5 ms·

I really want to talk with someone who believes this because I want to know what's the core of it. Is it that unborn children are considered the purest form of

I really want to talk with someone who believes this because I want to know what's the core of it. Is it that unborn children are considered the purest form of humanity? Is it that they're afraid of population decline/collapse and want more children in the world? What fears or other emotions drive the desire on the deepest levels?

krapp 4y ago
The core of it, as with most terrible, regressive things in American culture and politics, is Conservative Christianity. It's also why Republicans oppose contraception and why many Christians believe masturbation is a sin.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
- babyshake 4y ago
  I believe it largely has to do with a widespread inability to cope with the fact that heaven doesn't exist. Death is in fact the end.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    Yeah, I've often wondered that. Is it the worry that if the baby dies in the womb, it will no longer go to heaven? Because if the unborn baby is considered to be one of the "most innocent" humans, then wouldn't the baby automatically go to heaven? And isn't the assumption that heaven is better than life on earth? Or is it about wanting the mother to also go to heaven, and believing that if she did this, she would not go? I appreciate you pointing out there may be a deep existential fear and doubt of the existence of heaven that drives people to this and oh how I wish we people talked more about our doubts, especially as they relate to religion. One of my favorite TED talks was about how doubt is essential to faith: https://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essential_to_faith https://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essentia...
    - krapp 4y ago
      > Is it the worry that if the baby dies in the womb, it will no longer go to heaven? According to a lot of American Christian doctrine, yes. The Bible teaches that humans are sinful beings not because of what they do, but because sin is an immutable part of human nature. There's no such thing as an "innocent" baby where the doctrine of original sin is concerned - all humans deserve hell by default. So unless the baby is born, baptized and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (which can only happen through their consent and free will, you can't "save" an unborn baby as a loophole) it will burn in Hell for eternity like any other unsaved soul. Although I'd suspect most Christians simply believe life, in terms of a divine soul and part in God's plan, begins at conception. To accept that a fetus is simply a "clump of cells" would be too close to accepting a naturalistic (non-theistic) view of biology. To interfere with procreation and birth is to commit murder for the same reason that shooting someone in the head is committing murder - only God has the right to decide when and how life can be taken.
      - jimkleiber 4y ago
        I appreciate this answer. I hadn't realized a lot of this, especially the first part: > The Bible teaches that humans are sinful beings not because of what they do, but because sin is an immutable part of human nature. There's no such thing as an "innocent" baby where the doctrine of original sin is concerned - all humans deserve hell by default. So unless the baby is born, baptized and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (which can only happen through their consent and free will, you can't "save" an unborn baby as a loophole) it will burn in Hell for eternity like any other unsaved soul. As someone not born into or raised by a Christian family, I sometimes struggle to understand how deep some of these beliefs are. So is the idea that one does not receive unconditional love from God unless one first consents to believe in God? And babies don't have the ability to consent? Maybe this is too off topic for HN but I'm quite curious.
        krapp 4y ago
        I'm not a pastor or Biblical scholar, I just grew up around a lot of Southern Baptists and Pentecostals and know what a lot of them believe. In essence that the love of God is unconditional, but forgiveness is not, and it also can't be earned by being a good person or doing good things, it can only be asked for. Of course that said, there have been plenty of Christians who believe in infant baptism or a state of grace for infants and all sorts of things - Christianity isn't a monolith. But when it comes to the intersection of religion and pro-life politics in the US, the more hardline strains of faith seem to dominate.
svieira 4y ago
:raises-hand: Emotion is not the driver, reason is. Two syllogisms: 1. Innocent people ought not be killed. Children are innocent people. Therefore, children ought not be killed. 2. What is conceived in a woman is an innocent young human being. Young human beings are children. Therefore (given syllogism #1) children in utero ought not be killed. Those syllogisms can lead to emotion, but they are not based on it.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  While I don't agree with your premise that emotion is not the main driver for the vast majority of people, I'll go with it: - At what point do you believe it becomes a person? Viable to survive outside of the womb, heartbeat, insemination? - How do you define innocent, as one who does not have actions that cause harm to another, one who does not have intent to harm another, or something else? - If defined as one who does not have intent to harm another, how do we know what the unborn child's intent is? Do you assume that the child is not developed enough to have intent? At which point does the child develop intent? - What if you would consider the child already dead from other causes and needs to be extracted, should the mother be allowed to have it removed? What if the baby is an ectopic pregnancy, growing outside of the womb and likely to cause significant harm or death to the mother, is the assumption that the mother is not as innocent as the unborn child and therefore we should prioritize the child? I'm ok and even excited to take a reason-based approach (ironically stating how I have have feelings about taking a reason-based approach), I just hope if you want to go down that path, that you will go deeper down it with me.

krapp 4y ago

The core of it, as with most terrible, regressive things in American culture and politics, is Conservative Christianity. It's also why Republicans oppose contraception and why many Christians believe masturbation is a sin.

jimkleiber 4y ago
babyshake 4y ago
I believe it largely has to do with a widespread inability to cope with the fact that heaven doesn't exist. Death is in fact the end.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Yeah, I've often wondered that. Is it the worry that if the baby dies in the womb, it will no longer go to heaven? Because if the unborn baby is considered to be one of the "most innocent" humans, then wouldn't the baby automatically go to heaven? And isn't the assumption that heaven is better than life on earth? Or is it about wanting the mother to also go to heaven, and believing that if she did this, she would not go? I appreciate you pointing out there may be a deep existential fear and doubt of the existence of heaven that drives people to this and oh how I wish we people talked more about our doubts, especially as they relate to religion. One of my favorite TED talks was about how doubt is essential to faith: https://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essential_to_faith https://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essentia...
  - krapp 4y ago
    > Is it the worry that if the baby dies in the womb, it will no longer go to heaven? According to a lot of American Christian doctrine, yes. The Bible teaches that humans are sinful beings not because of what they do, but because sin is an immutable part of human nature. There's no such thing as an "innocent" baby where the doctrine of original sin is concerned - all humans deserve hell by default. So unless the baby is born, baptized and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (which can only happen through their consent and free will, you can't "save" an unborn baby as a loophole) it will burn in Hell for eternity like any other unsaved soul. Although I'd suspect most Christians simply believe life, in terms of a divine soul and part in God's plan, begins at conception. To accept that a fetus is simply a "clump of cells" would be too close to accepting a naturalistic (non-theistic) view of biology. To interfere with procreation and birth is to commit murder for the same reason that shooting someone in the head is committing murder - only God has the right to decide when and how life can be taken.
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      I appreciate this answer. I hadn't realized a lot of this, especially the first part: > The Bible teaches that humans are sinful beings not because of what they do, but because sin is an immutable part of human nature. There's no such thing as an "innocent" baby where the doctrine of original sin is concerned - all humans deserve hell by default. So unless the baby is born, baptized and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (which can only happen through their consent and free will, you can't "save" an unborn baby as a loophole) it will burn in Hell for eternity like any other unsaved soul. As someone not born into or raised by a Christian family, I sometimes struggle to understand how deep some of these beliefs are. So is the idea that one does not receive unconditional love from God unless one first consents to believe in God? And babies don't have the ability to consent? Maybe this is too off topic for HN but I'm quite curious.
      - krapp 4y ago
        I'm not a pastor or Biblical scholar, I just grew up around a lot of Southern Baptists and Pentecostals and know what a lot of them believe. In essence that the love of God is unconditional, but forgiveness is not, and it also can't be earned by being a good person or doing good things, it can only be asked for. Of course that said, there have been plenty of Christians who believe in infant baptism or a state of grace for infants and all sorts of things - Christianity isn't a monolith. But when it comes to the intersection of religion and pro-life politics in the US, the more hardline strains of faith seem to dominate.

svieira 4y ago

:raises-hand: Emotion is not the driver, reason is. Two syllogisms: 1. Innocent people ought not be killed. Children are innocent people. Therefore, children ought not be killed. 2. What is conceived in a woman is an innocent young human being. Young human beings are children. Therefore (given syllogism #1) children in utero ought not be killed. Those syllogisms can lead to emotion, but they are not based on it.

jimkleiber 4y ago
While I don't agree with your premise that emotion is not the main driver for the vast majority of people, I'll go with it: - At what point do you believe it becomes a person? Viable to survive outside of the womb, heartbeat, insemination? - How do you define innocent, as one who does not have actions that cause harm to another, one who does not have intent to harm another, or something else? - If defined as one who does not have intent to harm another, how do we know what the unborn child's intent is? Do you assume that the child is not developed enough to have intent? At which point does the child develop intent? - What if you would consider the child already dead from other causes and needs to be extracted, should the mother be allowed to have it removed? What if the baby is an ectopic pregnancy, growing outside of the womb and likely to cause significant harm or death to the mother, is the assumption that the mother is not as innocent as the unborn child and therefore we should prioritize the child? I'm ok and even excited to take a reason-based approach (ironically stating how I have have feelings about taking a reason-based approach), I just hope if you want to go down that path, that you will go deeper down it with me.