Oh yes, I was definitely a christian, and i know, I shoudn’t have had sex outside of marriage, I was wrong.
I have been going to churches for 20+ years, and no one has as much as wanted to see me outsdie of church, or called or even said Hello much less wanted to help. 
Bob, suppose you are driving a SUV. I may think that you’re wasting gasoline and therefore giving a leg up to the Arabic terrorists; I may think that you are abusing the common spaces (parking lots, etc.) by driving that hulking big machine. I may feel that you’re endangering people by driving down the freeways at 70 in that monstrosity I may have other morally sound reasons why you shouldn’t be doing that.
But all I can do is to tell you my opinion, and let you make the moral choice whether or not to keep it or trade it for, say, a Geo Metro. I have no right to compel you to get rid of it – even if your driving is endangering the lives of others (in the last case, I might have the capability of reporting you to the police, if I cared to take it that far, but I’m sure you see my point).
It may very well be the pregnant woman’s moral duty to carry tht child to term. But it’s her decision to make as to whether to carry out that moral duty – not mine.
Poly:
C’mon, you can think of a better analogy than that. How about the guy who kills his elderly mother to end her suffering? Is it that person’s decision whether to carry out his moral duty to take care of his mother instead of killing her.
My point is that the fetus is more like the elderly mother than like the SUV.
Hmmm.
It seems it pretty much HAS to turn on the question of (a) whether or not one believes that the unborn has a soul, and when; and (b) whether one can accept the consequences to society of one policy or another.
As to (a), I do not believe “that which makes one a human person” takes effect much before birth. What purpose would be served by nine WEEKS, much less nine MONTHS, of solitary confinement? My (God given) power of reason tells me that such is unlikely to be the case. If God wishes to say otherwise–definitely, in my ear–I will listen and modify my view accordingly.
The person best positioned to sense the facts is, I presume, the pregnant woman.
As to (b) I can only reiterate that policing the womb would bring this society too close to a totalitarian police state. (There are limits on how vigorously a society ought to persecute wrong-doers–even murderers!)
I do agree that, if you are faithful to a certain church or sect, and it is a teaching of that group that abortion is murder and cannot be justified, you are honor-bound to do everything that one could ask of a citizen to oppose abortion. I don’t see how a faithful Catholic can support abortion. But then, I’m not Catholic.
No one can say for sure when that “spark of life”, the soul, enters or leaves a body…what purpose does it serve to constantly debate that which we have no way of ever finding out?
I never said that I would want to have an abortion. What I said is that I don’t have right to make it so that no one has the option. Abortions probably wouldn’t decrease as a result of overturning Roe v. Wade any more than theft has decreased as a result of a law being enacted against it. People make choices in their lives. People make good choices and bad ones. No one knows anything about anyone’s decision-making process until one has been in exactly the same situation with exactly the same ramifications.
I too would grieve for the unborn child if I had an abortion. I tend to believe that life begins at conception because I believe that a pregnancy is one of the little miracles that happens in everyday life. There are people who have had an abortion or many abortions and they do not grieve. Should I invest the time and energy to convince them that they should be in mourning? How would I go about making someone feel bad for something that they don’t feel bad about? Why would I try to when I believe in the final judgment by God?
The fact that I believe in God in a certain way that may be different than that of the next person I run into does not mean that God has bestowed upon me divine knowledge.
I get the impression from a lot of fellow Christians that there are some that fully believe they are the best judge of how things should be done, and that is not necessarily true. Nor is it the way I live my own life or practice my own faith and beliefs.
I’m sorry to hear that, vanilla.. They should have been willing and wanting to help if they knew the situation. After all, if they had, a life may have been saved. I’m sorry that they didn’t help.
How about this as an analogy, militant vegitarians who wish to prevent you from eating any meat of any sort. They wish to pass laws preventing the consumption of animal products because they see animals as possessing a soul.
Currently, a massive majority of the population believes that animals don’t deserve the same protections under the law as humans. They would never support this type of legislation because it forces others to follow a group’s morals. And, hopefully, a majority of the vegitarians out there wouldn’t want to legislate their morality either, they would perfer to persuade people to stop eating meat through other means. While they believe that they are correct, and killing animals for food is an abomination, they recognize that it is a choice that people have to come to themselves.
If you believed that killing a cow for meat was taking the life of an animal with an immortal soul, would you legislate against butchers?
“If you believed that killing a cow for meat was taking the life of an animal with an immortal soul, would you legislate against butchers?”
Yes I would certaintly try to (as some of the PETA folks are doing).
I would not, however, condone vigilanty killings of butchers, nor would I condone it for murderers.
You would feel OK in voting against legislation aimed at preventing something with an immortal soul from being killed?
BTW, this is HIGHLY hypothetical for me as I don’t believe in any kind of soul. Do you?
I’d vote against it.
The presence of a soul is a religious idea, not one that a law in a secular country can be based on.
It’s also not something that can in any way be proven. It strikes me as a very, very bad idea to base laws on what one group of people ‘believes to exist’ but cannot prove.
If that were the case, we might face a day when we have to outlaw guard dogs because Santa Claus might be mauled.
I don’t believe in souls, but even if I did I wouldn’t vote for legislation based on something I consider a religious belief. While I can effect my own actions and try to effect others through reason, I feel it unethical to impose what are strictly religious beliefs through legislation.
You could extend this line of reasoning to ask if cruelty to animals legislation falls under the same grouping. If someone feels that dogs are property to be used (and abused) by their owners, aren’t we imposing our beliefs by saying that they don’t have the right to abuse an animal? However, this feels different to me, perhaps it is the difference between ethics and religion, I don’t know.
For better or worse, we recognize certain rights in this society, such as people are responsible for the care and feeding of their babies (and pets). This doesn’t extend to babies before birth, at that point we defer to the judgement of the mother. I personally think this is correct, and feel that changes to that would be wrong for a variety of reasons. But I recognize that it could change.
Poly, I’m sorry, but I don’t see your point, and I don’t understand your analogy. Forgive me if I’m being dense.
If I took my SUV (what the hell, I’m already in it, driving around your analogy;)) and I begin to run people over, deliberately and in the belief that I have the right to do so, would you feel morally justified in stopping me if it were in your power? Why? What makes that situation different than abortion from your perspective? Is it right to have laws against such activity?
I’ll ask another way: do you feel it is ever justified to impose morals on others? If so, what justifies this action, and why doesn’t it apply to abortions, particularly if you personally believe abortions are immoral because they harm a blameless human being?
You’re right, it’s a poor analogy. But I don’t feel a whole lot like constructing more analogies so they can be torn apart.
Let’s assume a woman. Whether she went out for the precise purpose of being laid, or is a twelve-year-old that has not yet learned the facts of life, or is a woman who can become seriously ill if she becomes pregnant (as one of our members here happens to be), or whatever, the fact of the matter is that she has become pregnant.
Her body is being occupied by another living entity – my impulse is to say unborn human being, but there are those who would disagree as to the status of humanity of an early-pregnancy fetus. If she removes her body from supporting that entity, it will die, given the current state of extrauterine medical care for fetuses that undeveloped.
Does she have a moral obligation to provide that entity with the life support it needs until it is capable of being born as a human baby? I personally think so.
Does society have a right to demand that she do so? I believe not.
Do I feel it is ever justified to impose morals on others? Yes, to prevent them from forcing or coercing others to do as they insist.
Does that imposition apply to an abortion? I think not. Why? Because, although that unborn entity may have rights, the woman also has rights to the care and control of her own body, which nobody else has the right to remove from her.
Bottom line: While I think she has the moral duty to provide that child with life support until it is capable of living on its own, I do not believe that society has the right to institute such a demand on her in its behalf.
That helped. BTW, in wasn’t my intention to belittle the analogy, only to show why I couldn’t grasp it.
**We have rights in conflict here. Why does the woman’s perceived right trump the right of the “unborn entity”? Why are you comfortable with society permitting the “removal” of this right from the unborn, if you do in fact believe the unborn have rights, while the woman’s right is inviolable?
Because, Bob, it’s the standard of jurisprudence that a given right held by a given person does not necessarily, and in the absence of some strong separate assertion, does not at all, impose a duty on a third person to put him or herself out to assure that given right. The general jurisprudence regarding “Good Samaritan” laws makes rendering assistance to someone needing help voluntary (except in Alaska).
It may be my duty as a policeman, a D.A., counsel for the A.C.L.U., or something else to assist you in asserting your rights; it is not my duty as a citizen to, unless I feel a moral call to do so irrespective of what the laws may or may not command.
If we want to preserve the right to life of an embryo which has not yet attained the level of development where it may survive outside the womb, it is our consequent responsibility, not to coerce by law the woman in whose womb it is growing to carry it to term, but to develop “artificial wombs” capable of supporting the embryo until term (Marion McM Bujold has some relevant comments on this) – or to allow a childless woman willing to have the implant done to have the baby transplanted from the womb of the “conceiving parent” to the (artificially readied for implantation) womb of the “later pregnancy parent” (to coin a couple of titles to distinguish which woman we’re talking about).
Are you kidding?
I knew a neighbor, fellow chrsitian, who had babysat my son a few times. She was good and understood and only charged 1.50 an hour!
But I was a dancer at the time, and she refused to babysit while i was dancing as she would be responsible to promoting sin that way. Seriously.
Hmmm, I don’t know quite what to say about that. Perhaps it depends on what kind of dancing you were doing or perhaps she should have babysat for the sake of the child. It’s very hard sometimes because of the many situations that arise for a Christian to know what the right thing to do is. You don’t want to do something that says you condone what someone is doing and at the same time you want to be loving.
It’s hard for me to say what your neighbor should or shouldn’t have done. Maybe this person was following what they believed the Lord wanted them to do at the time, I don’t know. I don’t know whether to say she was right or not. Could be she was or not. 
Right – the woman’s working at a job that her neighbor considers immoral, so she won’t watch the kid, because that’d be “condoning immorality.” So she effectively forces her to quit the job by refusing to babysit. Now that’s an excellent witness to something, but I’ll be damned before I’ll call what it’s a witness to “Christianity”!
Bob Cos
In your sarcasm were you referring to my references to the RCCs support of pedophiles or were you just emphasizing how they are not thieves but lovers of their neighbors.
Anyway what about EX 21:22. God distinguishes between the death of a fetus and the death someone born.
Exodus 21:22-24 seems to indicate that an unborn fetus is not the equivalent of a human being. There are also many verses in the Bible that all seem to agree that life is associated with drawing breath. Fetuses don’t breathe, so they are not truly alive.
Badtz Maru -
Can you cite scriptures associated with drawing breath and life? I think that if we can see what the Bible (the word of God) says about this then we can discern what Christians should think. Surely most of you believe that Christians should not have ideas contrary to the word of God.