Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

[peter_speckhard]

We all agree that abortion changes a living thing into a dead thing. There is no argument there. At issue is whether the thing so reduced from life to death is a human being or not. Actually, that isn’t even at issue among serious people. The mere fact that we know it is so when the baby is wanted makes the case, even apart from the scientific fact of it. The pro-choice side must change the subject in order to pretend the argument is about some other topic, make up a distinction between beings that are human organisms and those that are human persons, claim that the mother’s desire to have the baby or not actually confers or withholds personhood on it, or engage in some other obfuscation of the matter.

[Matt Hummel]

So is this how Brian and Charles see it?

https://youtu.be/CNgwsT295G8

[Jeremy Loesch]

Oooooooh Fadduh Hummel, now I'm confused.   

Jeremy

[Brian Stoffregen]

So is Brian being willfully ignorant of the difference between a gamete and a zygote, or is he actually scientifically illiterate?

I've been arguing that there is a difference.

[Brian Stoffregen]

We all agree that abortion changes a living thing into a dead thing. There is no argument there. At issue is whether the thing so reduced from life to death is a human being or not. Actually, that isn’t even at issue among serious people. The mere fact that we know it is so when the baby is wanted makes the case, even apart from the scientific fact of it. The pro-choice side must change the subject in order to pretend the argument is about some other topic, make up a distinction between beings that are human organisms and those that are human persons, claim that the mother’s desire to have the baby or not actually confers or withholds personhood on it, or engage in some other obfuscation of the matter.

It's more subtle than that. The question is whether or not the thing that goes from life to death is a viable human being. The issue of viability (or when the soul enters the fetus in some long-ago discussions) was part of Roe v. Wade. It is part of our ELCA's Social Statement on Abortion.

[peter_speckhard]

We all agree that abortion changes a living thing into a dead thing. There is no argument there. At issue is whether the thing so reduced from life to death is a human being or not. Actually, that isn’t even at issue among serious people. The mere fact that we know it is so when the baby is wanted makes the case, even apart from the scientific fact of it. The pro-choice side must change the subject in order to pretend the argument is about some other topic, make up a distinction between beings that are human organisms and those that are human persons, claim that the mother’s desire to have the baby or not actually confers or withholds personhood on it, or engage in some other obfuscation of the matter.

It's more subtle than that. The question is whether or not the thing that goes from life to death is a viable human being. The issue of viability (or when the soul enters the fetus in some long-ago discussions) was part of Roe v. Wade. It is part of our ELCA's Social Statement on Abortion.

Why is that the question? Paralytics, infants, the elderly and infirm-- all kinds of people are not viable on their own. But even conceding the poorly reasoned logic of Roe v. Wade, the distinction between living and dead does not apply to the discussion except as the obvious result of killing somebody.

[DCharlton]

I was relating an argument from the early Roman Catholic church that had a less biblical view of "soul".

Which Roman Catholic belief was that?  Can you name names? 

[Jim Butler]

We all agree that abortion changes a living thing into a dead thing. There is no argument there. At issue is whether the thing so reduced from life to death is a human being or not. Actually, that isn’t even at issue among serious people. The mere fact that we know it is so when the baby is wanted makes the case, even apart from the scientific fact of it. The pro-choice side must change the subject in order to pretend the argument is about some other topic, make up a distinction between beings that are human organisms and those that are human persons, claim that the mother’s desire to have the baby or not actually confers or withholds personhood on it, or engage in some other obfuscation of the matter.

It's more subtle than that. The question is whether or not the thing that goes from life to death is a viable human being. The issue of viability (or when the soul enters the fetus in some long-ago discussions) was part of Roe v. Wade. It is part of our ELCA's Social Statement on Abortion.

You are defining viability as "when the soul enters the fetus"? Can you please tell us when that happens? Can you tell us how you know that is when it happens? Please be specific. What is the operational criteria for knowing this?

I didn't realize that "when the soul enters" the child was a "part of Roe v. Wade." Nor did I realize it part of the ELCA's social statement. Please give citations.

[D. Engebretson]

The church of past eras seems to have been clear on the nature of human life in utero. Somehow, late in the 20th century, parts of the broader Christian community seem to have become less clear on the status of that unborn life. Some parts of the church even changed course on their understanding of human life in utero in a rather dramatic way. The Sexual Revolution was in full swing after the mid point of the century, and the sexual act was more and more separated from the marital union, which itself was becoming more and more of a token of another era. Birth control measures were refined and expanded, and now children were one of many choices a couple made in the course of their relationship (however it was to be defined).  But 'oops' moments occurred (for even the best control measures are not fool-proof; or some do not want to be inconvenienced by them when in the throes of passion), and now a fully accessible and legal means was necessary to conveniently terminate those unwanted pregnancies so that careers and education and other activities could go on uninterrupted.

If the Sexual Revolution of the late 20th century had not occurred, and if parts of the church had not been pulled into the swirling orbit its uncompromising demands, would the idea of abortion have been such a topic of debate among us today?  Or are there those who feel it was inevitable and that the Bible all along supported it and we just hadn't caught up with its real message?  Or, that abortion is one of the neutral topics upon which the Bible is just too vague to be dogmatic?  How did we get here?

[Dan Fienen]

Am I a viable human being? For my continued life I am dependent on the medical/pharmaceutical industry that is far beyond my capability to replace on my own. Most obviously, I, as a diabetic, am dependent on a continual supply of insulin that I cannot produce myself, either in my pancreas or through other means at my disposal. I don't know how long the rising blood sugar would take to kill me, but probably weeks, not years. Similarly, my high blood pressure without my meds would do me in. So, since I cannot fully take care of myself but am absolutely dependent on others to be viable, am I a viable human? If that viability is the crucial determinate of personhood and human rights, have I lost those rights?

[DCharlton]

If the Sexual Revolution of the late 20th century had not occurred, and if parts of the church had not been pulled into the swirling orbit its uncompromising demands, would the idea of abortion have been such a topic of debate among us today?  Or are there those who feel it was inevitable and that the Bible all along supported it and we just hadn't caught up with its real message?  Or, that abortion is one of the neutral topics upon which the Bible is just too vague to be dogmatic?  How did we get here? 

I think abortion is one of the first fault lines in what has become the obvious incompatibility between a Christian world view and 20th Century and early 21st Century American culture.  To adopt the Sexual Revolution, one must first adopt a secular view of what it means to be a human being, of what it means to have a body, of the purpose of life, and of sex.  Once that is done, it becomes very difficult to argue that abortion is wrong. 

Speaking from a male/masculine perspective, if abortion is wrong, so is sex outside of marriage, and so is viewing sex as a form of recreation. We can blame a lot of it on Hugh Hefner.  I'm afraid that very few men, even men who profess to be Christian, are currently willing to revert to a traditional Christian view of sex.  It's comparable to what is required of men who convert from a pagan religion to Christianity.

[D. Engebretson]

If the Sexual Revolution of the late 20th century had not occurred, and if parts of the church had not been pulled into the swirling orbit its uncompromising demands, would the idea of abortion have been such a topic of debate among us today?  Or are there those who feel it was inevitable and that the Bible all along supported it and we just hadn't caught up with its real message?  Or, that abortion is one of the neutral topics upon which the Bible is just too vague to be dogmatic?  How did we get here? 

I think abortion is one of the first fault lines in what has become the obvious incompatibility between a Christian world view and 20th Century and early 21st Century American culture.  To adopt the Sexual Revolution, one must first adopt a secular view of what it means to be a human being, of what it means to have a body, of the purpose of life, and of sex.  Once that is done, it becomes very difficult to argue that abortion is wrong. 

Speaking from a male/masculine perspective, if abortion is wrong, so is sex outside of marriage, and so is viewing sex as a form of recreation. We can blame a lot of it on Hugh Hefner.  I'm afraid that very few men, even men who profess to be Christian, are currently willing to revert to a traditional Christian view of sex.  It's comparable to what is required of men who convert from a pagan religion to Christianity.

I believe that more and more there is a 'paganization' of the church-at-large and of many so-called Christians.  Aside from sexual and procreative mores, we began to see this even in the sanctuaries of some churches as the outside secular world of entertainment was pulled inside in an effort to woo and win over the so-called "seekers."  The church, in too many cases, is increasingly indistinguishable from the outside culture.  Because we see the decline in the number of people in the pews we panic and try to find areas of compromise so that those outside in the pagan culture will feel more comfortable.  But if what the pagan views inside the church seems no different than what he sees outside the church, why would he commit? 

On the sexual front some of us have fought, for years, an uphill and losing battle.  We realize that in ever increasing numbers our people, especially our younger people, are making choices very much at odd with the church's traditional teaching and practice.  And because church is not important they are jettisoning that for other activities.  They don't need the church, so why would they succumb to its ethical requirements?

Yet some in the church make these 'adjustments' and then attempt to look for justification in the scriptures.  It all feels very backwards. 

[D. Engebretson]

Speaking of the fallout from the Sexual Revolution and the degrading of morals and ethics in the realm of sexuality, consider this article from the Christian Post:

Study finds kids ages 9-12 sharing nudes more than doubled in 2020, researchers concerned
By Leonardo Blair, Christian Post Reporter Facebook

https://www.christianpost.com/news/children-ages-9-12-sharing-nudes-more-than-doubled-in-2020-study.html?uid=bfafe1b062&utm_source=The+Christian+Post+List&utm_campaign=CP-Newsletter&utm_medium=email

We want freedom in the area of sexuality, but have we noticed how that disregard for the boundaries and our insistence on no restraints, has increased the risk of our children to sexual abuse, not to mention a degraded view of the body?  Sex is for self-centered pleasure and entertainment without any regard for it place and use in a true, committed relationship. 

[Dan Fienen]

If the Sexual Revolution of the late 20th century had not occurred, and if parts of the church had not been pulled into the swirling orbit its uncompromising demands, would the idea of abortion have been such a topic of debate among us today?  Or are there those who feel it was inevitable and that the Bible all along supported it and we just hadn't caught up with its real message?  Or, that abortion is one of the neutral topics upon which the Bible is just too vague to be dogmatic?  How did we get here? 

I think abortion is one of the first fault lines in what has become the obvious incompatibility between a Christian world view and 20th Century and early 21st Century American culture.  To adopt the Sexual Revolution, one must first adopt a secular view of what it means to be a human being, of what it means to have a body, of the purpose of life, and of sex.  Once that is done, it becomes very difficult to argue that abortion is wrong. 

Speaking from a male/masculine perspective, if abortion is wrong, so is sex outside of marriage, and so is viewing sex as a form of recreation. We can blame a lot of it on Hugh Hefner.  I'm afraid that very few men, even men who profess to be Christian, are currently willing to revert to a traditional Christian view of sex.  It's comparable to what is required of men who convert from a pagan religion to Christianity.

In re the clause that I emphasized above. I think that the problem there is that sex is being viewed as merely a form of recreation. Sex within marriage has a number of God given purposes. Procreation is a very important one. But it should also be fun for the couple. The old advice that the woman should lie back and think of England did a great deal of disservice. Sex is one of God's good gifts and needs to be treated as such and is one of the ways that God has given us to enrich and deepen the marriage relationship. It is also when sex is viewed as merely recreation that it is short changed.

[DCharlton]

If the Sexual Revolution of the late 20th century had not occurred, and if parts of the church had not been pulled into the swirling orbit its uncompromising demands, would the idea of abortion have been such a topic of debate among us today?  Or are there those who feel it was inevitable and that the Bible all along supported it and we just hadn't caught up with its real message?  Or, that abortion is one of the neutral topics upon which the Bible is just too vague to be dogmatic?  How did we get here? 

I think abortion is one of the first fault lines in what has become the obvious incompatibility between a Christian world view and 20th Century and early 21st Century American culture.  To adopt the Sexual Revolution, one must first adopt a secular view of what it means to be a human being, of what it means to have a body, of the purpose of life, and of sex.  Once that is done, it becomes very difficult to argue that abortion is wrong. 

Speaking from a male/masculine perspective, if abortion is wrong, so is sex outside of marriage, and so is viewing sex as a form of recreation. We can blame a lot of it on Hugh Hefner.  I'm afraid that very few men, even men who profess to be Christian, are currently willing to revert to a traditional Christian view of sex.  It's comparable to what is required of men who convert from a pagan religion to Christianity.

In re the clause that I emphasized above. I think that the problem there is that sex is being viewed as merely a form of recreation. Sex within marriage has a number of God given purposes. Procreation is a very important one. But it should also be fun for the couple. The old advice that the woman should lie back and think of England did a great deal of disservice. Sex is one of God's good gifts and needs to be treated as such and is one of the ways that God has given us to enrich and deepen the marriage relationship. It is also when sex is viewed as merely recreation that it is short changed.

Agreed.  The difference is that modern "paganism", or should we say gnosticism, believes that pleasure, procreation, marriage and family can be separated from one another.  There is a kind of dualism that is not Biblical and not Christian.  Here is where I like Pope Benedict's notion of human ecology.  What affects the part affects the whole.  Or think of Walker Percy's "angelism/bestialism".  Percy's "Love in the Ruins" appeared bizarre to me when I first read it.  Now it seems to describe the world in which I live.  Even "The Thanatos Syndrome" doesn't seem far-fetched.