A judge in Marion County, Indiana has blocked Indiana's near-total abortion ban on the grounds that it violates religious freedom.
Earlier this month, Judge Christina R. Klineman issued a ruling stopping the state's abortion restrictions from being enforced against any Indiana resident who objects to them on religious grounds. The decision concluded that there is "significant public interest in ensuring the religious freedom of all citizens."
The basis? Indiana's own Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a law originally passed to ensure that government policy could never trample on a person's sincerely held religious beliefs. As it turns out, that principle may apply in more directions than its backers anticipated.
What Constitutes a Life?
The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU of Indiana on behalf of five anonymous women and an organization called Hoosier Jews for Choice.
Their argument was simple: Indiana's abortion ban effectively enshrines one religious view of when life begins above all others. Under Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a living person only at birth, and Islam does not hold that a fetus is ensouled at the moment of conception.
For women whose sincere religious beliefs align with those traditions, a total abortion ban constitutes the government taking a theological side.
The ACLU's Stevie Pactor said it plainly after the ruling: "Religious freedom protects people of many faiths and beliefs, not just those favored by the state."
A similar legal effort was launched by Jewish plaintiffs in Florida several years ago, but was ultimately shot down.
A Genuine Theological Dispute
What makes this case unusual – and worth paying attention to – is that both sides are making religious arguments.
This comes down to a disagreement between faith traditions about when life begins, what moral obligations we owe to a developing fetus, and whether any government can impose one tradition's answer on everyone else.
Those opposing the ruling have been equally clear about where they stand. Alexander Mingus of the Indiana Catholic Conference argued that religious freedom laws were passed to protect religious practice, not to protect the ending of a human life.
Indiana Right to Life called the ruling "a perversion of the law's intent," warning that if it stands, any claimed spiritual belief could be invoked to justify an abortion. The state has already appealed the decision.
Where Do Things Go From Here?
The implications of this ruling are in some ways limited, but in others greatly consequential. It was a class action lawsuit, and the ruling regarding abortion access only applies to women with genuine religious objections to the law – not to everyone.
However, the implications are huge, and may reach well past state lines. Because the decision was grounded in Indiana's religious freedom law (which mirrors similar laws in other states as well as federal statute) the legal logic could soon be tested elsewhere.
If the ruling survives appeal, expect more lawsuits to spring up.
What are your thoughts? When different faith traditions hold deeply incompatible beliefs about when life begins, whose theology (if any) should the law reflect?
107 comments
-
Cam Kirmser
Abortion is the unjust murder of another human being. As such, it is irrelevant what any religion says; abortion is an evil that must not exist, unless the life of the mother is at stake. In that case, the mother can choose an abortion, but only if there is no other recourse. As a past girlfriend told me, if it ever came to her life or her baby's, save the baby, not her. That was her choice - I had no say in it.
-
Rev. Kev
"Unjust murder" according to whom, exactly?
If this is simply a legal argument and religion is irrelevant then labeling anything "evil" is not a legal term to begin with. It has also been legal in the U.S. for years. After a few Justices lied during their confirmation hearings and overturned Roe v. Wade, that changed. But abortion is still legal in many states. So....not murder by definition in those jurisdictions.
In those affected states, women and the "unborn" are adding to the fatality statistics by being deprived of needed care. Is that a "Praise Jesus!" sorta thing??
-
-
Shawn F. Orsini
1 Corinthians 7:2 Hebrews 13:4 1 thessolonians 4: 3-5 Genesis 2:24 1 Corinthians 6: 18-20
-
Shawn F. Orsini
If these woman that say it is a religious choice for abortion than they need to read the bible because sex is between husband and wife all other is fornication therefore why would a religious couple get an abortion 🤔
-
Margaret K Osborne
High-risk conditions like severe preeclampsia, cardiac or renal disease, cancer, infections (sepsis), or ectopic pregnancy, as well as severe fetal chromosomal or structural abnormalities are some of the many reason why a woman might choose an abortion.
-
Rev. Kev
The article explained that they were Jewish. Getting an abortion doesn't violate Jewish beliefs since they (and some Christian) believe the fetus isn't a 'living soul' until it takes its first breath.
Then there are a plethora of American citizens of other faiths who don't follow the Bible. There is no good reason for them to be forced to accept and comply with the beliefs of some Christians over their own religious beliefs. That stomps all over their religious freedom. Just as I am betting you would be unhappy if some other religion (Islam, for example) had the power to make their beliefs a matter of law and you were forced to comply with those laws.
-
-
obere mchugh
plain and simple its between a women and her doctor no other full stop!!!, if and only if the women wants to involve the sperm donor then that is her choice since she is the one who has to carry this within her full stop no one no man has the right to tell a women what to do with her body as its her's and hers alone.
-
Man of God
To abort is to destroy an undeveloped life. Life starts with conception. To destroy that life before it has fully developed is killing said life. There are lots of reason a woman and I mean a female that has reached the age to conceive would need, or want to abort. Most young females reach the age to have her first menses between the ages of 11-15 years with the average around 12.5 years. Mary the mother of Jesus was between the age of 12 and 13 years. She was unique. Mary's first conception was by the Holy Spirit. She was not forced, but was asked by God's Angle to except the seed of Christ. She accepted. Mary later had a son and a daughter by Joseph. At that young age, a girl has not fully matured into a woman. In the past when a girl had her first period, she would be considered a woman. She will start to develop the desire for a man. Starting in Gen 3:14 The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this,"Cursed are you above all"!.......To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you".....Study this carefully. Over time God gave man government. As the ages passed, Man matured to the present. With maturity man's knowledge grew. Today, man has laws to protect the innocent. Man now knows a young girl is not mature, and a man's duty is to protect with his life if he must the innocent. Man has developed laws and punishment for acts that are unholy......A girl is a young woman, she could be forced to have sex which could lead to conception, we know and agree with what that means. In such a case she should not be forced to be punished twice. If a young girl does not want to suffer through pregnancy, she has the right to abort in the first 3 months. A woman on the other hand is very different. She is mature. But she too can be forced to have intercourse. She too has a right not to be punished twice. If she does not want it, she has a right to own her own body. We adults know that during the first 3 months, the conception has not matured enough to be human. That is the time to abort the growth. If desire is the reason for the intercourse and there are no logical reason to abort, she is not innocent. She must honor God's curse......There must be laws to protect the innocent.
-
Rev. Kev
That's your belief and you are entitled to it. But no one else is under any obligation to share your belief, let alone be compelled to comply with it by force of law.
By the way, there are dozens of reasons why someone gets an abortion. There can be major life changes that affect the health, well-being, or original plan to carry to term, such as an unforeseen divorce or loss of a job that would have paid for the medical expenses and care of the intended baby. There are also several diseases that kick in during pregnancy brought on by the myriad changes the woman's body goes through. Some of them can be permanently debilitating or even fatal. Not to mention the issues that can occur to the developing fetus that can complicate pregnancy, if not render it untenable.
Which is why this is not a decision you or me or anyone not actually the people involved have any right to make. Not our job to live everyone else's lives for them. It's a personal life decision between concerned parties and medical professionals.
-
-
James Martin Edward Gillen
Just like in 1 Samuel 8, the people want what they want. It is not ours to condemn. We can advise, admonish, commiserate and do what we can to help (before AND after the fact). It is for God to judge. If the world were righteous, if the world was perfect, we would never have needed Jesus. {As far as all these people saying it is none of any man's business, I beg to differ. We are the other half of humanity (something that has been denied so many women for millenniums). Unjust/unrighteous men and women have, and have had, way too much sway over innocent lives.} And here we are.
-
John R Liming
Abortion is murder... no way around it ...Only God can create life and only God should be able to end Life.
-
Rev. Kev
If that's your belief, that's cool. The issue is that not everyone shares your belief. And they should not be compelled by force of law to follow it.
BTW, abortion isn't murder as far as the laws of most states are concerned. Nor should it be since this is a complicated issue involving individual lives best left to those involved (including relevant medical professionals).
-
-
P. Keith Benefiel
Life begins in the male gonad after a couple beers.
-
ServantOfJudgement
I'll drink to that
-
-
Donald V. Dunham
What actually happened An Indiana judge ruled the state cannot enforce its abortion ban against people whose religious beliefs conflict with it. The decision is based on the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which says the government cannot “substantially burden” someone’s religious practice without strong justification. Some plaintiffs argued their faith requires or allows abortion in certain cases, and the court agreed the law burdened those beliefs.
So the court didn’t say “abortion is right” or “God supports this.” It said: the state can’t force one religious view on everyone.
What this really is (stripped down)
This is a collision of three things:
Law (RFRA) – protects people from government interference in their beliefs Different religions, not all agree on when life begins Government authority, trying to enforce one standard across everyone
The court is dealing with the conflict,not defining truth. Where God fits into this This is where people get it wrong.
God is not involved in: Court rulings Legal definitions Political arguments
Those are human systems trying to interpret morality. What you’re seeing is this: One group says: “God forbids this.” Another group says: “Our belief system allows it.” The court says: “We can’t pick a religion.”
That’s not divine truth,that’s legal arbitration between competing human claims about God.
The hard reality
People want God to settle this cleanly. But that’s not how it works in a society like this.
Instead, you get:
Competing interpretations Laws trying to manage those interpretations Courts stepping in when they clash The clean takeaway
If you want it said straight:
This has nothing to do with what God is or isn’t. This is about people using the idea of God to justify different positions, and the legal system trying to stay neutral between them.
That’s the real situation.
-
Rev. Deborah L. Halstead
Genesis 2:7 states, "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being"
If a fetus is not capable of sustaining the breath of life it is not yet a living being. Until about the 9th week a pregnancy isn't even a fetus, it's an embryo.
-
Percy Kleinops
Practicing one’s faith includes living the faith not just in a house of worship. The consequences of others outside the faith including the state deciding what is or isn’t living the faith aka practicing faith subjects all religions to inference by non believers.
-
MsFitz
This is true. And everyone is entitled to live their OWN faith rather than being forced to live by the rules of someone else's faith.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Percy,
This would be a great idea in a single "state controlled" religion that was practiced worldwide. Unfortunately, the world isn't there yet, and there are going to be disagreements about what "living the faith" means. I'm not sure I would want to live in that type of world, as I find the mystery and discovery of new things that God is doing in the world fascinating. I'm not one that likes religion jammed down my throat, even if it tastes good.
-
-
Robin Cohen
Why does ULCM seem so heavily Christian-oriented? As a ULCM minister who is Jewish, I find that most of the articles focus on Christianity, which can feel exclusionary. For example, on this topic, the perspective again centers on Christian beliefs—particularly the idea that the life of the fetus should be prioritized. In Jewish law, however, the life and well-being of the mother take precedence. That’s an important distinction that isn’t being reflected. Abortion is ultimately a medical decision between a pregnant person and their doctor. As a non-denominational church—especially one that identifies as “Universal Life”—ULCM should strive to represent a broader range of beliefs and acknowledge that different faiths have different teachings on this issue. Religions can and should guide their own followers according to their values. But laws in the United States should apply equally to everyone, without being based on any one religion’s doctrine.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Robin,
Thank you for bringing the Jewish perspective to this "discussion." It is quite refreshing. Others, including athiests and Pagans have also voiced their opinion, which unfortunately get drowned out by a certain faction of the Christian faith, which, BTW, not all Christians subscribe to. Please continue to give your viewpoint where you feel called to do so.
-
Druid Brandon O'Malley
The reason they are focused so heavily on Christianity is because it's self-proclaimed 'Christians' who are creating unnecessary barriers for everyone for no reason other than to restrict everyone else because of their opinion. Plus the majority of legislators in this country are Christians. So when you have a majority of people who identify with a specific religion causing issues, of course the conversation is going to center on them. If Jewish individuals were doing the same thing these so-called Christians are doing then they'd be discussed more prominently.
-
MsFitz
Beautifully stated.
-
-
Keith David Harry
I would be curious to know how many unwanted children you have adopted. How many of these children have you fostered. How many young women have you offered succor, financial and emotional support to. How many clinics do you volunteer your time to in support of birth control and family planning. You shoot your mouth off and then run away. You do nothing yet push your do nothing views on others. Unless you have ovaries, you should STFU and let the ladies decide this issue.
-
Steven Ferrell
Abortion is murder and murder is not a biblical right.
-
Druid Brandon O'Malley
Legally it isn't. Opinion is not fact. And not everyone follows the Bible, so it doesn't apply to those that don't.
-
MsFitz
This is an opinion.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Once a nation falls to the lowness of abortion as a religious right, it will never climb from the putrid sewer it bathes in to see the light of day.
This will usher in a new darkness that has a clear and paved pathway to open child sacrifice for religion. No nation has ever survived once it's drank from such a vile puss filled cup.
Oh how God was right that Man will deceive himself into believing the horror he commits is good and righteous.
-
Michael Hunt
Child sacrifice? That's quite the leap from a woman being able to choose if she's pregnant or not.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
That's the child sacrifice. To those of us that actually read and study the Hebrew scripture the Christian and Islamic based their religion on YHWH considers each sperm "in thy father's loins" a living person. And destroying that person is murder. If you castration a man it's murder punishable by death "life for a life" if you kill a baby in the womb it's murder punishable by death "life for a life". And Canaanites would abort babys as sacrifice to Molech.
-
Michael Hunt
Child sacrifice suggests the baby is born already, not a fetus in the womb.
-
-
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Roe V. Wade was in effect for 50 years, and during that time, when was a child ever sacrificed without it being investigated as a murder? Get real. You're arguing in the wrong century.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Patricia, people kill for just about any reason we could think of, including pleasure. We've not changed just because we have refrigerators and self driving cars. You take the niceties of life away you'll find the true nature of men.
If abortion is tied to a religious right, those wicked men and women will step forward to do what we think is horrific.
Remember, a fetus is a child to me, not to you. A fetus can and does live outside the body, even for a short time. I'm sorry that I bring these images to people's minds. The unspeakable comes next.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
I had a miscarriage at 12 weeks, and no, that child did not take a breath. I find it extremely hypocritical that a 12 week old fetus is only consdidered a child when it is aborted, but when a mother loses it because it died in the womb, it is called a "miscarriage." A lost baby is only considered "stillborn," and treated as a child when it is full term and born dead, without taking a breath. Only then is the mother given a body to bury, and treated as though she lost a child. Otherwise, it's "be back to work tomorrow."
For something that cannot survive outside the womb what semantics you or I want to give it has no bearing on the law. Even though I see it as part of a woman's body, I also see it as a child. I have never been in a position where a child in my uterus was unplanned or unwanted, so I cannot speak to that particular experience, but I can have empathy and an understanding for what they may be going through, because I have had life-long plans and dreams smashed by a single event. Since all the different religions cannot agree on when life begins, then the law only has two choices: Pick one, which is unconstitutional, or make an independent evaluation based on medical science and common sense. Laws allowing actions that are for or against many religious practices exist (some of which are life and death matters) and are enforced, so this should be no different.
Personally, I think using religion to smash a law against abortion is as rediculous as using it as the sole determining factor to uphold it. This is one of the cases where no matter what you do or what laws are in place, some people are going to be vehimately and unmovably against it.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Patricia, I understand and empathize. I'm in the nearly exact same boat but from the man's side of things. I've not had any children that I didn't plan on and only with my wife have I had children. We've had several miscarriages, some fairly far into the pregnancy. As you've said, no time given to endure the loss, it's back to work the next day. Knowing now why we had the miscarriages, our surviving children are literally miracles.
As I've said before, I blame the man for putting a woman in the position of getting an abortion in the first place. That said, I also believe that if a baby can be born, it should be born, meaning no late term abortion unless the mothers life is at risk.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
SOJ,
Nice way to deflect the question. Thank you for understanding and empathizing with the hypocracy of when a child is not considered a child if miscarried.
OK, moving on, let's blame the man now, but unless you are suggesting complete abstinence, EVERY attempt at birth control [with the exception of removal of reproductive organs] has a failure rate. Even then, NO child sacrifice has happened, even during the time when Roe V. Wade was part of the law, that didn't result in being investigated as a murder, and I challenge you to find one, and also, BTW, no state laws under Roe V Wade, or even now allow(ed) post-viability abortions (aka late-term after 23-24 weeks) unless it could save the mother's life, and even then, everything was done to try to save the child if procedurally possible. Otherwise, there was a murder investigation and/or medical malpractice proceedings.
-
-
-
-
-
Peter Richard Anderson
Get the back under your bridge Troll!
-
-
CB Cuff
Just to stir the pot a bit more, it will be interesting where this argument goes in the courts now that AI technology has been able to 'create' DNA.
-
Chris
I agree with this judge. I don't agree with abortion, but my religious beliefs do not control what others can or cannot do. They only control what I can or cannot do. Making a law based on one set of beliefs despite what others believe is domination, not freedom. If I'm not free to practice my beliefs because someone else doesn't like them, that violates the very law they're trying to impose.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
I find this issue hypocrisy at its prime; first as a Veteran the First Amendment clearly says Congress shall make no law respecting or prohibiting an establishment of religion. If it's a religious right even human sacrifice then the Government can't interfere, if man wants to marry his goat or computer the government can't interfere. If woman and doctor want to murder a child on religious grounds the government can't interfere. However the government controls marriage therefore that flood gate in broken open that as long as the people allow the government to interfere with religious exercises then they have no right to ***** about the government interfering with religious exercises. As a minister of Yeshua the Messiah The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU of Indiana on behalf of five anonymous women and an organization called Hoosier Jews for Choice. They are fake as in Jewish Law unde Moses both Hebrew and Islamic following the exact same Mosaic Law that clearly says if you murder a unborn child then you must die as a murderer. So, their claim is false claiming under Jewish Law. YHWH recognizes a person as living as sperm "in your father's loans" not just a baby in the womb. Castration is considered murder and punished by death. That's from Hebrew, Islamic and Christian Bible what other's believe is on their heads.
-
Druid Brandon O'Malley
You're incorrect on the 1st Amendment by the way, it actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof." The Danbury Baptists in 1801 sent a letter to then president Thomas Jefferson congradulating him on his win, and also expressed concerns over the Connecticut state government imposing it's religious beliefs onto them, trying to prevent them from practicing their faith. Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802 ensuring them that there is a wall of separation between church and state, fortifying the meaning of the 1st Amendment by saying that law comes through action, not opinion. That laws should be made based on morals value to limit ones liberty because even though you have natural rights, those natural rights should not interfere with a functioning society. Whether those morals be religiously or secularly influenced, what matters is the action. James Madison, the drafter of the Constitution also addressed religious interference in our laws through a letter of his own two years before he drafted the Constitution. He laid out 15 points as to why a bill should not be passed because of religious interference. The 1st Amendment has always been about ensuring the no government in this country can establish any religion, as that would create chaos as they themselves grew up in dealing with 17th century religious governance.
In relation to abortion there's a massive between the theological and secular beliefs and opinions relating to abortion access. The question you have to ask is whose beliefs and opinions hold more importance? A woman's body can miscarry, meaning a spontaneous abortion, so the fact that medically a woman's body is capable of stopping a pregnancy on its own begs to question, is it morally proper for others to tell a woman that she can't impose a chemical abortion (which engages the same process that can naturally occur) simply because they think it's wrong? Is your judgement about her body more important than her ability to have control over her own body in a situation that she specifically is physically dealing with? The simple answer is no. A miscarriage is a medical situation, and a woman still needs to visit a doctor to make sure she's medically safe. But then there's the religious side of things. If someone follows a religion, even if it's not recognized by the government, is still someone's beliefs. So if they say their religion states that they can have an abortion for any reason, then that should be protected by the 1st Amendment, "or prohibit the free exercise thereof." But again, there's also what Thomas Jefferson stated relating to morals and natural rights.
In the case of a woman in labor, if she starts having a medical issue in the process, their first priority is ensuring the life of the fetus. However, if the fetus can't be saved, the woman's life is prioritized. But doctors are prohibited from murdering a newborn, as that is called infanticide. Plus, medically, it's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath for any doctor to take a life because they are meant to heal. There is a point in which your religious beliefs don't supersede medical practice. Doctors cannot intentionally kill a baby during labor, as this violates ethical guidelines and, in many areas, legal restrictions. While a woman has the right to refuse certain medical interventions, healthcare providers are obligated to provide care to a fetus, especially when it is viable, and cannot perform actions designed to terminate a life during the birthing process.
meaning, morals take precedence over your religious rights. You cannot sacrifice a person, whether that's a newborn, a child, a teenager, an adult, a senior, whatever. That's illegal. It's murder. It doesn't matter if it's religious. It's murder. So a woman and doctor cannot murder a child on religious grounds, because that's murder. You are taking a life. If it is viable, the doctors must do everything in their power to save that life. And if there is no chance of saving it, the woman is prioritized. Certain things take moral precedence over religious beliefs. The life of the unborn is protected when it's deemed viable, which is around 22 to 24 weeks. So due to that viability, the doctors have a legal requirement to do what they can to save the life of the fetus.
In relation to marriage, it's pretty much always been that way. Even before governments, the people in higher positions in a community made the decisions regarding marriage. It was all about exchange of property. That's what it's always been. And it was usually not about love, but nowadays it's for tax purposes, mostly.
Overall, the reason I had to say all of this is because you were wrong about what the First Amendment says. That's all.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Druid,
There are plenty of examples where religious practices and doctrines are against the Hypocratic oath and general concensus on morality concerning potentially life-saving treatments. Perfect examples include respecting a Jehovah's Witness's request to refuse a blood transfusion, respecting a person's living will and DNR order request when terminally ill, and the anti-vax contingent whose reach is well beyond the person getting the vaccination. Not everyone on this board agrees with abortion and all of these other exaples exactly the same way.
-
-
-
Christian
Once Again, Conceal carry is every American's Pre-Existing Natural God Given RIGHT. ALL working Americans should be issued Free M 16 weapons with their first tax return.
Every American is a Rifleman to Defend our nation from war. All believers & faithful have the God Given Duty to defend Liberty. Bring back the DRAFT and this shall ensure most able bodied American receive proper marksmanship training to defend our nation. Every military gets to keep their sidearm after fulfilling their draft duty. GOD BLESS AMERICA ! Let Freedom Ring !-
Patricia Ann Gross
God gave NOBODY a duty to defend America, and I would challenge you to prove it. Jesus said, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's (Mark 12:17) leaving matters of the state to the leaders of the country.
Also you are on the wrong amendment. This post is discussing the first, you are defending the second so I won't even try to address your other statements.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Remember in the United States of America the money has printed on the back "In God We Trust" however first it's on the back not front putting God second and the money it's on first. "Before God". Second it's God spelled with a capital "G" however if Mamon is your god then you would capitalize his title, not name. Third for those that sleep through American History in highschool or today I'm not sure they even have it or teach them the truth. The thirteen founders were 9 Protestant Christians, two Catholic, one Jew and one atheist.
-
-
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Short version… Somebody farted in the car. Then somebody rolled down the window.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Why is abortion even an issue? It’s a woman’s body, and until birth a fetus is nothing but a parasite.
-
ServantOfJudgement
No, I claim ownership of my children prior conscription. Half the genetic material is mine and all of the life force is mine.
All men literally own the energy of life inside the womb. The female donated the egg, sure. That's why she's part owner too.
At the absolute minimum, abortion without the man's knowledge AND permission is theft and it's murder if the child has passed the Quickening phase. Minimum.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
When you can physically develop a womb and gestate a zygote, then you can talk… until then, find something constructive to do… like minding your own business. (PS… the word is conception, not conscription. Conscription means the government is calling you up into the military.) and to really settle things, if you think that a zygote is a human being, then you need to pay child support from the moment of conception…
-
Michael Hunt
There's no such thing as "life force" and men do not own the "energy of life inside the womb." Men do not own any part of what is growing inside of a woman because it is not physically attached to them. Giving men ownership over a fetus gives them ownership of the woman as well.
Why does the developing fetus, the potential for life, have more rights than the living, breathing, autonomous woman carrying the fetus?
-
ServantOfJudgement
All life has electrical energy Michael, even plants. It's that amazing unknown that can't be recreated, not even in the lab, not yet but they're trying real hard. What does that energy carry i wonder. Encrypted data? Subliminal memories? Knowledge of Good and Evil? Yes, knowledge of good and evil at the minimum.
I don't blame women for abortion friend. I blame the man. God help the man who puts a woman in that position in the first place. God help the man who gives himself to a woman who'd cut him from her womb.
Abortion it a messy topic with messy results and a game nobody wins, ever.
-
Rev. Kev
"It's that amazing unknown that can't be recreated, not even in the lab"
Life is not an "unknown" and it already has been.
"Abortion it a messy topic with messy results and a game nobody wins, ever."
It's only messy because of religious supremacists who insist their personal beliefs are the only true and correct ones and must apply to everyone else, regardless of their beliefs or educated views, by force of law.
Just sticking to the Constitution and accepting that the U.S. is a melting pot of many cultures and beliefs, and letting everyone peacefully practise their cultural heritage and beliefs as much as you want to the freedom to practise yours is the best way to have a peaceful, happy society.
They mind their business. You mind your business. It's no one's job to live other people's lives for them.
-
ServantOfJudgement
No rev kev, life is still an unknown. It can't be produced. Life can not exist without life existing before it. Science can not make anything living that wasn't already living. That's why they'll have to make mammoth/elephant hybrids and not just recreate the mammoth. In no way can a full mammoth ever be recreated ever. That spark is gone.
If we fully reduce it, this statement becomes true: Life continues at conception.
Abortion is messy because we've got two or three different levels of morality involved. You for example have a very low and wandering standard of what's morally right or wrong. In fact, the entire love is love crowd shares the same low moral standard. Our standards are situated in a way that allows me to see yours while you can't see mine.
That's why things are messy Kev. You don't know why I want a baby to live while I know why you don't care at all.
-
Rev. Kev
SOJ:
Life is not an unknown. Any decent bio class at the university level can detail the entire process of life in any organism. Not huge mystery.
Researchers found out how both RNA and DNA self-fold in nature. It was way easier than they had first supposed. Going back to 2010, different labs created versions of synthetic cells with one of the more recent successes at UNC-Chapel Hill in 2024. They created synthetic cells that can grow, divide, and form functioning cytoskeletons. Even the DNA was synthesized in the lab.
Life is organic chemistry. It's not some woo woo mystery that requires some magical "spark".
The mammoth thing isn't about creating anything. It's about cloning. They would need a modern elephant to gestate the fertilized eggs since no mammoths are around to do the job. And two problems exist there. 1) Finding a viable, complete DNA strand from a mammoth sample and 2) Cloning isn't yet an exacting process. It's all in the chemistry. Not any "spark".
The fact that the process of life kicks into gear when sperm and egg meet is basic biology. So? Every cell in your body is alive. Are they all special and need to be protected? Do you think miscarriages are murder?
The actual question at the heart of this is not if the cells are alive. No one argues they aren't. The question is one of personhood. More to the point: that the woman carrying the developing cells is a person with agency. The life in the womb is not. It is solely up to the one with the agency to decide what to do with her own body. Which is a very individualized question based on factors neither you nor I can know for women and families across the globe nor decide for them.
Just as you most likely wouldn't want total strangers telling you how to live your life in personal matters.
Or people of a different faith/religion telling you to abide by their religious rules in your life decisions.
You wrote: "You for example have a very low and wandering standard of what's morally right or wrong."
First, could you come off as owning a superiority complex with a smidge more condescension? Ya just didn't lay it on thick enough.
You have no idea what think or believe as far as my morals are concerned.
You then wrote: "Our standards are situated in a way that allows me to see yours while you can't see mine."
I fully comprehend your views in this matter. Your expressed positions are hardly novel.
The fact that you ended your comment with "You don't know why I want a baby to live while I know why you don't care at all," makes it clear you have no clue what I think.
I care about life. I care about the quality of life for sentient beings. The point being that I consider all positions in any situation. No pregnancy is like another. Each carries different conditions and needs and outcomes for all involved. I can't make a hard and fast rule for anyone since no single rule will suffice for everyone. I consider the human factor and emotions and quality of life over simple dogma.
My rule of thumb is compassion over dogma.
Most of all, I can't tell other people what they should do or how they should live or believe since I am not living their lives. I have no idea what factors are shaping their lives and decisions. I have no grounds to judge total strangers. I cannot walk in their shoes.
All of which is why I also don't judge you. I don't look down on your beliefs or how you choose to live your life. I don't see your moral code as "low" compared to mine. It's simply not the same as mine.
I don't insist that anyone lives as I choose to live, or believe as I choose to believe. If I had the power, I certainly wouldn't force people to abide by my worldview through legislation.
There can never be a one-size-fits-all set of rules for all people that will ever work. Those who have tried it in the past (over and over) have always failed.
Just as an aside, I see a lot of anti-abortion types cling to the dogma of preserving that special, little life in the womb....but give zero thought to the living conditions of the parent(s) or the baby before or after the umbilical is cut. Anti-abortion politicians cut funding for prenatal care, medical care, food programs, etc. It's as if they don't really care about life at all. Just the very simple dogma of "No abortion. Period." Sad.
-
-
-
Michael Hunt
Energy is just electricity. There's no encoded morality carried along by the electricity coursing through our bodies.
"It's that amazing unknown that can't be recreated, not even in the lab..."
Please look up Abiogenesis which outlines one way life may have developed on earth over billions of years.
-
-
Cam Kirmser
The fetus has life. It has no more rights than the mother, however the mother agrees - by willfully engaging in intercourse - to abrogate some of her rights in support of the child within her.
That was her choice. If she didn't want to put her rights on hold, she should have said "no" and kept her legs closed.
-
Michael Hunt
You do realize children can be conceived after a woman was r@ped, right?
If, as you claim, a mother is agreeing to abrogate her right to medical autonomy when she chooses to engage in intercourse, then the fetus' rights are superseding the rights of the mother, therefore having more rights.
A fetus has energy in it, yes, but it is not alive like the mother is. Electrical energy being transmitted through cells in the fetus is not autonomous life. A baby in the womb has no autonomy and to put the life of the fetus over the life of the mother is just a means of controlling women.
-
Cam Kirmser
Gee, children conceived after a rape. Imagine that.
Anyway, the fetus has the SAME rights as the mother. It is alive. It is a human being.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 makes it ILLEGAL to even pick up an egg from most native birds. The law does not say, "Hey, these eggs aren't birds, yet." Bird eggs are protected more than a human fetus and you cherish that.
That a fetus has rights is in no way a means to control women, that is just your panic-stricken hyperbole meant to foster fear.
-
Michael Hunt
If the fetus, wholly dependent on the biological mother to develop into a full-born child, is given the "SAME" rights as the mother, the mother is losing her right to bodily autonomy. As you've acknowledged, children can be conceived after a woman is r@ped which means she did not consent to intercourse and yet you are still condemning her to 9 months of carrying her r@pist's child, to which the r@apist will still have legal parental rights to in many states.
You claim the fetus and mother should have the same rights but you earlier claim that a woman - by engaging in intercourse - abrogates some of her rights in support of the child within her. If that is the case, you cannot claim that the fetus and mother have the same rights. If you believe that a fetus is just as alive as a living, breathing person, and therefore has the same rights, any woman having to give up their rights, willingly or not, has less rights than the fetus.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 is a false-equivalency to abortion. The treaty addresses humans damaging the reproductive cycle of other animals without their consent while abortion is a woman making a medical decision for herself. These bird eggs are protected so that humans don't make the birds extinct. Humans are currently more likely to go extinct due to overpopulation and environmental pollution at this point than we are due to underpopulation.
I'm not panic-stricken and it's not hyperbole. It's well documented how the abortion issue has been used to control women more than it cares about the life of the fetus.
-
Cam Kirmser
HAHAHA! "Control women." That's hilarious.
The mother is losing no rights; she voluntarily put some aside when she chose to engage in acts that could result in pregnancy.
You can claim the Act as a false equivalency all you like, doesn't make you right. You can disagree all you like, but it applies regardless of your silly politics and, yes, hyperbole - you may have gotten your panic under control, but I can see it's still simmering to escape.
-
Michael Hunt
Is reading comprehension difficult for you? We've established that pregnancies occur when women do not consent to intercourse, first of all, and if a woman is putting aside rights, voluntary or not, she has less rights than the fetus when you're giving the fetus legal personhood at conception. That's literally how math works. If two people start with the same amount of something, and one of them gives some up, even temporarily, they now have less than the other person.
You can claim I'm being hyperbolic and disagree with me all you like, it doesn't make you right either. The reason why I believe my claims to be correct, though, is because of plentiful articles detailing how restricting abortion care is a means of controlling women. Abortion restrictions strip a woman from the ability to make medical decisions for themselves.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/government-has-long-history-controlling-women-one-never-ended
https://nwlc.org/resource/abortion-rights-are-inextricably-tied-to-social-and-economic-justice-movements/
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/a-year-without-roe
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-criminalization-of-abortion-and-surveillance-of-women-in-a-post-dobbs-world/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/abortion-restrictions-may-be-fueling-a-rise-in-domestic-violence-experts-warn
-
Cam Kirmser
You may want to check YOUR reading comprehension before you make any comments concerning that of others.
But, that would take away a chance at good hyperbole and panic.
-
Michael Hunt
Did you read any of the articles I provided? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your rebuttal to them instead of accusing me of hyperbole and panic and a need to check my reading comprehension without any explanation as to why you've come up with that opinion.
-
Cam Kirmser
I have read none of them because I do not accept their foundation; the control of women. That is such a ridiculous idea, it deserves zero consideration.
As for my explanation of my "opinion"; 1. It would be too long to post here 2. I am not bound to give you any explanation
Perhaps you need to read my replies more closely and you might discover what you've missed.
-
Michael Hunt
It was once such a ridiculous idea to believe the Earth rotated around the Sun instead of being the center of the Universe. Thankfully, people did give it consideration and we now know the truth.
You might not be bound to provide an explanation, but refusing to do so only weakens your position. If you can't defend your beliefs and opinions, you may as well not have any to begin with.
All you are doing right now is doubling down on being willfully ignorant and rejecting anything you disagree with.
-
Cam Kirmser
You truly need to cease thinking I care what you think of my "position." And, your comparison to what I've posted to mistaken cosmological theories is laughable.
I have no need to "defend" my beliefs and opinions, because I am not debating with you. You can accept my position or not, I don't care, but you are powerless to alter it.
Find a way to live with that.
-
-
-
Rev. Kev
"That was her choice. If she didn't want to put her rights on hold, she should have said 'no' and kept her legs closed."
That is such an elementary school level understanding of the topic. It takes no other real-life circumstances into account. Things like failed contraception, simple human error, complications during pregnancy, unforeseen life changes, or a list of other things. What you offered us here was an overly simplistic and false dichotomy that shows not even a speck of empathy, compassion, or understanding.
Which makes it painfully clear why such decisions should be left up to the involved parties and any relevant medical professionals. Not politicians. Not religious zealots. Not casual bystanders.
Anti-abortion laws in some states have already increased fatality rates among women and developing babies who could still be alive if dogmatic politicians didn't step in to pander for votes. Nothing in this is "pro-life" by ANY stretch.
-
Cam Kirmser
Sure, that must be it.
On the other hand, she can avoid the risks of failed contraceptives by not engaging in the act. Once so engaged, she accepts the consequences, risky or not.
When I get in my car and decide to get on a highway, I accept the risk of dying in an accident, regardless of the protections I may use. The only sure way to avoid that risk is to not get on the highway. But, if I decide to do so, anyway, I am making my choice known that I understand the risks and accept them.
So, don't want to get pregnant and have an inconvenient "accident?" Don't have sex. But, if you still choose to engage, then the consequences are on you.
-
Rev. Kev
Oooo...very nice. A false equivalence fallacy.
All you got out of my reply was "accident"? Seriously?
I'm curious. Are you as casually accepting of any deaths you might incur as far as any passengers you may have in your car? Or fatalities you may cause among others sharing the highway if you are the cause of an accident? If you have to face their families or friends, will you write them off by saying those people shouldn't have gotten in the car if they didn't want to die? Minimize the entire human experience by saying that was the chance they took so everyone just needs to accept the consequence? That's pretty heartless.
What if you have an accident and send a pedestrian or two to the morgue in the process? Do you write them off as an acceptable consequence for their choice?
To be honest, life doesn't really seem to mean much in this equation. Death seems perfectly justified as long as consequences are considered. At least by you. Keep a nice, clean conscience?
You are, of course, free to live in a black-and-white world where everything is simple and easily judged according to your personal standards.
I just prefer to live in non-dogmatic reality. Which isn't so neat and tidy and easily categorized into little boxes. Where unforeseeable problems and circumstances can arise. And actually care about people who aren't me in the process.
Have a nice weekend.
-
Cam Kirmser
Sure, that must be it.
Anyway, what I accept are the consequences of my acts and those consequences may carry results decided upon by society or simply by the act itself.
And, yes, my conscience is clean and serene. If that discomfits you, well, that's your affair.
-
Rev. Kev
It's nice you accept the consequences of your actions. And, as I keep pointing out in your flawed equivalency, a great many factors in the abortion issue have nothing to do with consequence of a single person's actions. Also that many circumstances are not planned or foreseeable.
Some examples:
Take an ectopic pregnancy. A couple can fully intend to have a child. But an uncontrollable problem makes that impossible for that pregnancy and the standard course of action is an abortion since the developing fetus can never be taken to term.
Then we had the case that made national news of a women who got pregnant on purpose. Wanted her baby. But it expired in her womb. Her doctor said she needed an abortion. It was a medical necessity. But no one in the state would give her one because they lived in a state where abortion was illegal and feared that, even with a medical necessity, they could be sued or lose their license if they helped her because the laws were so confusing it was not clear what would happen. She had to go to a different state for the procedure and, even then, people looked down on her for getting an abortion.
Along that some line, states trying to make abortions impossible created so many barriers to medical professionals that women who needed prenatal care were often refused due to lack of facilities or uncertainty as to the laws. Which resulted in miscarriages or fatalities in some case.
Of course, there are cases of women getting pregnant after being physically assaulted. Definitely not a choice they made. Nor should they be forced to carry the criminal's offspring. That's adding additional physical and psychological trauma to the original trauma.
Then we have cases of fetuses with severe developmental defects. Such that they can never hope to live outside the womb anywhere from minutes to painful days. Usually the medical decision is to terminate before the procedure becomes more problematic for the mother.
There is a sizeable list of diseases that are triggered by pregnancy. These are not planned nor foreseeable. Some of which will be fatal for both mother and developing fetus. The only course of action is an abortion to save at least one life.
Contrary to the lies you might have heard, women don't want to get abortions. It is always a hard decision and emotionally taxing. It is not used as a convenient source of birth control, as many preachers and other undereducated folks assert.
Your conscience doesn't "discomfit" me at all. I fully expect it. People who live by dogma over data and bathe in self-righteous delusions of superiority are the most likely to feel content, even at the expense of others. Dogma offers a safe refuge while never having to take the humanity of others into account. Even things like quality of life are alien ideas when it comes to considering "other". Which is why you could not care any less about the actual humans involved. And, perhaps, why you'd feel zero remorse for any unfortunate individuals you might happen to send to the morgue in an accident because you decided you were OK with any consequence of any act you took.
Discomfit? Nope. More like nauseous. That people with the thoughts you expressed even exist.
I know none of what I have written will make sense to you since it doesn't appear to have made a mark up to this point. I mostly added this for clarification for any other passing reader.
I'm done with this particular exchange. Bye.
-
Cam Kirmser
Every law has extenuating circumstances. I had stated elsewhere an example; if the health of the mother is at risk. In that situation, the mother's life should take precedence. But, not all potential mothers feel that way. As I had stated in my example, I had a girlfriend who died over a decade ago who told me that, if we ever got pregnant and her health was at risk and it came down to picking one life over the other, she clearly told me to save the baby, not her.
Having given that example, I did not see a reason to go into every single possible alternative example. I figured people would be intelligent enough to get that from the presentation of the one.
Guess I figured wrong.
Bye.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Saving the baby's life over the mother's most often kills them both, unless it is past the time when the baby can survive outside of the womb. Most pregnancy induced conditions (ectopic, gestational diabetes, etc.) occur early in the pregnancy and can be fatal if the mother chooses to take the pregnancy to term. Only rare conditions, like pre-eclampsia and trauma are late-term conditions where the baby can be saved if/when the mother dies in the process.
-
Michael Hunt
Restricting abortion already puts the woman's health at risk. These bans are currently causing an increase of negative health impacts on women.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8240208/
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/abortion-restrictions-have-led-to-negative-health-impacts-say-panelists/
https://www.reproductiveaccess.org/resource/insights-the-impacts-of-abortion-bans-on-maternal-health/
I hope you'll actually read these articles and engage with them instead of immediately dismissing them and calling them irrelevant.
As far as your story about a previous girlfriend, it sounds like she made her choice to prioritize the baby over herself. Other women might choose differently but you want to take that choice away from them.
-
Cam Kirmser
What I want is the life of an innocent human being protected.
Perhaps you should avoid having the arrogance to decide what others may want, especially when you plan to twist whatever you find to create a strawman.
-
Michael Hunt
Cam, that's fair; I shouldn't have said that what you specifically wanted was to take the choice away from a woman. What I should have said is "What you want results in women losing that choice." That would have been a more accurate way to state what I was intending. I'm not trying to twist your statements, I'm trying to point out the consequences that result from the stance you are taking that you appear to be glossing over.
I understand that you want the life of an innocent human being protected but you are protecting the unborn child at the expense of the innocent human life of the woman. The difference between us is who we feel is worth protecting more: the fetus/baby or the woman carrying it.
Could you address any of the critiques I have made instead of only addressing the fact I've made an unfair statement of your wants?
-
Cam Kirmser
You said, "but you are protecting the unborn child at the expense of the innocent human life of the woman."
What part of, "the mother's life should take precedence," is not being understood?
-
-
-
-
-
MsFitz
😂😂 ok buddy. You're hilarious but also, that's gross.
-
-
Cam Kirmser
Your evil is palpable, yet you dare to have the arrogance to use "Reverend."
The best you can say of your life is, "At least I wasn't inconvenient."
-
-
Reverend Marika
Finally, a judge with balls. Bravo!
-
MsFitz
Or maybe ovaries.
-
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
IMHO the whole concept of using religion as a “defense” is BS. That said, the Hoosier Jews for Choice are absolutely right. No religion has any right to interfere with any other religion. There is nothing special about anyone’s religion. With few exceptions, no one has any right to interfere with the medical care of another person. Abortion is medical care even if an individual doesn’t believe it is. If you don’t believe abortion is medical care you are free to choose not to have one.
-
shiningwolf9
So right! One persons'/groups' ideas, beliefs on abortion should never become a legal law enforcing the same in all people. And, yes, abortion should be kept within the medical society, and as all other medical issues are only between a physician and patient, abortion should be kept within this medical privilege, not with a controlling religious belief. Also, keeping with the text of this post, because there truly are conflicting beliefs between different religious ideologies, abortion should never be allowed a religious ruling within a legally medical practice between a physician and client.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
I agree. Otherwise all blood transfusions would be banned because of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
-
-
-
David J Hebert
A discussion I have had on multiple occasions. Freedom of Religion cannot allow the desecration of life through abortion! There are religions that do encourage “sacrifice” as a means to be “right” with their gods. This is not acceptable in the US of America. The other side if you will indulge me is end of life decisions. I do not believe any person has the right to tell me when I can die. I am a well informed adult who has the right to do with my body as I wish. These are challenging perspectives.
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
Your opinion/belief about abortion is not everyone’s. You do not have any right to impose your opinion/belief on anyone other than yourself.
-
shiningwolf9
Your comment of justification because of your, and others' religious beliefs fall way short of being the law for other belief systems. And, "this is not acceptable in the US of America"; when did anyone appoint you, or others as relagating what, and whose personal/religious beliefs are allowed in this US of America?
-
Patricia Ann Gross
By your perspective "I am a well informed adult who has the right to do with my body as I wish," a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body until the fetus can survive outside her body. Until then, it is part of "her body."
-
ServantOfJudgement
Correct David.
Ancient and some not-so-ancient religions did sacrifice children. It's a very small step from sacrificing in the womb to sacrificing on the delivery altar. It's also a very natural next step to sacrifice babies freed from the womb.
In no way can any moral people ever endorse the killing of babies for religious reasons inside or outside the womb.
This is why our nation is divided. The wicked have their rancid hands on the steering wheel.
-
MsFitz
A prime example is the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. He was ready to sacrifice that boy, no questions asked.
-
-
-
Skye
Let's go with science, A life begins at conception.
-
Michael Hunt
There is no scientific consensus as to when life begins.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160624001830
-
ServantOfJudgement
We Christians lean on the science that God gave us all back in Genesis.
Cells don't divide unless there's life.
DNA doesn't replicate unless there's life.
If we found one single celled organism on Mars the entire planet would agree we found life.
Skye is scientifically correct.
There's a fair discussion to be had about when consciousness appears but not life.
That science is settled.
-
Michael Hunt
There is no science in Genesis, first of all, because the world was not created in 6 days a few thousand years ago. Science has disproved the Genesis theory in a multitude of ways.
Second, I admit I should have specified "independent human life" as that is how I was interpreting Skye's usage of "life" when stating that it begins at conception. If I misinterpreted their intended definition, I do apologize as there is, at the very least, truth to their statement. There are still professionals who disagree with the "life begins at conception" argument such as this M.D. who suggests that sperm and embryos have as much claim to "life" as a zygote or fetus so thinking the egg is 0% life while the zygote is 100% would be an unscientific stance.
https://www.fertstertreports.org/article/S2666-3341(22)00084-8/fulltext
-
ServantOfJudgement
Genesis supports any age of the earth science might ever settle on, if it ever does. Time is not constant and I doubt we'll ever know how old the earth is.
Genesis 1:28 is where God gave us science. The believer can glean much knowledge from the surface meaning of any given statement God makes. It really is an amazing document-Go subdue the Earth. How will one build dams, cut roads, farm the ocean and seed clouds without science?
I do thank you for reading my comments Michael and contemplating them. Even if we may not agree on everything it's important we still listen to each other. I'd bet if it were all on the table, we'd agree more than we disagree. Forums in general promote conflict unfortunately.
-
Michael Hunt
Genesis 1:28 is not where God gave us science, it's where he gives humanity his divine blessing to rule over the Earth. It's quite the reach to take, "Go rule the planet," and turn it into, "Here's the scientific method."
We know, not exactly, but approximately how old the Earth is thanks to numerous different scientific tests done over decades. The Bible posits Earth to be roughly 6000 years old (although there is debate amongst scholars about the possibility of it suggesting several human generations older but not millions of years old) which is nowhere close to the approximately 4.54 billion years science determined the age of Earth to be within a 1% margin of error.
-
-
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Yes Michael, when cells divide its life.
Sorry about that.
Let's argue about something that's harder to prove instead. When does consciousness appear in the womb?
-
Michael Hunt
If defining consciousness as "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings," I don't think consciousness ever appears in the womb. I'm not an expert on biology in any way or full science of the reproductive process, but I sure don't remember having any awareness of my surroundings at all while in the womb.
-
-
-
shiningwolf9
A fetus is a part of the mother's body, and, there is no proof whatsoever as to when a soul/spirit enters, or becomes known to indwell the still growing/developing fetus. So, at this stage, it should be a legally protected decision between Client and Physician about aborting.
-
ServantOfJudgement
No, the fetus is not part of the mothers body.
It has a separate metabolism, heartbeat and brain activity. The fetus is a separate and distinct life form that has a different DNA makeup from the mother. Furthermore the mother has no control of the development, metabolism or motion of the fetus. It literally operates on its own program. This widens the gap between the mother and fetus enough that any claim of body unity and ownership invalid.
They are two scientifically distinct and separated life forms.
Fair point about the soul. Science says there are no souls. The inability to detect a thing does not prohibit the existence of that thing. Babies will however enter REM sleep while in the womb. Dreaming does not indicate a soul but it does indicate consciousness. Therefore consciousness occurs sometime between the Quickening and the third trimester, well before natural birth.
-
Rev. Deborah L. Halstead
A parasite is an organism that lives on or inside another organism (the host) and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.
-
-
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
Every egg and every sperm is alive, is it not?
-
ServantOfJudgement
Let's turn to science for your question Elizabeth.
Eggs don't divide-No life. Sperm doesn't divide although sperm carries the spark of life. That raises an uncomfortable truth. The life force of a fetus is the man's.
A fertilized egg is however life because it divides and replicates DNA.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
SOJ,
But so does a cancer tumor, and I doubt that you would argue for waiting until it is six to eight pounds before removing it. That mass of cells, even with the man's "holy spark" cannot survive outside the womb until 23-24 weeks into the pregnancy (the point that medical science determines it is viable).
-
Michael Hunt
I actually turned to science and, yes, sperm and eggs are considered biologically alive. Whether or not they constitute "life" on their own would be a different argument reliant on an agreed upon definition of "life." I wouldn't consider sperm or eggs life, personally.
-
-
-
Rev. Kev
"Let's go with science, A life begins at conception."
Life is simply organic chemistry in action. Sure, the chemical processes kick into gear when egg and sperm meet up and tango. Which leads to my question: So?
A number of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Often before the woman knows she is pregnant. And has no idea they just lost a developing blastocyst. A little cluster of living, undifferentiated cells down the drain.
If any of that carries a certain, religious significance to you, that is certainly your right. Religious freedom and all that. Of course, that same idea of religious freedom means other people are not required to share your views on the matter.
-
Let's be real - an abortion is a human tragedy that cannot be taken lightly. It represents (in the typical case) a breakdown in God's plan for humanity. Having said that, while no or state tax money should be used to fund abortions (out of respect to this deeply held and legitimate belief about the origin of life), I'm no longer comfortable with government dictating something so personal. Your religious freedom includes the right to NOT have an abortion, but not to deny the choice to others. I hope this suit succeeds through appeal.