account for their act if they do not seek forgiveness and repent of abortion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**
​

This thread is in Same Faith Debates and as stated in the OP is Christian Only. Non-Christians are not permitted to post in this thread. A reminder on Rule 10 of RF Rules:

10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums
Religious forums is structured to provide spaces for many different kinds of conversations. Different kinds of conversations belong in different areas of the forum:

1) Debates should be kept to the debate areas of the forums, including Religious Debates, General Debates, and Political Debates. Debating anywhere other than these forums may result in moderation. Same Faith Debates is governed by special rules described here. Only members of the specified groups(s) can participate in these threads.

2) All DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) forums are for the use of members who identify with those groups or practices. Debating is not permitted in DIRs; debates between members of specified groups should be posted in Same Faith Debates. Members who do not identify with a DIR group may only post respectful questions; we recommend creating a thread in the Religions Q&A instead where there is more freedom to comment. DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.

3) The Political World forum has several "only" subforums that are for the use of members who identify with those political leanings. Members who do not identify with those political leanings are not allowed to post there. The staff more strictly moderate Rule 10 violations where there is some other rule violation involved, such as preaching in a DIR or trolling a political forum a member doesn't belong to. More benign violations may be subject to informal reminders or moving threads to the appropriate location.

 

[PureX]

Morality is not the issue. Late term abortions are done often, and the continued pregnancy has nothing to do with the mothers health, other than she is distressed at having a baby. It is used as a form of birth control, period.

Then the intent of the law is being circumvented. And the solution is to tighten enforcement, not to condemn the law.

We all agree that a human begins at conception and lives till it dies.

No, we don't all agree on that. We all agree that the process that creates a new human begins at conception. When that process has successfully achieved this is a matter of widely differing opinion.

 

[shmogie]

This post was removed by the RF staff

Morally, for a Christian, any point after conception is immoral. However, morality can be imposed on those who have a different set of morals, and I do not at all wish to impose my Christian morals on someone not freely willing to accept them.

It is not possible in a non moral fashion to identify a clump of non specialized cells as a person. However, a baby fully formed as a human with a beating heart and function brain has all the features of a human, a person.

So, a strong legal case can be made that killing a baby after the first trimester is murder.

Legally, I support unlimited abortion in the first trimester. After that, no abortion unless there is demonstrable and medically certifiable threat of serious physical harm or death to the mother if the pregnancy continues.

Then the intent of the law is being circumvented. And the solution is to tighten enforcement, not to condemn the law.
No, we don't all agree on that. We all agree that the process that creates a new human begins at conception. When that process has successfully achieved this is a matter of widely differing opinion.

No, you are not grasping the difference between federal law and state law. Federal law, roe v wade, does not limit abortion at any point. This is because of the badly constructed basis of roe, the unenumerated right of "privacy". In essence, the Warren court threw up it's hands, refusing to address the issue, and decided abortion in total was cloaked by "privacy". Circumventing state law that limits late term abortions.

You may Not be an American and may life in a country where there is one consistent law. So this may be confusing. The autonomy of each state, and conflicts between the Federal system and the state systems when looking from the outside are hard to understand.

In any case, if a physician in state which limits late term abortion decides to break the state law and commit one, federal law says no one, including the state, can "see", legally know about the action because it is privileged, legally protected by the unenumerated "right" to privacy. Federal law trumps state law. Roe v wade MUST be changed, I think it will.

A human life begins at conception and ends at death. Any qualifiers are arbitrary human constructs. One arbitrary construct says a person exists at conception, another says a person doesn't exist till birth, another says person doesn't exist till the second trimester. All arbitrary.

Science tells us a human begins at conception and ends at death.

 

[Faithofchristian]

So I am a prochoice Christian, and I want to debate Christians about whether I am a contradiction or not. I believe personhood and rights becin when the fetus first has brainwaves.

Ok, So when did that fetus first have brainwaves, According to the bible?

If a person, as you say is a prochoice Christian, then that prochoice Christian would know or should know the answer according to the bible when did that fetus first have brainwaves?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Humans tend to want to label things for their own reasons. What on earth is "PERSONHOOD" ? And why would we need a label like that if it it wasn't to justify the termination of a human life? It's not yet a person, so it's not murder???? Really? Who said?

Since all the DNA is in place for just about eveything that a human being will become, including their personality, at conception, I am inclined to believe that God sees human life, even in its earliest stages as a living being. It might technically be a parasite, but it is a separate entity.....it is not part of the mother, but is relying on its mother to feed and protect it.....that is the right of every child IMO.

Potential doesn't equate to actuality.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

So I am a prochoice Christian, and I want to debate Christians about whether I am a contradiction or not. I believe personhood and rights becin when the fetus first has brainwaves.

We can debate the morality of abortion all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that forcing my religious beliefs on another person is wrong so therefore I am prochoice.