When Does Life Begin?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 бер 2024
- Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade almost two years ago, the debate about abortion has taken on new dimensions. Factions within the pro-life camp are now battling each other. Could they break apart the Religious Right? The team discusses the debate, some of the historical views on when life begins, and why it is so difficult to have a nuanced conversation around the issue.
Watch the full video here - / 610-learning-to-101122287
Subscribe to the Holy Post Podcast
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Show notes and more
www.holypost.com/post/610-lea...
In my mind, US religions fell off the rails when they traded religion for political power and decided to became a voting block.
same mistake was made 2000 years ago by some
Given that that’s what we rejected in 1776 (George III, head of church and state) it’s a bit sad.
Nothing new in terms of history though.
I grew up Evangelical. Am still Evangelical and couldn't agree with you more ❤❤❤
Ugh there was literally a Trump ad right before your video
@@Justanotherconsumeryet those that proudly call themselves Patriots' ignore this fact.
A rabbi, a priest, and a minister discuss the beginning of life.
The Rabbi says it is first breath.
The Priest says it is conception.
The Minister says it is when the kids move out and the dog dies.
I'm pretty sure the ancients knew about conception. They knew it happened when the seed was deposited. They had livestock. They had their own babies. They didn't know about how it happened microscopically or genetically and they might have been fuzzy about eggs. But they for sure knew conception happened.
The concept that the mother is “fertile ground” where the father “plants a seed” (the word “semen” and “et semini eius” from the Magnificat) imply that the father is doing all of the work of conception and that the mother is just a caretaker.
This is completely and totally false - the sperm barely contributes anything beyond some redundant DNA that isn’t even, strictly speaking, needed. It’s just a starting gun.
They may have had ideas about it, but they were so bizarre that they weren’t even coherent enough to be called wrong.
”For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
Psalm 139:13-16
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
Psalm 51
Yay longer format videos!!! I missed this …
Thanks for making a longer video. Keep it up, please.
Gotta love the context note. "Ends a pregnancy." What else ends, Google? _What else ends?_
To say that abortion isn't ideal is an understatement, particularly when it comes to late term abortion.
The thing about late term abortion is that nobody waits that long unless they were planning on keeping the pregnancy and giving birth (unless they were prevented from getting an abortion earlier due to lack of access, which wouldn't be their fault).
They probably already had a baby shower. Already had a name picked out. Already had a space set up in their home. Already made plans with their family and friends for the future.
Also, pregnancy isn't exactly an enjoyable experience in some ways. It comes with health risks. It comes with unpleasant side effects.
If late term abortion is even being considered, it's probably for a very good reason. I trust that those who are pregnant and their doctors can make a better decision than politicians who likely know little to nothing about the impact the laws that they pass would have.
In any case, the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent them at their source: unwanted pregnancies.
@averageuser4367 I encourage you to go read a May 2023 Atlantic article about an abortionist (Hern) in Boulder, CO titled, "The Abortion Absolutist". It may make you think twice about your optimistic position here.
Here are a few tidbits from the article:
"Abortions that come after devastating medical diagnoses can be easier for some people to understand. But Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic do not have these diagnoses...
The reason doesn’t really matter to Hern. Medical viability for a fetus-or its ability to survive outside the uterus-is generally considered to be somewhere from 24 to 28 weeks. Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it...
Hern and his staff carry out up to a dozen such [2nd and 3rd trimester] terminations every week...
Hern sent me a copy of his poetry collection and his new book on global ecology. In the latter, titled Homo Ecophagus, he compares mankind to a cancer on the planet, writing that our unrelenting population growth will ultimately lead to the demise of every species on Earth. To view human beings as a scourge seems a rather ominous perspective for a man who ends pregnancies for a living."
My thoughts on this matter can't really move past the lived experiences I and others I know have experienced. I knew a woman who was forced to Cary her dead baby for 2 and a half weeks until her body finally went into labor because she couldn't afford to travel several states away. She didn't develop sepsis which was nearly a miracle but the agony what she went through, Noone should suffer that.
@@rebeccaholcombe9043 My understanding of situations like you have described here are that many are based on lack of clarity or confusion in transitioning to these new laws and not necessarily the new laws themselves. There is not a single state which has implemented law which are not protective of the life of the mother, or that restrict D&C's if the baby has already died.
If the baby was determined to be dead, can you tell me exactly why the doctors did not perform a D&C? Was it because of the plain letter of the law, or lack of clarity and interpretation of the law?
@@StumblingThroughItAll they didn't deliver because abortion was defined as termination of a pregnancy. She wasn't septic so her life wasn't in danger immediately, and the fact that the baby was dead didn't mean she wasn't pregnant.
I see the same dilemma as Adam and Eve where God told them something specific. Then, in walks the satan with a rationale reason to question and cause doubt in what God had actually told them initially. And since then, that type of process has trickled on and through to this topic today. For me, Psalm 139:13, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb." We know what a mother's womb is. And the language in this verse does not declare anything about a baby, or anything we want to categorize or rationalize our positions today. It simply says, "You created my inmost being, you knit me together..." Again, what does that mean? That is the minimalist of tiniest form stationed in the mother's womb declares us to be a living being put there by God. Now, if you wish to debate all the rationed reasons the satan has entered into the arena today. By all means, do so. But, by mindful of this one thing. God put that "inmost being" in the mother's womb. And at the end of the day, if He decides to take it away. That is completely up to Him. We do not have the right to step into that role. We are not God. And usurping His authority was what got us kicked out of the garden in the first place. When will we ever learn?!
Life begins at "hold on... is supporting or opposing this going to help me be on the winning team?"
Ah-ha! 🧏♀️ There it is!
Well, christians are moving away from talking about it when it comes to running for office, but if they get in you can bet they will enforce whatever they can get away with by any means necessary. Christianity contains no morality, just a desire for power. Don't trust them. They may not be saying anything while running for office, but they intend to outlaw abortion in ALL cases, outlaw contraception in most cases (if not all) and force EVERYONE to obey their religion. They don't run on it, but it is what they intend to do. The Heritage Foundation has released their Project 2025 document making it all VERY clear.
If you think this is about winning you are in the wrong space.
I am so fed up with the mentality that the world 🌎 is divided between winners and losers. I can't think of a less Christ like concept.
If everyone on this planet thinks that I am a " loser" because I refuse to trample on others to get ahead yet I hear the words " Well done good and faithful servant"when I actually stand before the only and only true King 👑 because I took the ACTUAL Words of Jesus to heart " love your neighbor as yourself" I will be a "/Winner ' in God's eyes and God is the only omniscient being . So his " vision " alone matters.
When are you going to start posting complete episodes on UA-cam again?
I wonder that too, but I think they are keeping them on Patreon to drive people there to subscribe to HP+. I'm disappointed in this move.
@@maryhamricit's available without subscribing to it. They're using shorter videos to make them easier to share.
@@batmanop9254 Well, sharing a long form video is just as easy as sharing a UA-cam short. No difference. No other podcast I follow which has video and streams on a podcasting app does this. They post both video and audio. Typically, you want your pod to be available to as many people as possible on as many formats as possible. I can't access Patreon on my VPN...so no. I can't see it nor share it the podcast. So, they have limited themselves. The only reason I can deduce from this is to drive people to become HP+ subscribers. I think they offer great content for fees, I just can't afford it. So I'm left with the bits they share in short form to share instead of the whole podcast. And the special guests don't seem to be getting much of the short play visibility on YT either.
What about Psalm 139 - "you knit me together in my Mother's womb" or the LORD's message to Rebeccah - "two nations are at war within you"
I knitted a scarf once. The thread wasn't the scarf, and it wasn't a scarf until I finished knitting it. And the message to Rebekah was a prophecy. But you make an excellent point. If the common belief by the Hebrews was that ensoulment begins at first breath, how did they interpret these verses that seem to imply pre-natal ensoulment?
Yes but why throw away the potential warmth a scarf could bring to a cold soul ? Encourage them to keep knitting that beautiful scarf
@@hgservices5572 sometimes it's not the right season for a scarf, or the scarf you're making is too big for the intended recipient.
Btw, I'm very curious how long we can keep this metaphor going.
True , perhaps the season isn’t cold enough for a scarf, but why discard its future potential , perhaps someone else needs a scarf in colder climate or perhaps one is freezing to death and don’t know it until they felt the warmth of the scarf they initially intended to destroy ?
@@hgservices5572 but why burden a person to make a scarf if they are not up to the task?
hey, love the Calvin U. shirt Kaitlyn... we missed that when you discussed the pink Duke hat. Great combination! 👏
I think that my position has the highest levels of nuance and thought and is the only right position: y'all need to start putting the whole podcast up on UA-cam again.
Sex outside of marriage is a sin, so what are you fighting for?
Your pleasure idols?
Ethnics can be complicated. I am more of a pragmatist about this issue. I do think where a viable pregnancy exist we should encourage bringing it to term. Of course you have things like tubal pregnancies , baby dying in the womb, hemorrhaging and so forth where abortion is the lesser of the evil. I think the state has an interest in encouraging woman to have children , by encourage I mean help with the raising of the child. Not mandate. But if we allow abortion I think the state should not have the say , the woman and her doctor should make the decision. As far as when you become an actual human being , lets be humble enough to realize we do not actually know.
babies are conceived.
Is it me ?, But I happen to notice that everyone who is for abortion has already been born ….
Everyone who is against abortion has already been born too! 😊
@@denniswakabayashi9000 good response. Got ‘em.
😂 didn’t get nobody ,😂
@@hgservices5572
You haven't noticed that everyone who is against abortion has already been born too? 😎
Ontologically , those who would have opposed abortion haven’t a say in the matter as they had been aborted 🙄
- Phil, opens and modulates within the context towards an exemplary :could DJ both music and conversation forums with a natural leading and easing -in my humble opinion
I remember in seminary we had a long discussion of the Exodus passage. My Hebrew proff (Dr. John Currid) argued that in the Hebrew version of it, the term for "harm" would have applied equally to both the mother and the child in the example. He argued that the distinction between harm or not harm would have dealt with whether she was caused to give birth prematurely, and no punishment is needed, or to miscarry, in which case it would be life for life because the child was murdered. The passage can't be taken to refer only to harming the wife, as otherwise the fact that she is pregnant would not be relevant.
The crew left out an important piece of the story. Yes Catholics had been absolutists on abortion since 1869. But Protestants hadn't, and the two had never been friendly. Why did conservative evangelicals agree to join forces with Catholics? What was in it for them? Could it be that Weyrich offered them a way to gain power so as to protect the tax exempt status of their segregated universities? I think so. And when the Moral Majority helped Reagan get elected and his IRS backed off, did that support pay off. I think so.
As someone raised Catholic I'm pretty disgusted by what transpired. My tribe threw the dignity of non whites under the bus to 'protect' the unborn, while doing nothing else to promote a culture of life, and also failing to recognize that racism harms a culture of life. Is it any wonder that my faith died. No, not really.
They didn’t bring that up here, but they have discussed it in past episodes.
Evangelicals care only about “life” in the womb. After that, baby, you’re on your own. Good
Luck! Pastors will always be able to take their mistresses in for an abortion. Catholics just want all the like papists they can get. Thus, no family planning of any kind.
@@Wren_Farthing Could you please share which one(s)? I would very much like to hear more about this.
As one who lived through that era, I believe there was not widespread concern, but a minority of powerful ministers who approached the RCC. I myself studied in seminary and learned that the souls of miscarriages and aborted babies go to Heaven-saved by God’s grace because the could not make a decision or exercise faith at that undeveloped stage. Protestants reject the Catholic prohibition on all forms of birth control.
@dans - EXACTLY!!
@20:25 I had a vasectomy so my mistress can't get pregnant. Folks be responsible with your mistresses.
No one is ever inconsistent when it come to their actual ideals and goals. They will say whatever they think they need to say to achieve those. If they have an inconsistent stance on abortion, it is because they don't actually care about abortion.
An egg or sperm have living cells. The question is for after fertilization - when does an embryo becomes llhuman? The Catholic Church is the main organization that pushes that a human is human at conception. Historically, abortion were performed in Colonial America before 22 weeks. Modern science states about the same. The fetus is not viable outside the womb before this time. So, it is a subjective religious issue and not an objective science/factual issue. Law should be objective and we allow judges to use some subjectivity in their application of punishment.
This 40/80 days timeframe for ensoulment is interesting because in Leviticus a new mother is ritually unclean for 40 days after having a son and for 80 days after having a daughter. I wonder if that informed this weird hypothesis of Aristoteles?
So, when we look at what the Septuagint says vs the Hebrew, we should keep in mind that the modern accepted version of the latter is from the Masoretic text... which was written centuries after the former, and scholars are not at all sure the latter is closer to the original text (Though no one disputes the original was written in Hebrews, just that there were changes made in the text). Ultimately as one considers the question, the Catholic position makes sense as almost any line we draw, after conception is de facto arbitrary... This doesn't mean we should make it murder... or even illegal, but the Anti-Abortion movement in this country has for a long time been willing to embrace folks who were not pro-life per say being they supported Capital punishment and opposed helping the poor.
Thank God you guys exist. I am a conservative leaning christian who struggles with how to deal with this topic. I am not convinced by either side but I do believe that life is a blessing and we should aim for promoting life. As for the specific details of whether life begins at conception, i cannot answer. I love how you guys try to apply wisdom in these discussions and your honesty in stating that the boundaries are blurry.
Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
Fear is always about the unknown, and if we are honest fear is an admission that we do not know.
We cannot learn if we think we already know.
Only biblical wisdom is right, and to say life doesn’t begin at conception is unbiblical and goes completely against Yahweh.
My concern with downplaying the life or death element is sort of like saying we should have downplayed slavery because other political issues existed at the time. Or the Holocaust for that matter. On those issues it was a black and white, life and death issue. People who didnt do anything back then look bad now. Kaytlyn has been doing a good jobs lately.
You know the US tried to downplay all those issue because of other political concerns?
@@JohnThomas-ut3go It's a dangerous game.
@@DeJay14 it's not a game, it's the US. As once said, 'you can always count on America to do the right thing after they tried everything else's.
You still can see that's true. America doesn't care who or how many die till they are confronted with a situation they can't ignore it any longer.
Concerning Hebrew translation. It depends on which one we're using. If you are referring to the Masorertic text, that was made several hundred years after the Greek. We don't have early Hebrew text save the Qumran scrolls. Some would argue as to which is more reliable. The Greek because it was translated from some earlier form of Hebrew that we no longer have or the Hebrew because it's, well, Hebrew even though it's relatively late as far as translations go. But interesting thought.
Amen Kaitlyn. At the approximately 26 minute mark. These have been my arguments for a long time. Even if we make abortion totally illegal everywhere and always in the United States, it will never completely go away. So we are not talking about eliminating abortion. We are talking about improving life so fewer abortions happen. That is what I focus on, and that is why I got away from conservative right wing politics
No law has ever eliminated any crime. There is not a single crime; misdemeanor or felony, which has been eradicated because a law against it has been passed into law.
Biblically speaking, one of the very, very few expectations and roles of government is the restrain & punish evil & to protect it citizenry. And this would include abolishing abortion, as otherwise is denying specific people equal protection under the law.
By this reasoning. Nothing should be outlawed because laws do not stop crime 😐
Where is the conversation about men? What role do they have in this issue? Will they be criminalized? As I read somewhere, Zero pregnancies occur without a man.
🎯 No baby is ever conceived without male participation at some stage of things, even in IVF. If they drove and/or paid for their wife, mistress, girlfriend, daughter, etc to get the abortion, aren't they complicit? 😒 If we're going to label this as murder, then that makes that man an accessory to murder at least.
If we are going to criminalize adultery and fornication, then we're just a step closer to religious totalitarianism.
I’m glad this is being talked about more and more.
Criminalized for what ? If they kick a girl in the stomach with child they should be ! Otherwise, charge a man because he impregnated a woman who then went and killed the baby?? Not unless he aided and abetted in the murder , how else toe the man in the death unless he had something to do with it just for being part in its creation?
Adam "became a living soul," not when he was formed, but when he breathed. The people raised from the grave in Ezekiel's prophecy of the Valley for Dry Bones were said to be alive, not when their bones came together and they stood on their feet, but when they breathed. "But from conception there is a total blueprint for the person!" Well, yes, but if I snatched a blueprint for a house from an architect's hands and threw it into a fire, I am not guilty of arson, because I didn't burn down a house.
Tell that to mothers who miscarry. What a weird statement.
not a contradiction
Good conversation. Problems these days: The people making the laws have no medical knowledge about pregnancies and are going strictly on personal conscience. In many cases, they didn't even consult with medical professionals in the field before writing and introducing these laws. The absolute abortion ban and possible punishment of women doesn't take into account things like ectopic pregnancies (which are a matter of life or death for the expectant mother) and must be surgically removed. Potential life may begin at conception but will not develop unless the embryo is attached to the uterus. A woman can have a fertilized egg slip on through and never be "pregnant" in the common thought of what a pregnancy is. IVF cells are not attached to the uterus until implanted, and then some of them may not implant. (a friend had 3 introduced at one time and only one was successful. This was on her second try. The first time they placed 2 and neither successfully implanted. Should we say that she "killed" 4 children while finally giving birth to 1?)
Jewish thought has been that full personhood status begins with the first breath after at least the baby's head passes out of the mother, as G-D formed Adam (as a complete form) and breathed life into him. The soul of a person, however, is pre-destined and the combining of the particular soul with the particular body it enters results in a breathing human at birth and leaves the body at death, when life ends and breathing stops. Also, Jewish belief is that the life of the mother must be the priority is cases where carrying the child to full term would result in her harm. There are, unfortunately, many in evangelical circles who would insist that a woman die trying rather than save her life.
Well said. We live in a fallen world, Such that not every combination of sperm and eggs will result in healthy children. As noted here unless successfully attached to the uterus, the development of the fertilized egg, will not become a child. Because of variability a single, all encompassing definition of life's beginning is beyond us. When is killing murder or self-defense. How should we weigh the life of the mother against that of the developing fetus? It is way too easy to take an unyielding stance and miss the nuanced wisdom God has shown us in his Word.
The reason they don't consult doctors and have vilified professionals, especially highly educated is they know their ideas go against evidence.
"The people making the laws have no medical knowledge about pregnancies."
THIS. And it's evident that they don't have knowledge about basic female anatomy and reproductive system to begin with. I frequently complain that TV and movie scriptwriters should consult actual professionals about pregnancy and birth stuff, but that's trivial. When it comes to making laws about our lives, it's crucial that not just one but multiple professionals for whom this is their life's work should have input. You know, actually licensed and practicing OB/GYNs, Midwives, Maternal Fetal Medicine specialists, etc. (I'm a professional Birth Educator and, even not being a healthcare provider, some of the completely erroneous info in the legal stuff that's come up in recent years has been baffling.)
To believe that the zygote is already a human being
Is to adopt the warped untenable belief that most people will be killed off before being born!
As someone who has had an ectopic pregnancy and almost died from it. Thank you.
A more interesting and more important question is when does the unborn has a soul ( if one believes the concept of ensoulment). There is no hard line but it is probably safe to say sometimes during the pregnancy where the closer you are to birth, the higher the chance that the body has been ensouled.
I have heard Numbers 5:16-28 coming up in the abortion debate with a lot more frequency recently, as it very much does appear to be instructions for the priesthood on how to create an abortifacient that would be administered to women against their will, because their husband had “feelings of jealousy come over him” especially relevant when you understand that the Hebrew for thigh was used either euphemistically or believed to be part of the procreation process.
I think this is relevant to what Kaitlyn was saying about men wanting to have access to abortion for their mistresses.
That is a stretch, since pregnancy is not even mentioned in that passage.
@@RobertG3567 the “withering of the thigh” line is essentially what we would now call the womb becoming barren; as the thigh was thought to be part of the reproductive process and where the baby was initially believed to come from.
Like many topics, we begin with an issue of definitions. What do we even mean, when does life begin? Doesn’t life exist before conception? Isn’t the egg and sperm alive? I think we mean, when is there a new soul present but that is not how it is ever phrased. The Bible gives us some unique examples and analogies but does it ever clearly state a point in time?
: the balances should be weighed fairly and evenly with as all so cases no matter what they attend to be
I appreciate all the nuance with your nuanced discussion on the nuance of ending the life of a child in the womb. It was enlightening and helpful. I’m excited to see what kind of nuanced fruit that will be birthed for generations to come.
Cynical about the nuance, are we?
@@Wren_Farthing I said I appreciated the nuance. Maybe my nuanced response was not clear for you.
@@jamesthomas12 It was not, thanks.
There is so much nuance when nuanced discussions evolve into hyper nuanced elaborations in their distinctions .
@@hgservices5572 You and the OP are invoking the slippery slope fallacy. Nuance, especially for the God-fearing, is not a path to an “all bets are off” conclusion. Recognizing nuance is a characteristic of the humble and curious, and protects us from assuming a God-like knowledge. We can hold opinions and feel reasonably confident in them, but always with an understanding that there are limits to what we can know (all of 1 Corinthians 13, verse 12 in particular).
Psalm 139:13-16
New American Standard Bible
13 For You created my innermost parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, because [a]I am awesomely and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My [b]frame was not hidden from You
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully formed in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my formless substance;
And in Your book were written
All the days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
Life at conception is actually somewhat arbitrary, although it may be a reasonable point. It probably make more sense that life starts at implantation. Now in terms of when did the process of human development starts, one could take a different way and say it starts as early as the sperms enter the vaginally cannel as that is the beginning of the process.
Augustine wasn’t very good at Greek if he could even work with it. He would have read Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.
- the definition of being formed from conception :as thus: in stages :though to a definition of woven : but formed nonetheless as with in conceptuate
Unfortunately, this discussion was not necessary because of psalm 139: 13-16
The Catholic Church also has a different version of the 10 commandments then the Hebrew Bible.
Every biology textbook agrees that a human zygote is a distinct living human organism.
This is observed scientific fact.
And all humans (no matter their size or level of development) are made in the Image of God.
To have this entire conversation but never bring up the Image of God is grossly irresponsible.
Another thoughtful discussion. I walk away not dissuaded from the conclusion that the time of “ensoulment” is not going to be determined by us mortals in the near future or forever. That is theology subject to zillions of interpretations. Public health matters mostly are very much determined by the people directly involved. Guess which should have priority.
- Kaitlyn, seems to be very knowledgeable as towards the reading ; and also, very eloquent, as with her presentation ,emphasis ,and punctuation for the most part
When an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm cell.
It’s really as simple as that.
@@ChanningChea
Yep. Amen.
Science/biology destroys the belief that the fertilized egg is already a human being
Since 2 or more human beings can come from the same fertilized egg.
Educate yourself! 😃
On quickening: "And you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses & sins." It does seem at least to me that "quickening" in the Bible is the opposite of being dead, the exact point at which a person is considered suddenly alive. Spiritually, we have no life apart from Christ, and God has to first quicken us with even the faith we need to believe in Him. It seems like He does this with those He foreknew would choose Him if He did.
GK Chesterton also lamented the loss of critical thought and reflection to slogans.
¨Life begins at the intersection¨
Leviticus 17:11, For the life of the flesh is in the blood. Blood occurs around the 16th day.
SOMEHOW it always comes back to News of The Butt. 🤣
The Exodus verse is talking about the baby as there are already laws on accidents against others.
Conceive is in the Bible.
Sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is sin.
So what is the point in having an abortion?
The Bible talked about believers sacrificing their you for false idols.
And that is exactly what abortion is.
Sacrificing for your pleasure idols.
“…the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” Proverbs 12:10
It’s pathetic that you all try to find every reason to justify the murder of a child.
So... People say life begins at fifty...
_“Life is in the blood…”_
This is just a thought, recognizing we approach these unrevealed mysteries with fear and trembling, and the passage itself has more to do with diet… (and the diet aspect is actually validated in the New Testament in Acts 15:20), but…
Leviticus 11:10-14 tells us that life is in the blood.
DNA alone doesn’t make up a person. If a living person loses a finger, that finger doesn’t become the person or remain the person, even if the finger is kept alive. Same with an organ, or skin graft cells; those cells are not the person until they are attached or reattached to the person.
Replicating cells have a DNA fingerprint, but they’re cells, and not a distinct life until the system of replicating cells has its own blood, and not only fluids in its newly-formed blood vessels and heart, being pumped from the mother. Its own blood makes it independent life.
And it’s just a thought, not a declaration.
It is so unbelievably refreshing to hear nuance instead of extremism
so tired of identity politics, there are no black or white in the church, we are all one in Christ
You concede that any position on where human life begins other than conception seems arbitrary. But you do not let that lead you to the obvious conclusion-that any position on this that is arbitrary cannot be true from a Christian perspective. Because we believe that people are made in the image of God. That is where we get our worth and value. And the image of God cannot be arbitrary.
I will simply ask you-if humans are not in the image of God from conception, when do they gain the image of God? Is there any indication in scripture that the image of God is something that we don’t have initially, and we gain it at some point in development? And was Jesus not fully a human person when he was first conceived?
There are plenty of issues where nuance and complexity are appropriate and necessary. Who counts as a person is not one of them.
This is not solely about the image of God or lack of same as you suppose. Not even close. For those of us who have suffered miscarriage it's about the fact that if life 🧬 truly always began at conception such things as still birth sids and miscarriages would not exist. Fyi a miscarriage is classified as a " spontaneous abortion" yet most miscarriages occur before a woman is even aware that she is pregnant and a very large percentage of first time pregnancies and in miscarriage. Women also frequently die giving birth. Every human life 🧬 matters not just that of the not yet born.
You are not arguing in good faith this argument is not solely about the image of God as you suppose. If life always began at conception then such things as miscarriages, still birth sudden infant death syndrome and a baby dying because of water on the brain would not be so common place You are also deliberately overlooking the fact that women all throughout the course of human history have DIED during childbirth. This is why men have no real reason trying to even argue this point. You don't even care if a woman is going to die giving birth all you care about is making sure that she has no say in the matter .
Fyi most women miscarry before they are even aware that they are pregnant and first time pregnancies often result in miscarriage which is scientifically defined as a " spontaneous abortion". So this is a natural phenomenon and you believe that " nothing happens outside of the will of God" but if abortion is supposedly murder then why would abortion happen naturally?
By the way I have never personally had an abortion even though I had two high risk pregnancies but I despise the notion that the only way that I as a woman would have carried my children to term is if I were given no other choice. A woman ♀️ is a human being who bears the image of God TOO.
You know how prohibiting alcohol led to the rise of bootleggers? Because grown men don't like being told what to do? The same thing occurs when men in power take choices away from women. It doesn't lead to less abortion. It leads to back alley abortions that can prove doubly fatal. I am so sick of having to explain this to people who think that making guns illegal won't stop people from buying them ( duh) the logical inconsistency is headache inducing.
While I personally care for what the Bible says about the issue I believe there is sufficient debate to encourage legislation based on common morality over what my interpretation of the text is. Most people don’t have a hard issue with ceasing life support for a brain dead individual, most people would have an issue with it if you knew that person would miraculously recover in 9 months. This to me is the best from conception argument. There are obviously holes that can be poked in that argument. I believe a more universal moderate position is around the capacity to think. Obviously a baby doesn’t have deep philosophical thoughts but it can respond to stimuli. There is a stage in utero where a fetus/unborn child does the same. The is debate around exactly when this is but it seems that treating a fetus different at that point would be more consistent with the other Western nations.
Most conceptions will not result in a successful birth.
Do you believe most people will be killed off before being born???
@@denniswakabayashi9000 do most possible humans never get a chance to breathe? Perhaps. My sticking point is that we certainly have a higher responsibility to someone with brain activity. I believe that this places the onus on those opposing abortion restrictions at about 20 weeks gestational age and later.
@@joshf2685
"Do most possible humans never get a chance to breathe?"
Couldn't understand your gibberish!
What are "possible humans"?
I'm saying to believe that the zygote or early embryo is already a human
Is to believe most humans will be killed off before being born.
@@joshf2685
Science/biology cannot tell us IF or WHEN the developing embryo/fetus become a human/human being/person
That is a philosophical or theological question/debate and outside the realm of science/biology to answer,
SINCE we are biologically different from a embryo/fetus where we breathe through our lungs and do not receive nutrients from an umbilical cord attached to a person.
Personhood is applied through social construct
Where the US does not bestow full personhood status in the womb.
The fetus has never been treated as a person under the Constitution
Where the current US Supreme Court AFFIRMED that precedent
When allowing doctor assisted abortions in Mississippi (Dobbs).
In post Roe America virtually any woman seeking an abortion could get one.
Many states allow doctor assisted abortions in the first trimester even past 20 weeks gestation.
All states allow women to travel out of state to procure an abortion.
All states allow women to take abortion pills up til viability (20+ week).
The burden is on the anti-abortion control freaks to codify the unborn as a person
BUT in the meantime lawful abortions continue in every state.
I'm with you on the idea that either of the extreme views, conception or birth, are lazy and too easy and don't take into account any nuance. It's really not popular to be moderate about these issues though is it?
King David of Israel, a thousand years before Christ, wrote in Psalms 139:13--"For you created my inmost being---you knit me together in my mother's womb".
So the ridiculous notion that Christians haven't always believed that life begins at conception simply falls apart
Except read that in context. He isn’t saying that that happens then, there’s a quotation of it in Jeremiah 1 and like Psalm 139 the context is God knowing his plans for us (and Jeremiah).
God knew what we would be long before we were conceived. There is nothing there about abortion in context.
@@Justanotherconsumer You're not going to change my mind from wanting to protect the most innocent among us
@@impalaman9707 regardless, the claim that started this thread is a manipulative and dishonest abuse of scripture.
Believe what you want, but don’t twist the words of scripture to make it say what you want to hear.
@@Justanotherconsumerthank you for this thought. I’ve never heard it before and it is something to consider.
@@Justanotherconsumer There is no worse "abuse" than hands that shed innocent blood, which is one of the things God hates according to scripture, and the real "dishonesty" is when people claim there is no life in the womb
Kaitlin was closest. Really don't like Phil's attempt to define when God gives a human a soul. It feels scientific and not sacred. It is sacred. But we do have to find the best way to move forward
Phil missed the mark about the Old Testiment passage. It wasnt gendered language, the harm applied to both the mother and the child.
Is that in the text?
@@Justanotherconsumer Read the above statement
@@DeJay14 that it’s not gendered doesn’t change that the mother and the child are explicitly treated differently.
@@Justanotherconsumer If the baby is born(comes forth) without harm correct. Also if they are treated differently then it would exclusively be gendered towards the mother, hence the language. The word harm isn't connected to just the mother.
@@DeJay14eh… this is a stretch that requires reading a lot into the text.
It’s a possible interpretation, but far from persuasive.
I wonder if Evangelicals would advocate for funerals for miscarriages. That would be more consistent, however it is more of a personal family thing.
?????
I wish pro life conversations included discussing participation in war and things like care for the elderly and the disabled, along with care for mothers and children, etc.
Yea it all starts with the RIGHT to life
Only Phil finds out these crazy info..lol
Skye, boys and girls have the same parts. The same organs that become Testies become ovaries and the rest of the bits just develop into other configurations as well.
Yes and no.
Genetically the sexes (gender another matter) are distinct. Boys have a Y, girls don’t.
Usually.
As with anything in biology, it’s always more complicated than that.
And female is the default, so without the influence of androgens the appearance stays female
@@Justanotherconsumer that defines where the parts go, but all the parts are still there. There are no extra parts. Just different placement and jobs.
I came here to comment on this bit. The foundational components of both male and female reproductive organs are the same until the genetic instructions direct whether to develop externally (testes and p3nis) versus internally (Ovaries and cl!toris).
These can be identified via ultrasound by 12 to 16 weeks gestation. A blood test can confirm as early as 6 to 10 weeks gestation.
(Spelling variations added to avoid getting flagged. 😂)
@@JohnThomas-ut3go the Y chromosome is a part.
How that affects anything else in the body is complex to say the least, but the Y chromosome is a thing.
Where in the Bible does it say life begins at conception? Doesn’t the Bible say that life began in the garden of Eden and ends at the grave. When man became a living being every cell in his body became live. The sperm cell is alive. Therefore M is a sin. How many living beings are lost when sperm is “spilled”.
??? Let me help your logic . The abortion debate is involving humans not sperm . Killing a human is not the same as killing sperm in that killing a human is not like clipping your toenails or cutting your hair .
In full disclosure I left the church a long time ago as well as being a recovering almost Catholic so my views are going to probably be much different than many here. I left because I feel the church has become some kind of country club that only certain people can be a member of and I don't believe politics and religion should mix, ever.
I really dislike the politicizing of personal matters. I don't want politics in my bedroom or in my doctor's office. I also feel that the state of our society (at any given time) has created the situation that we are debating.
Someone will claim it's because Christianity has been removed from society(schools, life style, what have you) while my experience has been that Christianity has been removed from the church.
If we hadn't caused these societal situations that created unwanted pregnancies we wouldn't have anything to debate about. Conservatives use it as a way to force their will onto people and liberals use it as a bargaining chip to get their next hand picked candidate elected.
As far as I'm concerned it's something that should be decided in private. This whole idea that my personal medical decisions should be decided by governments and someone else's religions disgusts me to no end. I will always be on the side of you keeping your nose out of my personal and medical business as long as people feel compelled to save babies just to not care about them after they are born. They are the group that should have the least to say about when life begins. For them it begins at conception and it's not their responsibility after it is born. I call BS!
there is a right supposedly to choose to have an abortion but not to take a vaccine, my body my right except when it came to covid
6th the 5th... Im so confused.. Stop.. Ok Phil soul or not any infant or child before a certain age goes to heaven.
Why is legislating morality when it comes to abortion the only acceptable option for Christians to support, but legislating morality when it comes to caring for the poor "socialism" and something that Christians must oppose?
If we were to actually take care of the poor, abortion would largely take care of itself as well.
Legislating “ don’t kill people” can come with the caveat “ give money to poor people” if you like , or they can stand alone
Aren’t we always to go back to the original Bible text for greater accuracy? The Bible was given by God to the Hebrews not the Greeks. Then the pope gets involved they have made all sorts of changes to the Bible.
Abortion seems to be the symptom, not the disease. That being said, I am a Catholic. I hope the Church develops its doctrine to say whether she really wants 9 year-old rape victims to be forced to carry to term? If so, will her baby be taken away from her (once she has been forced to bond with him/her) because she is so obviously unable to raise the child at her age? Can a young unmarried woman who is not sexually active use contraception while focusing on her studies because rape is so common on college and university campuses?
On a lighter note, am I the only one who thinks Sixtus the Fifth sounds like a great idea for a Veggie Tales episode? And Sixtus the Fifth’s Bull? Priceless.
Many decisions that we make in life are ultimately between ourselves and God - and we alone will answer for the choices we have made. This is far too personal, life-altering, and complicated of a decision to legislate by law. Women are human beings with God-given free will. They should not be forced, coerced, or compelled to carry any pregnancy to term.
This has nothing to do with podcast but Trump ad showing up was surprising here
@lisareed5738 take it as a sign.
Everyone reading this will better serve God by voting for Trump.
The ad tells you so.
Most watching these podcasts are lock step against Trump.
Not a good look.
You see whatever is good, focus on those things.
So where are all the Biden good messages?
There are none.
These podcasts express opinions, but the desired intent is to convince people that hating Trump is acceptable.
It isn’t. We are called to love.
And this podcast is not showing any love, not any reason to vote for dementia Joe.
I pity those that are so full of hate for a Trump. It’s so sad and unbiblical.
So enjoy the ad.
Everyone go vote Trump, join the 61M and then 75M and this year the 95M for Trump.
It’s going to be awesome.
And it will even be good for this podcast.
Four more years of hating on someone.
@@michaelward7051for someone who preaches about not hating politicians, you sure don't have many positive things to say about Biden.
At least some of the other trolls here aren't as cowardly in their positions as you are.
Trump 2024! For sure!
@@michaelward7051"a sign"?
@@batmanop9254 “ a sign?”
God ordains abortion in Numbers chapter 5.
When does life begin is a question meant to distract people. One thing I never hear in evangelical spaces is a discussion of how abortion was a tool and its link to an effort to keep schools segregated.
Anti-abortion outside darholics wasn't a big debate until the IRS started threatening to revoke tax-exempt status on white evangelical schools that did not integrate. Abortion was the issue that was decided had the best chance to unite evangelicals into a voting block behind those wanting to maintain segregation.
The Christians avoid talking of these links as if they never existed. Like on this snippet, they talk as if it was just another shift in Christian thought. That shift was directed, organized, and had a purpose. it wasn't to save babies. The idea was to get control of as many states as possible and the federal government to put people in place to over turn the civil rights laws and if they got control of enough states change the constitution to protect discrimination. They used abortion to get evangelicals to join segrigationist in order to have the voting blocks to do it.
Yes, we got people in place to over turn Roe, and they did. What other laws are they talking about and challenges they are overturning laws and precedence over? Civil rights laws. Even talking of overturning protections to mixed marriages.
Anti-abortion has never been the goal. Just the medium. Life has never meant anything. It's never been about life. We know how to reduce abortion. We know how to reduce unwanted pregnancies. We know how to do these things well, supporting women and families. The christian right has fought any and all attempts to create a nation that supports mothers and families.
The question isn't when life begins. That's a dustraction. The question is, do you see them for what they are, and can you still stand with them. Can you justify the racism and hatred for anti-abortion, anti-health, and anti-family legislation?
See, when does life begin? 3.7 billion years ago. There has been nothing but stages of lufe since then. A life existing doesn't matter. Preventable death happens every day, and we do nothing. It's been that way for 3.7 billion years. Preventable murder happens every day, and we do nothing. It was that way since laws distinguished between justified killing and unjustified. Killing the innocent doesn't matter. We as a species have been murdering the innocent since we learned how to kill. When life begins doesnt matter.
The question we should ask is when will we start valuing life? It isn't today, and yesterday's gone without addressing this question. The right doesn't want to answer this question. If they did, they would have to value all life or make public some lives only have 3/5ths a value to them. If they declared a value to life, they would have to tax the wealthy and institute regulation and law to support and protect life. The right does not and has never valued life. That won't change.
If you are true to the idea that abortion is wrong because all life should have a chance, then stop thinking of abortion as an evil and start thinking of harm. Some cases abortion is mercy, and forcing births does great harm. We should start asking what we, our churches, our states, our country can do to mitigate harm. If life was truly the issue, then harm, not life's beginning, is the metric we should use.
I am pro-choice because i am anti-harm. The New Testament is full of stories and anecdotes that teach us how to be in relationships with each other that reduce harm. There is no condemnation of abortion in the bible. We decided this was evil. We used our knowledge of good and evil to desern the inherent evil in it. We are not wise enough to also see the good in it. Perhaps that's why itisn'tt in the bible. There are ways to reduce harm so that abortion becomes the last choice rather than a prime consideration.
I the end they mention Weyrich who is reported as stating the use of abortion was to form a voting coalition to fight intigration.
@JohnThomas-ut3go. What on earth does “anti-harm” mean to you? For a lot of young, single women, their living children are a major obstacle to economic progress. Are you advocating for infanticide? Because it sure sounds like you are. And, without the reproductive rights of the past 50 years, blacks would be a far larger minority with far more clout. What’s to say that YOUR position isn’t racist?
I don’t buy the whole “Evangelicals are only pro-life because of political expediencies.” Rank-and-file Evangelicals have been pro-life almost for forever. Both of my parents, born in the twenties, were both pro-life and anti-contraception from the word “go.” Neither was Catholic. They were culturally rural and agricultural. Limiting family size never entered their minds.
The growth of abortion advocacy required an urban, educated, upper-class mentality.
Damn, straight spitting fire there mate!
That’s been covered on the Holy Post. See episode 480, interview with Randall Balmer.
@@Wren_FarthingYes, I remember that episode now that you flag my attention to it. I rewatched it so that it is fresh in my mind as I contemplate your reply.
Do you think this video justifies not including it here? In my opinion it makes it worse. There are no good links to the Bible, religious, or cultural ideologies to justify an anti-abortion belief. It's foundation is racism. They know this. This video they spend a great portion if their podcast time directly contradicting the video you referenced in trying to link the anti-abortion movement to history, religion, and culture. They never acknowledge its roots in racism. As is said a a bad tree can not bear good fruit. Look at the results of the racism based anti-abortion movement. Harm to families, women, children, bounties, removal of rights persecution. Intentional or not all of that is justified in this video by creating a false link between the anti-abortion movement and the past.
The Bible says that lying lips are an abomination before God. They created a lie of ommision with this episode. They knew that racism was the roots of this movement and they pointed to health roots of another tree and said see all is good.
There should be no discussion about the anti-abortion movement without pointing out that the whole movement is a cover for racism and its goal to undermine and dismantle the progress we have made in equality, equity, & integration. The same people who tore down abortion access are already doing the work that the anti-abotion distraction was cover for and are talking about what's up next. Abortion is just the test to see how the right reacts to taking rights away. They got rid of affirmative action. They have said they are coming for equal rights and interracial marriage.
The fact the video showing ghe link between anti-abortion and racist is there makes this apologetics video 100 times worse.
I don’t quite follow……my African American pastor, about a year ago during ministry outside of a child sacrifice center, was once called the “N word” by a vile white individual who was in support of the abortion of the unborn, and he was the racist one?
Abortion isn't even a political trump card; it's a political football. I stopped voting straight Republican when I realized that.
Did you not hear that the justices whom Trump appointed took the football and abolished roe v wade?
Sure it’s punted to the states but knowing that movement actually happened in the Supreme Court should prove out that voting pro life can actually produce fruit . There are a few pro life democrats but not many and agreed there are many so called pro life RINOS so the sentiment still has some effect
The Supreme Court caught the football recently and scored a touchdown. Where you been ?
Old Hebrew, Greek and stoic philosophies helped shape the discussion around life and personhood for centuries. It never started with “conception” as they knew it, but mostly around the “quickening”. That’s when the baby starts moving around the uterus. Dan Mcllelan has talked at length about the chapter that the pregnant lady gets harmed and explains that the Hebrew scripture treats the fetus more as property, hence the fine. This pairs well with how people treat slaves in the OT, more like property than as people. The way you guys are discussing this is very important, and I commend you for doing it. I think that one thing that never comes to question is the pregnancy . . . why is that? No two pregnancies are the same, and women who have medical conditions or even cancer, pregnancy can be harmful to the mother and child. If there are complications during a woman's pregnancy that requires an incredibly hard decision to be made by the mother, that is her decision to make either with the help of the father, her pastor, her doctor, her therapist etc. etc. BUT should not be FORCED by anyone into a situation despite her wishes. If you can convince someone who is going through the abortion decision to not do it, then GREAT!!! But if you can't convince them, then it is THEM that has to suffer with that consequence, and NOT you. Because I can guarantee you, it is THEIR suffering that is much greater than yours. THEY have to live with it and not YOU.
From Anatomy & Physiology: a fertilized egg does not guarantee life. It only presents the possibility of life.
A portion of fertilized eggs just pass out of the woman's body without implanting. Another portion do not form correctly and miscarry. (1 in 4 women have had a miscarriage.) There are some that died in utero, usually from problems in it's formation.
If a fertilized egg is a person, are women who miscarry or experience stillborn births liable for the egg's, fetus', etc. death?
In identifying a fertilized egg as a person, there are big implications that must be considered.
Here's another ethical question to throw in the mix: Should a society compel everyone by force of law, to use their own bodies as a means to keep another person alive? Which is in effect what happens when laws are made that force women to carry pregnancies to term.
If people want to be irresponsible how about gov funded tube tying etc in place of hacking up babies for birth control
I think Kaitlyn's perspective here is really good.
I actually think we should view this topic much in the frame of how race-based chattel slavery was thought of pre-emancipation. The entire conversation was based around personhood and citizenship. Who was worth being considered a person who's rights were to be protected?
"The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them." - Dred Scott Ruling
I see some massive similarities between our current abortion debate and the debate that was being had about black Americans. From theological, to philosophical, to governmental, to economical. The debate was around personhood, who was a person, and what implications that would have on our society.
This is why Kaitlyn's bigger question is so good. If we are a society that does not place value on the most vulnerable in our midst, and discards them at will, why do we find it surprising when we propagate a deathworks culture there after?
@StumblingThroughItAll Is it possible that this discussion is rather irrelevant?
No matter the reasoning, the history, the quotes, the logic, doesn’t this come down to individual choice?
Why the need to have a “collective answer?”
Are we not all responsible for our choices?
If New York allows abortion until Birth, but New Jersey only until 15 weeks.
Does it matter?
Are these spiritual discussions?
Are we believing in souls, and spirits?
Doesn’t the faith suppose a relationship with our creator?
And therefore is t all this discussion essential a game? A fun what if?
Because no matter the reasons, the methods, the law, God measures our hearts.
If it’s legal by a government, does anyone really believe God is going to change his mind about what is the loving thing to do?
So there you go. I suggest not to sweat this one.
@@michaelward7051 1. no.
2. individual choices have collective consequences (that's why we have laws against murder and assault)
3. Because personhood en utero and out of utero is a collective moral concern because people have inherent value.
4. Yes, we are responsible for our own choices, but we are also responsible for justice for all people. We must not stand by while people are murdered.
5. It matters because of answers 3 and 4.
6. All discussions are spiritual discussions because God isn't somehow separated from any aspect of our lives; He would no longer be God if there was any aspect out of His purview. Right and wrong are especially spiritual issues, as it is God and not humanity who determine morality.
7. Yes.
8. Yes.
9. No, there are absolute moral truths and we should live by them and enforce them; especially in regard to the sanctity of human life. People are not a game to be played with.
10. If atrocities are legal, that does not change God's absolute moral truth. (Our laws don't change what is right and wrong). However, as we live in a democratic society, WE are the rulers. WE make the decisions. And that makes us morally responsible for the way that we run our country.
@@RobertG3567 ok...please look up Viktor Frankl, he gave an address in March 1988 on the 50th Anniversary of the Anschluß of Austria.
Viktor was a Jew that stayed with his parents in 1938 or so, when he could have immigrated to the United States, but he decided to stay with his elderly parents.
They were all rounded up as Jews.
After surviving the concentration camp, he commented on the experience and as a survivor, he holds no remorse towards the German people.
He correctly states that there is no collective guilt.
There are only abständige and unabständige Mensch.
We are all responsible for ourselves, but not responsible for others.
That's the way God created the Universe.
There is no collective guilt.
Here's someone worth listening to, not Phil, or Skye or Kaitlyn, what heroic accomplishments have they had?
But all three support collective guilt, because God did not lead them to experience the evils of Nazism, which is the Democratic Party and Joe Biden, Obama as Goebbels, and Clinton as Herman Goering, ok history doesn't repeat, but it Rhymes.
So the triplets have no credibility, what have they suffered?
Listen to those that have suffered, not theoretical people that describe the way things "ought to be" when they haven't experience the way things are....
Cheers, and enjoy.
ua-cam.com/video/leGKtWlwHt4/v-deo.html
@@RobertG3567 See your replies...and while I'm hear, your logic on 2. is not correct. We have laws against murder to discourage murder, it has nothing to do with collective...
@@michaelward7051 Aren't we all responsible for our choices?
If the Union does not want to allow for race-based chattel slavery, but the confederacy does, does it matter?
Are these spiritual discussions?
Are we believing in souls, and spirits?
Doesn’t the faith suppose a relationship with our creator?
And therefore is it all this discussion essential a game? A fun what if?
Because no matter the reasons, the methods, the law, God measures hearts.
Right?
Finally. The question about when 'personhood' starts is the primary question and nobody has been talking about it. If personhood (in the legal and moral sense) really does start at conception, then all the arguments about privacy and controlling my body are meaningless. It's murder if it happens before or after birth. On the other hand, if personhood happens at 40 days, 80 days, or quickening, then an abortion before that time isn't murder and there's nothing to talk about. I don't see hope for any kind of compromise here. The cynic in me sees that a lot of organizations have a vested interest not in women's health or babies or life but in continuing the fight.
I find myself siding with pro life in general but read this post containing much truth
Good discussion. If you want to open up an even bigger can of worms, discuss birth control (hormonal). Does it prevent conception or implantation? My understanding is both (especially with modern dosages).
Also, I can see this historical stuff turning into a book.
If you really practice consistent theology and go all the way back to Genesis life begins the moment you take your first breath. " God breathed life into Adam and he became a living soul) being".
Fish are alive
I listened to the podcast yesterday and I have to say the way that Skye talked about the aftermath of RvW being turned over as a way of people wrestling with the nuance of this, it made my stomach sick. Women are dying. Women are being forced to carry pregnancies they can’t handle whether it’s physically or mentally, women are being forced to endanger their life through pregnancy. I get there’s nuance. I have appreciated how, in these conversations, you use Europe’s model of abortion laws as a good standard. But in this interview, it came across as women being expendable. That it’s OK a women suffer because we’re gonna figure it out in the long run.
Is the pro-life position based upon the 6th commandment : Though shall not kill? If so,why is the 6th commandment more important than the other 9 to legally enforce, like adultery? Why aren’t Evangelical Christians fighting for to outlaw the other 9 commandments?
Also, God has given us free will to choose to keep or not to keep all the commandments as well other behaviors and practices that God instructs us not to engage in? Don’t we have the right to choose “ sin over righteous”?
How KA-YOOT is Kaitlyn in her ball cap? Almost as cute as her Librarian look.
"They" go by whatever Trump says. The dogs who "caught the car" knew exactly what to do with it until Djt started backing off his (alrdy weak) position. THEN, it was "oh nooo...THATS not what we meant"..
6:00 obviously, we ought not let Aristotle inform us on the subject.
🎉We should go by what we know TODAY. And ultrasound provides far more than just an emotional response.
SPEAKING AGAINST #abortion, someone has said, "No one should be denied access to the great feast of life," to which the rebuttal, obviously enough, is that life isn't much of a feast for the child born to people who don't want it or can't afford it or are one way or another incapable of taking care of it and will one way or another probably end up abusing or abandoning it.
And yet, and yet. Who knows what treasure life may hold for even such a child as that, or what a treasure even such a child as that may grow up to become? To bear a child even under the best of circumstances, or to abort a child even under the worst-the risks are hair-raising either way and the results incalculable.
How would #Jesus himself decide, he who is hailed as Lord of Life and yet who says that it is not the ones who, like an abortionist, can kill the body we should fear but the ones who can kill body and soul together the way only the world into which it is born can kill the unloved, unwanted child (Matthew 10:28)?
There is perhaps no better illustration of the truth that in an imperfect world there are no perfect solutions. All we can do, as Luther said, is sin bravely, which is to say (a) know that neither to have the child nor not to have the child is without the possibility of tragic consequences for everybody yet (b) be brave in knowing also that not even that can put us beyond the forgiving love of God.
- Frederick Buechner (1926-2022)
I find it interesting that Mary was not FORCED to become a mother against her will. She was asked, and she agreed to the arrangement - including all the risks that would obviously come with it, the life altering consequences of it, etc. Pregnancy is long, risky, and inherently life changing. It is no small thing. Ultimately, I believe that the person who is pregnant, has the human right of God-given free will to say yes or no. At all points of pregnancy. There are far too many variables to ever write a “law” to govern every possibility. They alone will have to live with their decision. It should not be a decision that anyone takes lightly, or that anyone ELSE forces upon them.
There are some complications as her ability to consent or not was somewhat limited.
I mean, if the almighty tells me I’ve got a job to do, I’m not going to say “no.”
@@Justanotherconsumer
The point is that abortion is a God -given choice.
That was a very VERY poor example to try to advocate for abortion. I mean , what if she aborted Jesus ? Like literally reading your comment we have to ask ourselves per your example , oh, so you’re saying that Mary had the choice so she simply could have aborted Jesus the messiah and all is cool between her and God , I mean WHAT???
@@hgservices5572
Of course God wanted Mary to choose!
There's no glory without being allowed to choose!
Glory to whom?
This also dodges the question raised by this biblical example. You’re telling me that God would be good with her choosing to abort Jesus??? Those are the choices in context here , carry to term, or abort which begs the question either or and we can imagine the repercussions if Mary had “chosen” to abort and would not be out of line to call it just plane evil, Am I right? That is why o don’t think this example
strengthens the argument she thinks she’s making here. In fact it weakens it.
Is an apple seed an apple tree?
Is a kangaroo fetus a kangaroo? Maybe we should check its DNA?
Abortion is a moral issue that has been made political. Since it has been made political, the law should reflect this. In the end, the individual's decisions would be judged before the Creator and true determiner of all life. We should not impose our morality upon others, instead as our laws should reflect, the consented moral limits society has agreed to place on itself.
If our laws don’t protect babies why have any laws.
@@bobbobberson5627laws do protect babies. It's illegal to kill them.
Ultimately laws with any sort of gravitas whatsoever are seated deeply within values and morality .
Excellent discussion. I recently answered the question posed "Is a frozen embryo a child?" with "I believe it has the potential to become a child," and then had to defend my Christianity with my education and career in science and healthcare. They are not mutually exclusive. And as an aside, it took me a few second to recognize Kaitlyn. Love the March Madness get-up . (Go Irish!)
First of -- LOVE YOU GUYS! You’re my guilty pleasure every week😁
Secondly, I come from hyper-fundy Churchianity. So my views WERE pro life at all costs. No exceptions, ifs ands, or buts.
But lo and behold, now I have a 14 month old daughter. So my views have changed. Thankfully I’m now an Ex-Fundy.
When I think of the hypothetical situation of (GOD FORBID) my daughter being r@ped in her pre-pubescent or during puberty my only instinct is to protect her from more harm. If she got pregnant from s3xual assault, I would definitely take her to end the pregnancy.
I know that’s not popular, but unless you have to deal with the issue, you’ll never understand someone’s situation.
Amazing , pro life before having a baby, pro choice after . Glad you waited
Not sure if that was a compliment, but I prefer the term Pro-Woman.
Both sides have their extreme views, which I don’t agree with. So I choose a decent middle ground, that is as humane as possible.
Pro woman? So you only abort male babies ?
It wasn’t a compliment it was a , “ whew, you apparently decided to be for abortion AFTER you had your baby girl and not before , thus cutting her up before her birth wasn’t on the table , so , she made it 100 just before you changed your mind .”
Early Christians didn't understand indoor plumbing either so to use the Bible for reproductive science is horribly laughable
Actually they had indoor plumbing and hot and cold water in Antioch in the first century.
Jesus is refers to as “my Lord” while Mary was pregnant for less then two weeks l.
f you think living in modernity makes you more intelligent than peoples from the past you should try reading a letter from an average civil war soldier w a third grade education. Surprising.
If you think living in modernity makes you more intelligent than peoples from the past you should try reading a letter from the an average civil war soldier w a third grade education. Surprising.
@JeremyTiedtke The seat of the Roman empire is hardly representative of the time and unless we are accept all telling of the Bible originated in Europe now it is also quite ancillary to the point. Jesus and his disciples weren't flushing toilets nor were the prohets that preceded him in the Old Testament where much of rhe backwards practices impacting zealots' understanding of what should be good and acceptable today. The Bible has many uses. Biology and applied science aren't in that number.
Just stick to the Bible, read Psalm 139:13+15 with full knowledge of the biology of meiosis, mitosis in the chromosome level.
Obviously God knitted our half strand from father & half strand from mother, then woven the mRNA into various proteins as building blocks of cells & the next cells.
.: God knows us even before conception, at the meiosis of egg & sperm.
So, stop equating evolution as disbelieving in God & let our children learn proper biology to fully understand God’s word.
Extra point: do you know how the kernel of wheat die & produces many seeds?
Hint: It’s 100% biologically true.
Read the whole of Psalm 139, and also read the first chapter of Jeremiah as it provides an example of how the psalm was interpreted in the period.
It’s far more profound than “we were created at that point” - God’s knowledge of us goes well before the biology happens. He has a plan. We (and Jeremiah) are part of it.
It’s a far more profound discussion on, say, predestination than it is on biology.
The Bible doesn’t tell us to “just stick to the Bible”. That’s not a statement on this issue in particular, but a general caution. We’ve been given many tools for our understanding: the Holy Spirit, experience and reason, natural revelation, other Christians, etc. The minute you think you’ve got the goods with “the Bible clearly states…” you need to check yourself.
Psalms 139 is not a discourse on personhood in the womb.
"knit me together in my mother's womb"
The Psalmist is describing God's reproductive process which eventually created him
He is not saying every zygote or embryo or fetus is already a human being!
The next verse 14
"fearfully and wonderfully made"
Most conceptions will not result in a successful birth But will be spontaneously aborted/miscarried,
How does "fearfully and wonderfully made" apply to all those lost conceptions?
In verse 16
How many days were already ordained and recorded in the Book for all those lost conceptions that NEVER saw the light of day?
What does the Bible say about distorting scripture? 😬
If life begins at conception wouldn’t Jesus have told Nicodemus that he needed to be “conceived again” to see the kingdom of God instead of born again (John 3)?
So that is a good question;
The physical act of birth does not mark the beginning of life. It is the deliverance of a living human, via obstetrician or midwife, from womb to the outer world. What I am saying is that the words “born” & “life” aren’t synonymous. Pre-birth, the child is simply in a different location.
Acts 3:15 calls God the “author of life”. The birth canal isn’t the author of life.