Nothing We Experience Comes Close to the Creation of a New Life
There is nothing that we experience or participate in as human beings that can come even close to the creation of a new, unique human life. All the rest is a shaping of that life, a grooming of his or her second nature. But the shaping of a being that exists cannot compete in metaphysical grandeur with creation. It's hard to think of an unborn child as a "clump of cells" when you focus on the coming-to-be of a human being and all that will inevitably come forth from that life, if is not taken away.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The issue isn't whether things die naturally (many fetuses die in the womb,bioloby is harsh) but rather do we as humans have the right to kill an unborn child. One could argue that after a baby is born it could catch pneumonia and die (biology is harsh) but does that give you or me the right to stop the life of another person?
God says before the creation of the world He knew me. Life begins when God planned my life. He's the only one with the right to take it away. Not someone who can devalue others with a lot of "intelligent sounding" rhetoric.
Have you talked to women who mourn the death of the children who they aborted?
I hope you understand that I ask this quesiton in all seriouness, in an effort to understand your worldview.
If life begins when God planned your life, and God has planned your life since before the beginning of creation, than that would seem to mean that you have always been alive. Is that true? Wouldn't it follow then that, for example, a 10-year-old girl is already carrying in her the life God planned her to give birth to in the future?
I hope that made sense. Any clarification you could give would be appreciated.
I am not God and cannot hope to understand all there is about Him. But I know what He says in the Bible. He planned me and it says He knew me before the creation of the world. How that happens, I don't know, I don't need to know. The point is God planned all life and we as humans don't have the right to kill life at any stage. And yes I agree that a girl is already carrying the life God planned for her to give birth to. In Hebrews 7:9,10 it states: "One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchisedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor."
People seem to be clever at engaging in discussion at when life begins. Anyone who has ever become pregnant (as I have) gets excited the second they know they are pregnant. We don't wait until the baby is "viable".
Also, I know many women who are spending the rest of their life mourning the baby they aborted. No intellectual arguement is going to argue their grief away. I hope I satisfactorily answered your question.
There is no point in engaging in discussion if the basis of the discussion is in emotion. Emotion may inform our thinking, but ultimately any real discussion must come down to logic. Many aspects of life are emotional. Our emotions exist to aid us, but they are not perfect. A mother mourning for the death of her unborn child is both logical and illogical; logical because she can understand the joy she would have had with the child, illogical because there was no actual conscious being there and the feelings stem from raw emotion. When a woman chooses whether to have an abortion , they may feel horrible about it, but know that it is the best decision. Those that regret what they've done because they feel they have done something wrong are free to feel that way, but that should not cause us to restrict the choice of others.
It's true that one's feelings do not determine truth. There are many who commit murder without a qualm. You make the statement, "When a woman chooses whether to have an abortion they may feel horrible about it but know that it is the best decision."
How do you prove that assertion? On the premise that abortion isn't murder? What if your premise is wrong?
You also state her grief is illogical because there was no conscious being there. Is it ok to murder people as long as they're not conscious- such as when they're asleep? Anyway how do you scientifically prove or define the consciousness of another. Maybe we should kill people with Alzehimers.
A woman grieves the loss of her baby because she knows exactly what it was: her very own offspring. It's perfectly logical to mourn the loss of one's own child.
Everyone has to base their beliefs on some sort of paradigm. As a Christian I am basing my paradigm on something outside myself. I'm basing it on what God has revealed to mankind through the Bible. If you don't base your beliefs on God's word what are you basing it on? Your own limited understanding? You aren't omniscient so the most you should do is at least err on the side of life: "I'm not sure it's murder so to be on the safe side I'll choose life."
If you can devalue life at one level you can devalue it at any level. As John Donne said, if even a simpleton is killed I am the lesser.
We are all a part of mankind and no one has the right to take another's life- not even at it's simplest and most helpless state.
Finally, your statement that those that regret abortion are free to feel that way but that should not cause us to restrict the choice of others. No, our feelings should not restrict others' choices and behaviors but right and wrong should. People knew it was wrong to keep slavery legal so they abolished it. People knew it was wrong to force young children to work as adults so laws were implemented to prevent it. It's wrong to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin or gender. Because there is such a thing as right or wrong we enforce laws that maintain right and wrong and we change laws that don't (such as slavery or segregation). Just because abortion is legal doesn't make it right. One day I believe people will look back in horror at the 40+million unborn children that have been murdered in our country.
this debate is not just about when life begins. it is a matter of bodily sovereingty. if some organism is living off of and inside of me against my will, i assume every right to stop it from doing so. to say that a rape victim has to continue an imposed pregnancy is raping her again by denying her consent over the use of her body by another being in this case the fetus. there is no right to be inside of someone against their will. forced pregnancy is the vilest form of slavery and the ultimate dehumanization of a woman. you are inprisoning these victims inside their own bodies for an addition 9 months.
Do you really believe you are are sovereign over your own body? The Bible says all our days are numbered and tomorrow is promised to no man. You have no more control over your life than if you could change the weather.
God is sovereign and that is exactly what is so evil about abortion . People assuming they are sovereign and have the right to murder others- even more horrific- their own flesh and blood.
How in the world do you deduce that giving life through carrying your baby to term dehumanizes you? Giving life doesn't dehumanize us, taking it away does.
The ultimate form of slavery and dehumanization is when a person does not value another's life. If we can not value the life of our own children when they are in the womb what makes any life valuable?
When one does not trust God and His sovereignty, even in instances of rape, life has no meaning or hope. When one trusts God's sovereignty we know that even pregnancy from rape can bring hope and meaning.
Aborting a baby conceived from rape will not rid the mother of the trauma of rape it only compounds it by making her guilty of murder.
Its not her body. I am not saying that she has to keep the child, but she must not kill it.
It looks like we agree that the emotion of the mother does not change whether the act of abortion is right or wrong. Also, just to clarify, when I said that a mother's grief is illogical, I should have said that it is without logic, that is, based on emotion. There may be cases where the mother considers what might have come of the child, but when we're talking about a situation where the mother believes she made the appropriate decision but still feels grief, I would venture to say that most of the grief does not stem from a logical place. I might be making this more confusing, but perhaps it is clearer to simply say that someone can grieve both logically and emotionally at the same time, and the emotion may result from logical and illogical bases.
Now on to the other interesting points you bring up. The first is sleep. This is indeed the sort of discussion I think we all should be having. If it is wrong to kill someone who is asleep, and our value of a person is not based on potential, why is it wrong. The first reason is that the person is conscious prior to going to sleep, and must go to sleep in order to sustain consciousness and health in the long term. Additionally, since we all must sleep, if you want to not be killed while asleep then you should not kill someone else who is asleep. A fetus has no conception of any of this, does not think, and cannot make any decisions. An additional reason I would say a live person has more value is that they have accumulated experience in their life that has value in many ways, both personally and to other people (friends, product of their work(s), etc).
I would say that a person with advanced Alzheimer's Disease has less value than someone who does not have the disease, all else being equal. I do not believe that makes it ok to kill that person. It would impact a decision such as who's life I would save if I had to make a choice. I also think these terms extend to animals. Essentially, I value an entity's combination of types and amounts of cognitive abilities along with experience, potential, and the value others place on that entity. So to me, an unborn child has no value other than that the parents place on it when first conceived, up to some amount less than the value of the mother up to and even past birth.
I welcome questions about what I've laid out as well as challenges.
Rome was not built in a day. While we can easily glorify the act of creating something new, it is much harder to pinpoint the instant it happened. In fact, with complex creations, there is no instant to glorify - only a process of incremental accrual of characteristics.
Also, there is nothing inevitable about a fetal clump of cells becoming a human being. Many, perhaps most, conceptions fail naturally. Biology is harsh.
You're taking the standpoint that we create each other. God creates us. Before He created the world He knew me.
Psalm 139:14-16
Life is really wonderful and complicated! What a great work you did!
You knew me from the beginning of my making, in which I was completely alone.
You saw me before I was born. You know every action, past, present, and future, I will do. You investigated all my actions before the world was created.(modern translation)
The arguement that many things die on their own is no justification for one human to take the life of another. We're all going to die of old age- or a car wreck- or a miscarriage. God made life. He can take it. You or I may not.
Talk to women who mourn the children they aborted.
Passing laws on the basis of one religion's beliefs undercuts our freedom of worship. Are you so sure that it would be your religion that ruled? Many people believe that God created the world and the people in it without believing that He attends every conception. Your religious beliefs guide your own actions, but cannot be the basis for regulating or judging others.
You're assuming that universal truth is a matter of opinion or personal belief. The fact is that all our laws are govnerned by personal belief: the ten commandments. If I chose not to believe any murder is wrong what is to stop me? Someone else's personal belief? The law? Laws can be changed. If I have enough lobbying power to implement my own beliefs over yours and get a "might makes right" policy which allows me to murder anyone I can get away with murdering what makes that wrong?
When you take God of the Bible out of the equation, what moral axiom are you standing on? Everything becomes justified through individual belief.
People didn't believe blacks had human rights. Did that make it so because it was their personal belief?
The ancient Greeks didn't believe that women had souls. Were they right because it was their personal belief?
I can't let the murder of the unborn stay as a law because someone else doesn't think the unborn has rights.
You or anyone else who is in favor of abortion are most certainly imposing your personal beliefs on a whole population of humans: the unborn.
Our society is governed by laws, not by universal truth. It is a practical necessity given the slippery nature of universal truths. Society, religion, and law all change over time.
The God of the Bible is the deity of many different religions, which have serious disagreements about the moral interpretation of their varied, updated translations of the bible. Not surprisingly, we each believe our current one is right.
You are attempting to establish an absolute, but I see nothing here that is well-defined or unchanging. It is certainly not clear that conception is inherently more important than a host of other miraculous events in the continuation of human life. Each is necessary, but none are individually sufficient. Life is worth protecting at every point, but not equally so.
It's interesting to me how you can not make the assertion about absolutes without contradicting yourself. "Life is worth protecting but not equally so"
That's an absolute statement.
And besides, says who? Because you don't believe life is worth protecting at every point that makes it so?
Those laws that govern our society are based on moral absolutes that stem directly from the ten commandments. As I've already said, when you take God out of the equation you are on the "slippery slope" you speak of and are reduced to personal beliefs.
That doesn't change the nature of God or the moral code He's prescribed for mankind. Frankly I see a direct correlation between the rejecting of God and the increasing lawlessness of our society. Our laws, without the belief in God to back them up, don't motivate many people to follow them.
You state that society, religion and law all change over time (that's another absolute statement) but I have not seen morals change. That is, I haven't seen people's attitudes about how they think they should be treated change. No one thinks they should be lied to or cheated on or stolen from. No one thinks others have the right to murder them.
It seems to me you are basically saying that everything changes and it's all a matter of perspective so it's impossible to know anything.
If that is so what are you basing your own arguement on?
It's only if there are moral absolutes- slavery is wrong-all men are created equal-child abuse is wrong-the genocide of 7 million Jews is wrong- that we have something to stand on. If there are no moral absolutes how do we know when to change laws or correctly interpret them? If you don't believe in moral absolutes by what criteria are you basing your belief that it is right to end the life of babies in the womb?
If there is no God, what paradigm is there to go by? Nothing: each man does what is right in their own eyes. In which case if you're the strongest and richest you get your way and if your weaker and poorer you're out of luck.