Abortion and Politics

[peter_speckhard]

And I note again, deaconess, that our personal theory on when life begins is not what matters. Those responsible for civil society and the public good need to come to their own conclusions.
If they reach decisions we do not like, we are obligated to attempt to change them, or if that fails and if we so wish, we can resist them and take the consequences.
But in a discussion about the civil realm, what an individual or a particular church body theorizes about when life begins is simply one of several theories on the table.

Those responsible for civil society are in fact the citizens, who cannot possibly determine what serves the public good without knowing who counts as a person. If you believe black people are people, you MUST defend their rights, not comfort yourself with blather about how your own personal theory of race need not determine your input into public policy. And if you personally believe unborn human babies are unborn human babies, you must defend their right to life. This is, again, not a matter of private belief, but reason and science.

[pastorg1@aol.com]

I agree- and note that reason is what makes me pro-life.
I was a "bonus baby" to my 40 year-old Mom; 10 years between me and my brother.
I'm glad she protected me and nurtured me so I could live my life.

My reasoning on life beginning at conception is that I once was me in my Mom at this (.) size- and now I'm me at my present size communicating with you all.

Glad she let me, ah, be.

I think blessed John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor that life is a good. Not that life is good, but life is a good. We must protect life.

Peter (.) Garrison

[Buckeye Deaconess]

Thank you, Charles Austin, for your dignified reply to the Ohio woman.  I could not have answered her any better.

Norman Teigen

"The Ohio Woman" gave me a good chuckle.  I forget at times to use my name.  It's Kim Schave.  I'm a Deaconess in the LCMS.  I'm also a mother who held her two one-pound babies while they gave up their last breath.  They were born at just 24 weeks' gestation and lived for only a day.  I'm also a woman who has counseled countless numbers of women through unplanned pregnancies and post-abortion syndrome through my work as a board member and counselor at a pregnancy center in Northwest Ohio as well as my work starting and directing a pregnancy resource center in middle Georgia.  I used to be pro-choice and bought all the lies that get touted in the political (and sadly, theological) realms.

That you had to rely on Charles Austin's answer to give your non-answer is very telling.  It shows me exactly where you stand.  It also shows me that you have bought into the lies on the issue of Life and personally contribute to the demise of women (both in the womb and out) in both the theological and political spheres.
 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Do some zygotes not implant?  Yes.  Do some embryos die? Yes. Do some develop with flaws that lead to disabilities? Yes.  But all of these share with you and me an essential charateristic- full humanity.  That you are purblind in this are does not lesson the reality.

What do you mean by "full humanity"?
Humans are creatures with 23 pairs of chromosomes, but some don't.
Humans are bipeds, but some aren't.
Nearly all humans score between 50 and 150 on IQ tests, but a few are lower and higher.


Confessionally, as dgkirch posted none of us are fully human as God intended, except Jesus. We are fallen humans or Kolb's dishumanity.


Theologically, our essential characteristic is that we are all sinners (less than perfect humans) who are saved by God's grace. That's the reality we are to live with.


I am sorry if I hurt people with relatives who are persons with disabilities or handicapping conditions.

[TravisW]

genetic and other birth defects create something less than human? Brian do you care to rephrase that? It sounds heartless. Do you like the taste of foot?

I struggled with what to call those who were different than normal. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes; but some people are born with three rather than two at chromosome 21.

Is this online statement about Down's Syndrom any better: Down syndrome is the most common chromosome abnormality in humans? Would you prefer "abnormal humans," which is an accurate description -- those who are different from normal. If we say that humans have two copies of chromosome 21; what do we call someone with three copies of chromosome 21 and all the differences from the norm it produces?

There are defects that produce people who are shorter than the normal range - or taller.


A friend was born with a defect that is sometimes referred to as "frog legs". (Doesn't that designation sound like "less than human"?) His legs were not properly attached. They would never work. They were amputated. He walks on his hands. I recently read that he climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro. Sometimes cases like that are called "differently abled" and he certainly is.


I was trying to point out three potential outcomes for a human fertilized egg: it can grow into a normal human being. Something can happen and it becomes dead cells, e.g., never attaches to the uterus; or defects from normalcy may happen as the human person develops and is born. ("Defective human" is also a problematic phrase.) Yes, what I said could seem heartless. Please offer better terms.

I'm not going to jump on the terminology bandwagon here, since others have obviously mentioned that. The potential outcomes for a fertilized egg are:

1. It dies

In some cases, it dies straight away. In others, it grows a bit but fails to thrive and dies. In others, it takes a few years and it dies. In some, it retires, and dies after a solid century. Every single combination of human genetic material assembled via sexual reproduction in the entirety of human history has died or will die (aside from situations in which there was external intervention). 

The question then isn't whether zygotes die - they do, and they eventually will. It's not whether those with genetic anomalies die - they do, and they will. It's not even whether fully developed, allegedly healthy adults die - they do.

Once you strip the notion of "Human-ness" from the remarkably clear notion of biology, it's a constant muddle. A zygote is alive - it has a metabolic process, it has distinct DNA, and it grows. Once we step away from that, we have to look at some point where that which is biologically human becomes an "actual" human in some remarkably undefinable way.

[Brian Stoffregen]

So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?

That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.

[peter_speckhard]

So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?

That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.

It isn't too general a question. But yours is too intentionally obtuse an answer.

[Charles_Austin]

Peter wrotes:
Those responsible for civil society are in fact the citizens, who cannot possibly determine what serves the public good without knowing who counts as a person.
 
I comment:
Then it would appear, Peter, that your fellow citizens for the most part do not agree with you on "who counts as a person" when it comes to the issue of abortion. Now this raises the testy issue of "morality by majority" which, I think, we all oppose. On the other hand, it underlines my point: that one person's or one group's theory on when life begins is not the determining factor for legislation on abortion.
As for the other "personhood" issue, we do indeed place restrictions on persons whose "physical or mental personhood" does not meet some standard. Blind people cannot get drivers' licenses. Person's with Down's syndrome may not get drivers licenses, but both blind people and persons with Down's syndrome are allowed to vote.
This does not demean the essence of their "personhood." Those who say women cannot be ordained say that restriction does not demean their standing before God or the order of creation. I see some slight and tentative parallels in the argument.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter wrotes:
Those responsible for civil society are in fact the citizens, who cannot possibly determine what serves the public good without knowing who counts as a person.
 
I comment:
Then it would appear, Peter, that your fellow citizens for the most part do not agree with you on "who counts as a person" when it comes to the issue of abortion. Now this raises the testy issue of "morality by majority" which, I think, we all oppose. On the other hand, it underlines my point: that one person's or one group's theory on when life begins is not the determining factor for legislation on abortion.
As for the other "personhood" issue, we do indeed place restrictions on persons whose "physical or mental personhood" does not meet some standard. Blind people cannot get drivers' licenses. Person's with Down's syndrome may not get drivers licenses, but both blind people and persons with Down's syndrome are allowed to vote.
This does not demean the essence of their "personhood." Those who say women cannot be ordained say that restriction does not demean their standing before God or the order of creation. I see some slight and tentative parallels in the argument.

This is where you are wrong and why politicians in your party are afraid to put it to a vote. If the nation votes on abortion, pro-lifers win. It is the pro-lifers who always work through elections and pro-choicers who always have to wok through the courts because their position is unpopular. The view that life begins at conception is actually also the government position when the fetus is wanted by the mother. I is just that we have tortured the constitutition and logic itself in order to claim that a wanted fetus is a person but an unwanted fetus is not or otherwise doesn't count.

[Steven Tibbetts]

John says, "The Word became flesh." From the Latin we say that Jesus is God incarnate. When in the womb does the fetus have flesh? It's not at conception.


So, church doctrine can also speak against the incarnation happening at the moment of conception.

You appear to be placing your cards on the word "flesh" and some meaning for it that you have yet to reveal to us. I await enlightenment.

[Steven Tibbetts]

I struggled with what to call those who were different than normal. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes; but some people are born with three rather than two at chromosome 21.

Given the Fall, we are all less than "fully human." Jesus being the exception.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Then it would appear, Peter, that your fellow citizens for the most part do not agree with you on "who counts as a person" when it comes to the issue of abortion.

And you know this how?

[TravisW]

So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?

That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.

Courtesy of biology-online.org:  Life:  (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Sperm and eggs don't grow, reproduce, etc...  All of the other living things you mentioned do.

[Charles_Austin]

Party? What makes you think Peter that I have a party?

[peter_speckhard]

Party? What makes you think Peter that I have a party?

Nothing. Nothing at all. I doubt you carry a card, if that's what you mean. I admit you are exactly as unbiased between Democrats and Republicans as most journalists.