5 ms·

I'm a Christian and I've engaged people many times on this platform about this very issue. In fact your insinuation is so contrary to the truth I find it hard t

I'm a Christian and I've engaged people many times on this platform about this very issue. In fact your insinuation is so contrary to the truth I find it hard to believe you could possibly believe it in good faith! Let me start with this: why should we as rational human beings assume life doesn't begin at conception? Is there a more logical place to ascribe life beginning, whether it be human or otherwise?

rswail 4y ago
For the sake of argument, assume that life does begin at conception. However murder is defined as taking the life of a human being. Conception is not a logical place to ascribe the beginning of a human being. As an example, is the loss of a zygote, or a blastocyte, or an ectopic implantation to be considered the death of a human being?
- xeromal 4y ago
  Probably not. The line is vague, but I'll say there's precedent that a murderer who kills a mom and her unborn child gets charged with two murders. Or in the instance of that mother that was detained by the police roughly and lost her unborn child in the process. In these cases, the women/families want the child so the unborn baby becomes a human for the sake of argument, but I think a lot of people can see that rationale being a bit weird, yeah? A human is a human whether someone wants them to be or not.
- f154hfds 4y ago
  I might not understand your question. If life begins at conception, then of course a zygote is a human being and that zygote not making it would be a death by definition. Before implantation etc, you might never know that human being existed. So discovering you killed that zygote without knowing it isn't the same as abortion just like accidental manslaughter isn't murder.
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    You can go to prison for manslaughter. So should women who's body naturally aborted which happens quite regularly (30-40%) [1] be charged with manslaughter? Birth control actually prevents implantation rather than conception every once in a while [2], would taking birth control be considered manslaughter if proven it prevented implantation rather than conception? This is actually what many are worried about now that Roe v Wade is down, Griswald vs Connecticut could be up next. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage [2] https://www.guttmacher.org/antiabortion-activists-their-own-words-contraception-abortion https://www.guttmacher.org/antiabortion-activists-their-own-...
    - f154hfds 4y ago
      I do believe there's a case to be made that 'abortifacient' birth control should be regulated more carefully, and used for the protection of the mother instead of as a general-use contraceptive. Though this kind of manslaughter can't practically result in prosecution, so at the end of the day the use of abortifacients might have to be on the conscience of the potential mother (and father).
      - SigmundA 4y ago
        So you seem to be saying that anyone taking hormonal birth control could be technically commit a crime (manslaughter) but it's just not feasible to prosecute? What about spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? If the women is found negligent such as taking excessive risks (smoking, drinking, excessive age, some strenuous physical activity) they are also technically committing manslaughter correct? Again regardless of how viable it is to prosecute such a crime, are they committing a crime?
        f154hfds 4y ago
        It's only a crime if there is a law criminalizing it, and I can see reasons why a just state would not make laws about abortifacients for several reasons not the least of which being it's unreasonable to prosecute such an offense. It is both wrong and a crime to forget your child in a hot car to the point where they die. It isn't murder but it would be on your conscience regardless of whether the state prosecuted you or not. As I believe the unborn have an equal right to life as the born children it makes logical sense to enact laws such that crack use resulting in deformed children is a prosecutorial offense tantamount to neglect of born children. Of course, there is also criminal negligence vs. accidental crimes and all of that still applies. EDIT: miscarriage isn't abortion, I'm not sure about its relevance to the discussion?
pxc 4y ago
> why should we as rational human beings assume life doesn't begin at conception? 'Life begins at conception' is just a nominally secularized reference to the doctrine of ensoulment, not a concept that is morally relevant to question of whether abortion should be legally permissible (or even interesting). If we cared about the mere fact of life in the relevant way, we'd be interested in legal restrictions on pulling weeds. If the concern was with living tissue with human DNA, we'd be fretting over amputations. Even in the case of human life, not every end to human life is an equivalent of 'murder' to be categorically prohibited to the exclusion of all other considerations. And even if we grant that abortion is always morally wrong, it still does not automatically follow that categorical legal prohibition is a sound social response to the moral issue. There's an expansive philosophical literature on the ethics of abortion that actually seeks to identify and address the moral core of the issue and its relation to law. The phrase 'life begins at conception' is just a political slogan for a religious dogma that very, very quickly falls apart when you try to use it ss an actual starting point for reasoning about abortion policy. Trotting it out pretty much represents a refusal to engage in good faith with secular thought on the issue.
- f154hfds 4y ago
  I agree that 'human life' and 'ensoulment' are linked, but I of course disagree on your casual dismissal of my question. Maybe I can ask another question: If murder is wrong for the born, what about the unborn makes that wrong lesser?
parrellel 4y ago
So, what do you think of the lack of biblical support for your position?
- f154hfds 4y ago
  Are you trying to say a lack of evidence is evidence of a lack? But there is plenty of evidence nonetheless: Maybe the most clear case comes in this way: Christians believe that human beings are chosen by God just as much as they choose God (both must be true to be saved). This is most clear in Romans 8:29-30. > For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. So God does decide who to save, he "foreknows" them, whatever that means. Now there are several examples of people being called by God, many of which happen before they are born. Jeremiah is called by God before his birth in Jeremiah 1:5: > Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations. Paul is called by God before his birth in Galatians 1:15: > But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, ... These are just some examples, there are more references to unborn in the Bible. The argument goes like this: if it's wrong to kill another being imbued with the image of God, fully capable of being foreknown by Him, called, predestined, justified and glorified, it is equally wrong to kill them before birth as opposed to after birth and the Bible makes no distinction between the two in terms of how this process works, evidenced by the above passages.
  - parrellel 4y ago
    When does the Bible say life begins? What are the punishments laid out in the Bible for causing an abortion? Weird Calvinist predestination silliness aside.
    - f154hfds 4y ago
      I can also include this interesting verse, Ecclesiastes 11:5: > As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. Quite simply, according to the Bible life begins at conception, our capacity for good and evil begins at conception, God chooses us at conception and our status of being in the 'image of God' starts at conception. The above verses and doctrine are not 'Calvinist', Calvinism is the belief that God's choice is the primary cause of salvation as opposed to man's choice, but that distinction is irrelevant here.

rswail 4y ago

For the sake of argument, assume that life does begin at conception. However murder is defined as taking the life of a human being. Conception is not a logical place to ascribe the beginning of a human being. As an example, is the loss of a zygote, or a blastocyte, or an ectopic implantation to be considered the death of a human being?

xeromal 4y ago
Probably not. The line is vague, but I'll say there's precedent that a murderer who kills a mom and her unborn child gets charged with two murders. Or in the instance of that mother that was detained by the police roughly and lost her unborn child in the process. In these cases, the women/families want the child so the unborn baby becomes a human for the sake of argument, but I think a lot of people can see that rationale being a bit weird, yeah? A human is a human whether someone wants them to be or not.
f154hfds 4y ago
I might not understand your question. If life begins at conception, then of course a zygote is a human being and that zygote not making it would be a death by definition. Before implantation etc, you might never know that human being existed. So discovering you killed that zygote without knowing it isn't the same as abortion just like accidental manslaughter isn't murder.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  You can go to prison for manslaughter. So should women who's body naturally aborted which happens quite regularly (30-40%) [1] be charged with manslaughter? Birth control actually prevents implantation rather than conception every once in a while [2], would taking birth control be considered manslaughter if proven it prevented implantation rather than conception? This is actually what many are worried about now that Roe v Wade is down, Griswald vs Connecticut could be up next. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage [2] https://www.guttmacher.org/antiabortion-activists-their-own-words-contraception-abortion https://www.guttmacher.org/antiabortion-activists-their-own-...
  - f154hfds 4y ago
    I do believe there's a case to be made that 'abortifacient' birth control should be regulated more carefully, and used for the protection of the mother instead of as a general-use contraceptive. Though this kind of manslaughter can't practically result in prosecution, so at the end of the day the use of abortifacients might have to be on the conscience of the potential mother (and father).
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      So you seem to be saying that anyone taking hormonal birth control could be technically commit a crime (manslaughter) but it's just not feasible to prosecute? What about spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? If the women is found negligent such as taking excessive risks (smoking, drinking, excessive age, some strenuous physical activity) they are also technically committing manslaughter correct? Again regardless of how viable it is to prosecute such a crime, are they committing a crime?
      - f154hfds 4y ago
        It's only a crime if there is a law criminalizing it, and I can see reasons why a just state would not make laws about abortifacients for several reasons not the least of which being it's unreasonable to prosecute such an offense. It is both wrong and a crime to forget your child in a hot car to the point where they die. It isn't murder but it would be on your conscience regardless of whether the state prosecuted you or not. As I believe the unborn have an equal right to life as the born children it makes logical sense to enact laws such that crack use resulting in deformed children is a prosecutorial offense tantamount to neglect of born children. Of course, there is also criminal negligence vs. accidental crimes and all of that still applies. EDIT: miscarriage isn't abortion, I'm not sure about its relevance to the discussion?

pxc 4y ago

> why should we as rational human beings assume life doesn't begin at conception? 'Life begins at conception' is just a nominally secularized reference to the doctrine of ensoulment, not a concept that is morally relevant to question of whether abortion should be legally permissible (or even interesting). If we cared about the mere fact of life in the relevant way, we'd be interested in legal restrictions on pulling weeds. If the concern was with living tissue with human DNA, we'd be fretting over amputations. Even in the case of human life, not every end to human life is an equivalent of 'murder' to be categorically prohibited to the exclusion of all other considerations. And even if we grant that abortion is always morally wrong, it still does not automatically follow that categorical legal prohibition is a sound social response to the moral issue. There's an expansive philosophical literature on the ethics of abortion that actually seeks to identify and address the moral core of the issue and its relation to law. The phrase 'life begins at conception' is just a political slogan for a religious dogma that very, very quickly falls apart when you try to use it ss an actual starting point for reasoning about abortion policy. Trotting it out pretty much represents a refusal to engage in good faith with secular thought on the issue.

f154hfds 4y ago
I agree that 'human life' and 'ensoulment' are linked, but I of course disagree on your casual dismissal of my question. Maybe I can ask another question: If murder is wrong for the born, what about the unborn makes that wrong lesser?

parrellel 4y ago

So, what do you think of the lack of biblical support for your position?

f154hfds 4y ago
Are you trying to say a lack of evidence is evidence of a lack? But there is plenty of evidence nonetheless: Maybe the most clear case comes in this way: Christians believe that human beings are chosen by God just as much as they choose God (both must be true to be saved). This is most clear in Romans 8:29-30. > For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. So God does decide who to save, he "foreknows" them, whatever that means. Now there are several examples of people being called by God, many of which happen before they are born. Jeremiah is called by God before his birth in Jeremiah 1:5: > Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations. Paul is called by God before his birth in Galatians 1:15: > But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, ... These are just some examples, there are more references to unborn in the Bible. The argument goes like this: if it's wrong to kill another being imbued with the image of God, fully capable of being foreknown by Him, called, predestined, justified and glorified, it is equally wrong to kill them before birth as opposed to after birth and the Bible makes no distinction between the two in terms of how this process works, evidenced by the above passages.
- parrellel 4y ago
  When does the Bible say life begins? What are the punishments laid out in the Bible for causing an abortion? Weird Calvinist predestination silliness aside.
  - f154hfds 4y ago
    I can also include this interesting verse, Ecclesiastes 11:5: > As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. Quite simply, according to the Bible life begins at conception, our capacity for good and evil begins at conception, God chooses us at conception and our status of being in the 'image of God' starts at conception. The above verses and doctrine are not 'Calvinist', Calvinism is the belief that God's choice is the primary cause of salvation as opposed to man's choice, but that distinction is irrelevant here.