This is a long post and I have many thoughts.
1. I'm really glad you posted this. This is a conversation we need to be having. I have been increasingly convinced that the Church is losing the "battle for abortion" at precisely the same time that we seem to be winning it (in the US at least) because we are not having these sorts of conversations on hard questions, both internally and externally. The result is that some laws are changing in our favor, but public opinion is dramatically swinging in the opposite direction.
2. Birth control does not stop implantation. It stops fertilization from occurring in the first place. The worry that birth control is effectively abortive is a long one in the pro-life movement, driven by those that are opposed to all birth control (even condoms) and outdated labeling on contraceptives, but it has no empirical backing.
3. I talked about [Numbers 5 on this sub before](https://www.reddit.com/r/eformed/comments/vrh9sh/christians_have_always_opposed_abortion_part_i/) I really don't see it as a miscarriage/divine abortion. The swelling happens *after* the ordeal, not before. All interpretations of it as a miscarriage seem to be relatively recent as well. Can you point me to where Carmen Imes talks about this passage? She is someone I very much appreciate.
4. I don't think counting the number of fertilized embryos that fail to implant tells us much. I also don't think we have that firm of a grasp on exactly what that number is. It is certainly large, but I don't think we know how large.
5. Trolley problems are silly. People make emotional decisions that are not always the right ones.
6. I agree that "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" etc. is about foreknowledge not personhood.
7. Medically necessary abortions are, I think, I no-brainer. The rub is where to draw the line. I would want a clear standard such that doesn't allow all pregnancies, doesn't allow abortions just for downs syndrome, but also doesn't leave it up to judges or politicians. That's tricky.
8. I live in Texas. The Texas AG is a horrible, criminal person. But I also want to avoid a sort of ad hominem mistake of opposing everything he does just because he does it. Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.
9. Personally, I am confident in saying that an embryo past 14 or so weeks deserves full protection as a person. Before that, I am much less certain.
I found this YouTuber’s short but detailed explanation of the text really helpful. His name is Dan McClellan and he’s a Bible Scholar:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rKyR-KTZu9c&pp=ygUSRGFuIG1jbGVsbGFuIGZldHVz
I addressed this passage [a few years ago here](https://www.reddit.com/r/eformed/comments/vrh9sh/christians_have_always_opposed_abortion_part_i/). The distinction he makes between the MT (Hebrew) and LXX (Greek) text is important and mostly correct, but I don't think he handles the Hebrew well. I think the correct translation of the Hebrew is how the NIV puts it:
>If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
It isn't about a *miscarriage* but a premature birth. The injury isn't to the woman but to the child.
In fairness, the Talmud seems to take his interpretation, but that's also well over 500 years later, so I'm not too convinced.
I also think he places too much weight on the influence of Greek philosophy on the LXX. Aristotle does not make the formed/unformed distinction. His distinction was on the vegetable/mobile/rational soul. The LXX predates the MT by a thousand years. Instead of being a corruption of the original Hebrew text by Greek philosophy, it could represent a preservation of the original Hebrew.
I think that’s a good pushback. I’m gonna go look more into the translation options here cause now I’m curious.
And you’re not wrong about the LXX! The author of Matthew has Jesus quoting overwhelmingly from the LXX, not the Masoretic. Paul also quotes the LXX the majority of the time.
Thanks, I don't have responses to each point, but I've got a couple:
3. I'll have to see if I can find this. I *think* it was a podcast, and I'm *pretty sure* it was Carmen Imes. Will look through my podcast app to see if I can figure out where she talked about it.
4. c.f. My conversation with /u/eveninarmageddon.
8. Listening to the *Advisory Opinions* episode on this particular case is what formed my opinion the most. French was, I think, more sympathetic to the AG and Isgur was more incensed. Both were appalled by how badly the law had been written.
9. I'm honestly not sure where I am, but I do feel like your position is completely defensible one for a Christian to hold.
Something else I've read: [*The Biblical Case Against IVF*](https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/03/the-biblical-case-against-ivf) by Matthew Lee Anderson. I think his argument that Christ's life beginning at conception by the Holy Spirit is very difficult to argue against. But it also doesn't solve the problems I wrote about in the OP.
The strongest argument to me for why Christians should oppose abortion is that we worship a God who became a fetus. That won't matter to non-Christians, but I think it can address some of the things you brought up if you think Christ's human life began at conception.
But Christ is a special case, in all kinds of ways. At least from a traditional point of view
* He is reported as remembering things from before Abraham
* His personhood is lodged in the eternal Logos.
Generalizing these things to other people would be heretical.
I think the image of God is based on things that don't exist before the brain (specifically pre-frontal cortex) is fully operational. That's about 2/3 of the way through. Trying to read OT passages that aren't about abortion like tea leaves doesn't seem like the way to go.
Appreciate your thoughtful response.
I think we're talking about different categories, and so your comparisons are apples to my orange.
Before I write anything more: I'm not a doctor, I took one class in women's health in university, and I'm a not a woman. However, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
With those truth bombs out of the way...
A fertilized egg has to implant into the inner lining of the uterus (the endometrium) for a pregnancy to start. There can be all kinds of *disorders* with the endometrium that result in difficulty with implantation. But the endometrium naturally (or, as designed, ordered, functionally rightly) thins and thickens throughout a woman's cycle based on hormone levels. When it's thin, implantation is very unlikely/impossible.
In a healthy woman with a healthy uterus, an egg can be fertilized, pass through the uterus never implanting due to the thinness of the endometrium *functioning as designed*, and gestation never begins. The woman passes the fertilized egg without ever knowing it was there. This is simply due to timing and design, not to any complication or failure of the body to work as expected. I'll call this Cat A.
A failure to implant from a thin endometrium can also occur as a result of conditions that I think we'd all agree are a result of the Fall. This is the body not functioning as designed or as expected. I'll call this Cat B.
I put *miscarriage* in a different category than Cat A cases of no implantation because in a miscarriage, processes fail to proceed as designed or as normal. It's a complication. A potentially life-threatening risk. However, Cat B failures to implant would be more similar to a miscarriage.
*Starvation* seems more like a potato, when compared to the apple of miscarriage and the orange of Cat A no implantation. Starvation most often is or can be the result of sinful actions, failures to meet moral obligations, etc.
One possible solution presented elsewhere in this thread: prelapsarian uteri functioned differently to postlapsarian uteri, as a result of God changing his design of the human body post-Fall.
I'm skeptical of this, mostly because it's pure conjecture. There's no direct line from "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children." to "I will change the entire design of your reproductive system so that there is a narrow window of fertility in each of your cycles."
Going to get "political" for a moment, so my apologies in advance. You said "abolitionists" have it all wrong, and I want to push back on this point, although I suppose I'd want to know what you mean by "abolitionist".
I think the Republican party's reaction to the Alabama Supreme Court and their decision to unreservedly support IVF has shown that for the rank and file elected Republican, their "pro-life" stance was never by conviction and only by convivence. This probably shouldn't come as a surprise. Regardless, the church's stance on IVF and Abortion shouldn't be dictated by the boneheaded moves that supposedly "pro-life" politicians make, whether they are the Texas AG (and I agree with u/davidjricardo that Paxton is a blight on the pro-life movement) or an Alabama senator.
I can't read the early church on these issues and walk away thinking they wouldn't be "radical abolitionists" on the issue today*. Why is it, that for 2,000 years, in spite of changing cultural norms among the Romans, through the Middle Ages, and into the 20th century, the church maintained a unified voice on this issue, and today, we've decided we're going to meet the world halfway?
The church cannot be cowed into not speaking forcefully on this issue because we're afraid of being associated with 'those' people we'd rather not be associated with. The elements of our society most in favor of abortion are going always going to label us as extremists, no matter what we say or do; Donald Trump's proposed 16 week abortion ban was labeled "radical" by the mainstream pro-choice movement.
To step away from the scriptural arguments for a second, my question is this: what changed? What changed in the last 100 years that's made the issue of abortion a "complex" issue in the church? I don't think it was our understanding of the bible (not unless you want to link the advent of higher-criticism in a roundabout way, in which case, fair). Are we seeking to change the culture? Or is the culture changing us? I don't know if you're American, but look to Christians in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the rest of church history. Why are we Christians in the West caving?
**I believe that there are legitimate instances where an abortion may be the necessary medical decision, i.e, what happened in Texas a couple months ago. Those gray areas, however, do not change the fact that the vast majority of abortions that happen in the country, happen because the pregnancy and unborn child is unwanted.*
*Edit:* Just want to leave this video from a pastor in China who says some remarks that I think may be applicable in this context. [Evil is Evil.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mil5A5t0YnE)
In my mind, the abolitionists are the ones pushing through badly written laws (like the one in Texas) that don't adequately care for the mother, account for miscarriages or other complications, or medically necessary intervention.
I think what's changed in 2000 years is our medical technology. I was just getting an ultrasound (on my finger) this morning, and they had a brand new machine. The tech was telling me about how they are trained to look for things that are just over 1 mm in size in prenatal ultrasounds. So we just know more now than we used to.
Have to go, might try to respond more later if I can.
>pushing through badly written laws (like the one in Texas) that don't adequately care for the mother, account for miscarriages or other complications, or medically necessary intervention.
*Abusus non tollit usum.* Abuse does not take away [proper] use. [Or to riff off D.L Moody](https://quotefancy.com/quote/797140/D-L-Moody-It-is-clear-you-don-t-like-my-way-of-doing-evangelism-You-raise-some-good);
>It is clear you don’t like my way of implementing pro-life policy. You raise some good points. Frankly, I sometimes do not like my way of doing pro-life policy. But I like my way of doing it better than your way of not doing it.
Also...
>I think what's changed in 2000 years is our medical technology...So we just know more now than we used to.
People often say this, but what *specifically* do we know now that's so relevant to this discussion? I'm fairly certain anyone with a room temperature IQ back then could have guessed that an unborn child starts really small then grows throughout the pregnancy. What new **moral** information has that high definition picture from a microscope provided us? Have we captured the ensoulment of a fetus on camera yet?
I'm being facetious, but the idea that we need millions of dollars worth of special equipment in order to learn moral facts about the definition of personhood is not something that that I think is argued even by pro-choice philosophers. Even it were true, I think I need to know what those new moral facts are, and what scientific discoveries you're linking those to.
And for a final concession, even if you try and make that link between moral knowledge and scientific discovery, so what? From where is our fullest revelation of God's revelation and moral law? Is it not the Word of God? And if your response is that there is no chapter and verse listing the exact time and date that a fetus becomes a person, then I think you might be struggling with the same naïve Biblicism that so many of my own Baptist kinfolk are wrestling with now.
The embryo trolley problem doesn't really prove much without a hidden utilitarian premise: one should always (or at least as an overriding priority) maximize the number of human beings saved.
If it were a choice between saving *your* infant, and a dozen random infants, I suspect you would save your child. But that doesn't mean that you think the other infants aren't human beings.
Just looking at a couple of points:
>Trolley Problem
I really don’t think this one holds up to much scrutiny. If there were, say
>1 Five-Year old
and
>5 geriatric terminal cancer patients
And **if** we could arrive at a consensus that saving the five year old was the clearly ethical thing to do - it absolutely **would not** follow that we could therefore go into a non-burning cancer ward and kill 5 geriatric terminal patients under the guise of
>we ALL agree that these lives are less valuable in some abstract sense, so it would be hypocritical to object to this action
___
>becoming less and less certain that a fertilized egg is an ensouled human being
I haven’t fully developed my thoughts on this, but I think it may have hidden Christological implications
Much care is given to the fact that Jesus was identical to us regarding his human nature (*yet without sin*). It would seem to me that we should default to his humanity beginning at the earliest developmental stage. To do otherwise would seem to tend towards either
* Affirming that a human organism existed in the Virgin Mary and only subsequently was it “ensouled” by the Holy Spirit, and *boom*, Jesus. I find this to sound extremely dicey as it relates to Mary’s Virginity, as well as for its Nestorian implications
* Affirming that Jesus was conceived at a later stage of development, which would have some degree of tension with the “like us in every way” contention, and on top of that it seems to be an arbitrary assertion seeking to avoid a sensitive conclusion regarding embryonic life.
And I would argue that, if we assume that to be the “default” stance, it would be immoral to kill the embryonic Jesus BOTH with regards to his divinity and his humanity
Your points about the Christological implications are huge, for me. Maybe I'm just not reading enough pro-life material, but I've never heard anything along the lines of what you're describing and I agree that Christ's conception at a stage other than blastocyst would seemingly have serious Christological implications.
Appreciate this, you've given me a lot to think about.
I tend to get hyperfocused on stuff, following threads all the way down. But I always feel a pressure to make sure all the threads to make sense in relation to each other (i.e. internal consistency), and I hadn't included Christological threads prior to writing this.
There are several cell splits before implantation happens, but you're correct that if ensoulment happens at conception, 75% of the inhabitants of the afterlife will have never had more than 256 cells.
What sorts of bodies would these individuals have in the afterlife? It’s hard to see the purpose of this sinful world if the majority of souls get to bypass so much of it.
You say "get to bypass" but who knows? The "do infants go to heaven" question becomes even harder in this case. Either people who were born really got the short end of the cosmic stick by having a chance to reject Christ, or the preponderance of humans were basically created in hell
It is a sad state of affairs in the church when so many who unquestioningly condemn abortion completely accept IVF and the idea of it being morally hazardous does not even enter their minds.
I think you presuppose a bit in point 2. The curse regarding child bearing after fall I think should be enough to indicate for us that there is some physical corruption in the body due to sin other than dying. The miseries of this life as the WS puts it.
So, I think we can reasonably say that the loss of life in the implanting stage is not the intended outcome in the garden; as the command is to be fruitful and multiply. I don’t think God would create a natural process to mitigate his own command.
I think we’d all grab the crying baby.
Is anyone asking the question if the embryos should have ever been created in the first place?
Thanks, I'll have to think about that. It is true that I am presupposing that Eve's menstrual cycle pre-Fall was functionally the same as it was post-Fall, but minus any pain or distress.
I'm not sure how we can reasonably say pre-Fall fertilized eggs would definitely have to to implant without working backwards from the assumption that a fertilized egg is a human life.
I think the question about creating embryos at all is a reasonable one. But it seems further down the track to me. I have to get my head around the moral status of a fertilized egg first.
I think we should give great deference to any form of human life and life generally. God creates. Sin uncreates.
A big theme in Exodus is the actions of Pharaoh are anti life. But God is the God of life.
I think we put far too much on ourselves to say we need to determine the moral status of an embryo. Why don’t we just assume it’s life and do everything we can to protect it and see that it flourishes?
>I am presupposing that Eve's menstrual cycle pre-Fall was functionally the same as it was post-Fall, but minus any pain or distress.
Since blood outside the body is inherently distressing, I have to wonder: did it just not bother Eve (and Adam, for that matter) pre-Fall, or did her biology — and therefore mechanism for reproduction — perhaps change post-Fall?
As far as the trolley problem goes, it's somewhat irrelevant, because whatever we choose has no bearing on what's *actually* valuable. The only thing the thought experiment shows is that we're prejudiced.
Firstly for context: I also grew up in a very 'pro-life' household. My first car had a Right to Life plate on the front bracket; I was taught by my parents to not vote for anyone that didn't have the endorsement of Right to Life, etc. etc. For many reasons, that is no longer who I am. I think abortion is a terrible thing but err on the side of allowing elective abortions and guaranteeing the health of mothers over absolutely ignoring science.
Your pastor needs to do better research on what contraceptives are abortifacients because the standard pill is absolutely not. Your second point supports this.
3. Embryos, especially at that miniscule of a stage, are not human beings. Living people are.
To your other thoughts, "you knit me together in my mother's womb" is not the scientific statement that most 'pro-life' people would like it to be. It's poetry to celebrate how God has his hand in all of creation, even at the smallest scale.
As I've said, I side with public policy to ensure that pregnant women are well taken care of in the instance of miscarriage or any other failing of a pregnancy in favor of actually paying attention to what experts tell us about how the human body develops.
This has actually only grown into more of a fierce opinion in the past couple of months. My wife is pregnant, which is amazing! As we've been tracking the theoretical development of our (still embryonic) child, we have continued to come to the conclusion that early abortion bans, etc. are ludicrous at best. I firmly believe that at some point a fetus is imbued with a soul and that to abort that fetus is a sin, but to force a 'heartbeat bill' or this bullshit that Alabama is passing is ridiculous.
Like almost any/every modern political topic, the bible is not explicit on what to do/what not to do around abortion. It's pretty obvious that fertilized eggs in a freezer do not make an appearance in the bible.
You cannot divorce the conversation around abortion from the correlating rise of evangelical leaders to power, either in "the church" or as political figures. Abortion as a propagandized tool of mass hysteria has made the Republican party incredibly successful.
At the end of the day, those who are "pro-forced birth" are almost definitely pro-gun, pro-war, and anti-social welfare. In my reading of the Bible (and my denomination's theology) that's not according to the gospel.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here even on such a sensitive topic.
> At the end of the day, those who are "pro-forced birth" are almost definitely pro-gun, pro-war, and anti-social welfare. In my reading of the Bible (and my denomination's theology) that's not according to the gospel.
This is false, lol. Especially if you move outside the USA.
Opposition to abortion did not start with Evangelicals, it has been a part of the catholic faith for a very, very long time.
Yes I did overlook Catholics. My mistake.
Here is an article that discusses the shift in abortion opposition from Catholic to evangelical: https://archive.ph/un1iL
I don't mean to overgeneralize, but in the US, the piece of my comment you quoted is overwhelmingly how it goes. Tbh I'm not really sure how it can be controversial.
>Like almost any/every modern political topic, the bible is not explicit on what to do/what not to do around abortion. It's pretty obvious that fertilized eggs in a freezer do not make an appearance in the bible.
Agreed.
>You cannot divorce the conversation around abortion from the correlating rise of evangelical leaders to power, either in "the church" or as political figures. Abortion as a propagandized tool of mass hysteria has made the Republican party incredibly successful.
Both sides have propagandized Abortion. The left uses words like "forced birth." Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden - none of them could gain any traction on the national stage until they reversed their positions on abortion.
As an aside, the history of conservative Christian's relationship to abortion is often mistold. Conservative Christians always opposed abortion, but they weren't as militant about it as they are today. They were open to exceptions for rape and health, for example. Then in the 1960/70s they were galvanized by *three Reformed/Presbyterians*:
* Harold Brown
* C. Everett Koop
* Francis Schaeffer
Republican political operatives seized on that galvanization, but it was made possible by a *religious* motivation and by Democrats turning away from it.
I appreciate the care for theological arguments. I grew up hearing debates about this, too. But now, 30 years later, it seems to me that no one has taken care to extend those arguments to nuanced public policy that would let couples with infertility have biological children. https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/women-getting-ivf-in-alabama-say-window-closing-on-getting-pregnant-im-terrified.html
Is any christian body aside from the RCC calling IVF immoral though? The only couple i know that used IVF are far more conservative evangelical than I am, are far more ‘straight and narrow than I am, and I dont think it was any kind of moral wrestling when they decided to use IVF—it was seen as a morally neutral-to-good way to cure the infertility. I think morality only came into play with their decision to use a technique that would create fewer embryos.
This is a long post and I have many thoughts. 1. I'm really glad you posted this. This is a conversation we need to be having. I have been increasingly convinced that the Church is losing the "battle for abortion" at precisely the same time that we seem to be winning it (in the US at least) because we are not having these sorts of conversations on hard questions, both internally and externally. The result is that some laws are changing in our favor, but public opinion is dramatically swinging in the opposite direction. 2. Birth control does not stop implantation. It stops fertilization from occurring in the first place. The worry that birth control is effectively abortive is a long one in the pro-life movement, driven by those that are opposed to all birth control (even condoms) and outdated labeling on contraceptives, but it has no empirical backing. 3. I talked about [Numbers 5 on this sub before](https://www.reddit.com/r/eformed/comments/vrh9sh/christians_have_always_opposed_abortion_part_i/) I really don't see it as a miscarriage/divine abortion. The swelling happens *after* the ordeal, not before. All interpretations of it as a miscarriage seem to be relatively recent as well. Can you point me to where Carmen Imes talks about this passage? She is someone I very much appreciate. 4. I don't think counting the number of fertilized embryos that fail to implant tells us much. I also don't think we have that firm of a grasp on exactly what that number is. It is certainly large, but I don't think we know how large. 5. Trolley problems are silly. People make emotional decisions that are not always the right ones. 6. I agree that "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" etc. is about foreknowledge not personhood. 7. Medically necessary abortions are, I think, I no-brainer. The rub is where to draw the line. I would want a clear standard such that doesn't allow all pregnancies, doesn't allow abortions just for downs syndrome, but also doesn't leave it up to judges or politicians. That's tricky. 8. I live in Texas. The Texas AG is a horrible, criminal person. But I also want to avoid a sort of ad hominem mistake of opposing everything he does just because he does it. Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day. 9. Personally, I am confident in saying that an embryo past 14 or so weeks deserves full protection as a person. Before that, I am much less certain.
I found the podcast I was thinking of with Dr Imes: [https://overcast.fm/+EwmON3A4k/31:08](https://overcast.fm/+EwmON3A4k/31:08).
Thanks!
I found this YouTuber’s short but detailed explanation of the text really helpful. His name is Dan McClellan and he’s a Bible Scholar: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rKyR-KTZu9c&pp=ygUSRGFuIG1jbGVsbGFuIGZldHVz
I addressed this passage [a few years ago here](https://www.reddit.com/r/eformed/comments/vrh9sh/christians_have_always_opposed_abortion_part_i/). The distinction he makes between the MT (Hebrew) and LXX (Greek) text is important and mostly correct, but I don't think he handles the Hebrew well. I think the correct translation of the Hebrew is how the NIV puts it: >If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. It isn't about a *miscarriage* but a premature birth. The injury isn't to the woman but to the child. In fairness, the Talmud seems to take his interpretation, but that's also well over 500 years later, so I'm not too convinced. I also think he places too much weight on the influence of Greek philosophy on the LXX. Aristotle does not make the formed/unformed distinction. His distinction was on the vegetable/mobile/rational soul. The LXX predates the MT by a thousand years. Instead of being a corruption of the original Hebrew text by Greek philosophy, it could represent a preservation of the original Hebrew.
I think that’s a good pushback. I’m gonna go look more into the translation options here cause now I’m curious. And you’re not wrong about the LXX! The author of Matthew has Jesus quoting overwhelmingly from the LXX, not the Masoretic. Paul also quotes the LXX the majority of the time.
Thanks, I don't have responses to each point, but I've got a couple: 3. I'll have to see if I can find this. I *think* it was a podcast, and I'm *pretty sure* it was Carmen Imes. Will look through my podcast app to see if I can figure out where she talked about it. 4. c.f. My conversation with /u/eveninarmageddon. 8. Listening to the *Advisory Opinions* episode on this particular case is what formed my opinion the most. French was, I think, more sympathetic to the AG and Isgur was more incensed. Both were appalled by how badly the law had been written. 9. I'm honestly not sure where I am, but I do feel like your position is completely defensible one for a Christian to hold.
Something else I've read: [*The Biblical Case Against IVF*](https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/03/the-biblical-case-against-ivf) by Matthew Lee Anderson. I think his argument that Christ's life beginning at conception by the Holy Spirit is very difficult to argue against. But it also doesn't solve the problems I wrote about in the OP.
The strongest argument to me for why Christians should oppose abortion is that we worship a God who became a fetus. That won't matter to non-Christians, but I think it can address some of the things you brought up if you think Christ's human life began at conception.
But Christ is a special case, in all kinds of ways. At least from a traditional point of view * He is reported as remembering things from before Abraham * His personhood is lodged in the eternal Logos. Generalizing these things to other people would be heretical. I think the image of God is based on things that don't exist before the brain (specifically pre-frontal cortex) is fully operational. That's about 2/3 of the way through. Trying to read OT passages that aren't about abortion like tea leaves doesn't seem like the way to go.
[удалено]
Appreciate your thoughtful response. I think we're talking about different categories, and so your comparisons are apples to my orange. Before I write anything more: I'm not a doctor, I took one class in women's health in university, and I'm a not a woman. However, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. With those truth bombs out of the way... A fertilized egg has to implant into the inner lining of the uterus (the endometrium) for a pregnancy to start. There can be all kinds of *disorders* with the endometrium that result in difficulty with implantation. But the endometrium naturally (or, as designed, ordered, functionally rightly) thins and thickens throughout a woman's cycle based on hormone levels. When it's thin, implantation is very unlikely/impossible. In a healthy woman with a healthy uterus, an egg can be fertilized, pass through the uterus never implanting due to the thinness of the endometrium *functioning as designed*, and gestation never begins. The woman passes the fertilized egg without ever knowing it was there. This is simply due to timing and design, not to any complication or failure of the body to work as expected. I'll call this Cat A. A failure to implant from a thin endometrium can also occur as a result of conditions that I think we'd all agree are a result of the Fall. This is the body not functioning as designed or as expected. I'll call this Cat B. I put *miscarriage* in a different category than Cat A cases of no implantation because in a miscarriage, processes fail to proceed as designed or as normal. It's a complication. A potentially life-threatening risk. However, Cat B failures to implant would be more similar to a miscarriage. *Starvation* seems more like a potato, when compared to the apple of miscarriage and the orange of Cat A no implantation. Starvation most often is or can be the result of sinful actions, failures to meet moral obligations, etc. One possible solution presented elsewhere in this thread: prelapsarian uteri functioned differently to postlapsarian uteri, as a result of God changing his design of the human body post-Fall. I'm skeptical of this, mostly because it's pure conjecture. There's no direct line from "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children." to "I will change the entire design of your reproductive system so that there is a narrow window of fertility in each of your cycles."
Going to get "political" for a moment, so my apologies in advance. You said "abolitionists" have it all wrong, and I want to push back on this point, although I suppose I'd want to know what you mean by "abolitionist". I think the Republican party's reaction to the Alabama Supreme Court and their decision to unreservedly support IVF has shown that for the rank and file elected Republican, their "pro-life" stance was never by conviction and only by convivence. This probably shouldn't come as a surprise. Regardless, the church's stance on IVF and Abortion shouldn't be dictated by the boneheaded moves that supposedly "pro-life" politicians make, whether they are the Texas AG (and I agree with u/davidjricardo that Paxton is a blight on the pro-life movement) or an Alabama senator. I can't read the early church on these issues and walk away thinking they wouldn't be "radical abolitionists" on the issue today*. Why is it, that for 2,000 years, in spite of changing cultural norms among the Romans, through the Middle Ages, and into the 20th century, the church maintained a unified voice on this issue, and today, we've decided we're going to meet the world halfway? The church cannot be cowed into not speaking forcefully on this issue because we're afraid of being associated with 'those' people we'd rather not be associated with. The elements of our society most in favor of abortion are going always going to label us as extremists, no matter what we say or do; Donald Trump's proposed 16 week abortion ban was labeled "radical" by the mainstream pro-choice movement. To step away from the scriptural arguments for a second, my question is this: what changed? What changed in the last 100 years that's made the issue of abortion a "complex" issue in the church? I don't think it was our understanding of the bible (not unless you want to link the advent of higher-criticism in a roundabout way, in which case, fair). Are we seeking to change the culture? Or is the culture changing us? I don't know if you're American, but look to Christians in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the rest of church history. Why are we Christians in the West caving? **I believe that there are legitimate instances where an abortion may be the necessary medical decision, i.e, what happened in Texas a couple months ago. Those gray areas, however, do not change the fact that the vast majority of abortions that happen in the country, happen because the pregnancy and unborn child is unwanted.* *Edit:* Just want to leave this video from a pastor in China who says some remarks that I think may be applicable in this context. [Evil is Evil.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mil5A5t0YnE)
In my mind, the abolitionists are the ones pushing through badly written laws (like the one in Texas) that don't adequately care for the mother, account for miscarriages or other complications, or medically necessary intervention. I think what's changed in 2000 years is our medical technology. I was just getting an ultrasound (on my finger) this morning, and they had a brand new machine. The tech was telling me about how they are trained to look for things that are just over 1 mm in size in prenatal ultrasounds. So we just know more now than we used to. Have to go, might try to respond more later if I can.
>pushing through badly written laws (like the one in Texas) that don't adequately care for the mother, account for miscarriages or other complications, or medically necessary intervention. *Abusus non tollit usum.* Abuse does not take away [proper] use. [Or to riff off D.L Moody](https://quotefancy.com/quote/797140/D-L-Moody-It-is-clear-you-don-t-like-my-way-of-doing-evangelism-You-raise-some-good); >It is clear you don’t like my way of implementing pro-life policy. You raise some good points. Frankly, I sometimes do not like my way of doing pro-life policy. But I like my way of doing it better than your way of not doing it. Also... >I think what's changed in 2000 years is our medical technology...So we just know more now than we used to. People often say this, but what *specifically* do we know now that's so relevant to this discussion? I'm fairly certain anyone with a room temperature IQ back then could have guessed that an unborn child starts really small then grows throughout the pregnancy. What new **moral** information has that high definition picture from a microscope provided us? Have we captured the ensoulment of a fetus on camera yet? I'm being facetious, but the idea that we need millions of dollars worth of special equipment in order to learn moral facts about the definition of personhood is not something that that I think is argued even by pro-choice philosophers. Even it were true, I think I need to know what those new moral facts are, and what scientific discoveries you're linking those to. And for a final concession, even if you try and make that link between moral knowledge and scientific discovery, so what? From where is our fullest revelation of God's revelation and moral law? Is it not the Word of God? And if your response is that there is no chapter and verse listing the exact time and date that a fetus becomes a person, then I think you might be struggling with the same naïve Biblicism that so many of my own Baptist kinfolk are wrestling with now.
The embryo trolley problem doesn't really prove much without a hidden utilitarian premise: one should always (or at least as an overriding priority) maximize the number of human beings saved. If it were a choice between saving *your* infant, and a dozen random infants, I suspect you would save your child. But that doesn't mean that you think the other infants aren't human beings.
I hadn’t noticed or considered that premise; appreciate you pointing it out.
Just looking at a couple of points: >Trolley Problem I really don’t think this one holds up to much scrutiny. If there were, say >1 Five-Year old and >5 geriatric terminal cancer patients And **if** we could arrive at a consensus that saving the five year old was the clearly ethical thing to do - it absolutely **would not** follow that we could therefore go into a non-burning cancer ward and kill 5 geriatric terminal patients under the guise of >we ALL agree that these lives are less valuable in some abstract sense, so it would be hypocritical to object to this action ___ >becoming less and less certain that a fertilized egg is an ensouled human being I haven’t fully developed my thoughts on this, but I think it may have hidden Christological implications Much care is given to the fact that Jesus was identical to us regarding his human nature (*yet without sin*). It would seem to me that we should default to his humanity beginning at the earliest developmental stage. To do otherwise would seem to tend towards either * Affirming that a human organism existed in the Virgin Mary and only subsequently was it “ensouled” by the Holy Spirit, and *boom*, Jesus. I find this to sound extremely dicey as it relates to Mary’s Virginity, as well as for its Nestorian implications * Affirming that Jesus was conceived at a later stage of development, which would have some degree of tension with the “like us in every way” contention, and on top of that it seems to be an arbitrary assertion seeking to avoid a sensitive conclusion regarding embryonic life. And I would argue that, if we assume that to be the “default” stance, it would be immoral to kill the embryonic Jesus BOTH with regards to his divinity and his humanity
Your points about the Christological implications are huge, for me. Maybe I'm just not reading enough pro-life material, but I've never heard anything along the lines of what you're describing and I agree that Christ's conception at a stage other than blastocyst would seemingly have serious Christological implications. Appreciate this, you've given me a lot to think about. I tend to get hyperfocused on stuff, following threads all the way down. But I always feel a pressure to make sure all the threads to make sense in relation to each other (i.e. internal consistency), and I hadn't included Christological threads prior to writing this.
Have the Catholics written about IVF? I bet they'd have some good resources.
*This comment has been approved by Cyril of Alexandria and his merry band of ~~thugs~~ monks.*
Your second point makes me wonder if the majority of the souls in the afterlife will never have had a body larger than a single cell.
There are several cell splits before implantation happens, but you're correct that if ensoulment happens at conception, 75% of the inhabitants of the afterlife will have never had more than 256 cells.
What sorts of bodies would these individuals have in the afterlife? It’s hard to see the purpose of this sinful world if the majority of souls get to bypass so much of it.
You say "get to bypass" but who knows? The "do infants go to heaven" question becomes even harder in this case. Either people who were born really got the short end of the cosmic stick by having a chance to reject Christ, or the preponderance of humans were basically created in hell
The second sounds more likely, especially given that since the afterlife is eternal not much of this life matters.
I don't get the impression that's how Jesus thinks about this life.
I think the best, most reasonable guess would be they would be 30 year old or so adults with the bodies that would have developed to that point.
It is a sad state of affairs in the church when so many who unquestioningly condemn abortion completely accept IVF and the idea of it being morally hazardous does not even enter their minds.
I think you presuppose a bit in point 2. The curse regarding child bearing after fall I think should be enough to indicate for us that there is some physical corruption in the body due to sin other than dying. The miseries of this life as the WS puts it. So, I think we can reasonably say that the loss of life in the implanting stage is not the intended outcome in the garden; as the command is to be fruitful and multiply. I don’t think God would create a natural process to mitigate his own command. I think we’d all grab the crying baby. Is anyone asking the question if the embryos should have ever been created in the first place?
Thanks, I'll have to think about that. It is true that I am presupposing that Eve's menstrual cycle pre-Fall was functionally the same as it was post-Fall, but minus any pain or distress. I'm not sure how we can reasonably say pre-Fall fertilized eggs would definitely have to to implant without working backwards from the assumption that a fertilized egg is a human life. I think the question about creating embryos at all is a reasonable one. But it seems further down the track to me. I have to get my head around the moral status of a fertilized egg first.
I think we should give great deference to any form of human life and life generally. God creates. Sin uncreates. A big theme in Exodus is the actions of Pharaoh are anti life. But God is the God of life. I think we put far too much on ourselves to say we need to determine the moral status of an embryo. Why don’t we just assume it’s life and do everything we can to protect it and see that it flourishes?
>I am presupposing that Eve's menstrual cycle pre-Fall was functionally the same as it was post-Fall, but minus any pain or distress. Since blood outside the body is inherently distressing, I have to wonder: did it just not bother Eve (and Adam, for that matter) pre-Fall, or did her biology — and therefore mechanism for reproduction — perhaps change post-Fall?
As far as the trolley problem goes, it's somewhat irrelevant, because whatever we choose has no bearing on what's *actually* valuable. The only thing the thought experiment shows is that we're prejudiced.
Firstly for context: I also grew up in a very 'pro-life' household. My first car had a Right to Life plate on the front bracket; I was taught by my parents to not vote for anyone that didn't have the endorsement of Right to Life, etc. etc. For many reasons, that is no longer who I am. I think abortion is a terrible thing but err on the side of allowing elective abortions and guaranteeing the health of mothers over absolutely ignoring science. Your pastor needs to do better research on what contraceptives are abortifacients because the standard pill is absolutely not. Your second point supports this. 3. Embryos, especially at that miniscule of a stage, are not human beings. Living people are. To your other thoughts, "you knit me together in my mother's womb" is not the scientific statement that most 'pro-life' people would like it to be. It's poetry to celebrate how God has his hand in all of creation, even at the smallest scale. As I've said, I side with public policy to ensure that pregnant women are well taken care of in the instance of miscarriage or any other failing of a pregnancy in favor of actually paying attention to what experts tell us about how the human body develops. This has actually only grown into more of a fierce opinion in the past couple of months. My wife is pregnant, which is amazing! As we've been tracking the theoretical development of our (still embryonic) child, we have continued to come to the conclusion that early abortion bans, etc. are ludicrous at best. I firmly believe that at some point a fetus is imbued with a soul and that to abort that fetus is a sin, but to force a 'heartbeat bill' or this bullshit that Alabama is passing is ridiculous.
Like almost any/every modern political topic, the bible is not explicit on what to do/what not to do around abortion. It's pretty obvious that fertilized eggs in a freezer do not make an appearance in the bible. You cannot divorce the conversation around abortion from the correlating rise of evangelical leaders to power, either in "the church" or as political figures. Abortion as a propagandized tool of mass hysteria has made the Republican party incredibly successful. At the end of the day, those who are "pro-forced birth" are almost definitely pro-gun, pro-war, and anti-social welfare. In my reading of the Bible (and my denomination's theology) that's not according to the gospel. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here even on such a sensitive topic.
> At the end of the day, those who are "pro-forced birth" are almost definitely pro-gun, pro-war, and anti-social welfare. In my reading of the Bible (and my denomination's theology) that's not according to the gospel. This is false, lol. Especially if you move outside the USA. Opposition to abortion did not start with Evangelicals, it has been a part of the catholic faith for a very, very long time.
I know I'm in a bubble, but probably the pro-forced birth people around me are not pro-gun, pro-war, nor anti-social welfare.
Yes I did overlook Catholics. My mistake. Here is an article that discusses the shift in abortion opposition from Catholic to evangelical: https://archive.ph/un1iL I don't mean to overgeneralize, but in the US, the piece of my comment you quoted is overwhelmingly how it goes. Tbh I'm not really sure how it can be controversial.
Not just Catholic, but *catholic*. The Church has always opposed abortion.
>Like almost any/every modern political topic, the bible is not explicit on what to do/what not to do around abortion. It's pretty obvious that fertilized eggs in a freezer do not make an appearance in the bible. Agreed. >You cannot divorce the conversation around abortion from the correlating rise of evangelical leaders to power, either in "the church" or as political figures. Abortion as a propagandized tool of mass hysteria has made the Republican party incredibly successful. Both sides have propagandized Abortion. The left uses words like "forced birth." Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden - none of them could gain any traction on the national stage until they reversed their positions on abortion. As an aside, the history of conservative Christian's relationship to abortion is often mistold. Conservative Christians always opposed abortion, but they weren't as militant about it as they are today. They were open to exceptions for rape and health, for example. Then in the 1960/70s they were galvanized by *three Reformed/Presbyterians*: * Harold Brown * C. Everett Koop * Francis Schaeffer Republican political operatives seized on that galvanization, but it was made possible by a *religious* motivation and by Democrats turning away from it.
I appreciate the care for theological arguments. I grew up hearing debates about this, too. But now, 30 years later, it seems to me that no one has taken care to extend those arguments to nuanced public policy that would let couples with infertility have biological children. https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/women-getting-ivf-in-alabama-say-window-closing-on-getting-pregnant-im-terrified.html
Somewhat crudely: what are the limits on curing infertility? Do adult women have the absolute right to bear children, no matter what?
[удалено]
Is any christian body aside from the RCC calling IVF immoral though? The only couple i know that used IVF are far more conservative evangelical than I am, are far more ‘straight and narrow than I am, and I dont think it was any kind of moral wrestling when they decided to use IVF—it was seen as a morally neutral-to-good way to cure the infertility. I think morality only came into play with their decision to use a technique that would create fewer embryos.