Ohio's Issue #1 and Abortion Politics: Are we learning anything?

[GaryK]

Biologically speaking there is no "beginning" to life. Every cell in your body (and in every other living thing) came about through cell division or developed from living tissue of another living cell. Life is not created from non-life and it does not ever "begin", it simply continues in an endless cycle. Sperm and eggs are generated the same way, through cell division from other living cells and then develop to maturity in the presence of hormones.

So at what point does a collection of cells become fully human with a soul? The scriptures are very vague on that point aren't they? According to Genesis 2:7 it was upon first breath (the breath of life). Catholic teaching is that it occurs at the moment of conception. Judaism puts it at 40 days after conception. Islam puts it at 120 days after conception. The consequence of Catholic teaching is that heaven will be filled with the souls of undeveloped fetuses who have never breathed a breath or composed a thought. Since at least 1/4 of all fertilized embryos end in miscarriage and that number was likely higher in premodern times. Is that what you believe? That heaven will be filled with souls who have never experienced a single human thought or emotion?

But this thread is not about abortion theology. It is about abortion politics and policy. If you you want to know my own personal opinions about abortion policy, they are roughly consistent with the 1975 official Mennonite Church position on Abortion: https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/in ... rch,_1975) and with the 1971, 1974, and 1977 Southern Baptist positions on abortion: https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/re ... bortion-2/ and https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/re ... uman-life/ and https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/re ... bortion-4/

Generally, all four of the above statements affirm the sanctity of life but call for a limited governmental response. And instead of the criminalization of women and health care providers they all advocate instead for Christians to take a compassionate approach and promote alternatives that reduce the need for abortions in the first place. But the pro-life movement in 2023 has strayed far from that approach. In Idaho, for example, anyone in any abortion at any time and for any reason is subject to felony convictions and up to 5 years in prison. Republicans in that state are seeking to treat all abortions without exception as felony murder which would carry up to life sentences for all involved including the woman, family members, and any medical providers. I don't view that as a remotely Christian approach. And the backlash at the ballot box that we are currently seeing is entirely predictable.

I would really like to hear your answer to this question and this question has nothing to do with when life begins. To me it's a very fundamental question that goes to the heart of the pro-choice movement.

A haploid single cell stage (sperm and eggs) and a diploid multi-cell stage. Are either of those the woman carrying them or are they a separate human being?

Another way to frame the question: does the human clumps of cells have its own identity or is its identity the same as the woman carrying it?

My own particular thoughts are that an individual gains self-identity when it becomes self-aware and capable of it own thoughts and emotions. Cogito, ergo sum if you will. When exactly that happens in the stages of development from a clump of cells to a bouncy baby? I really can't say.

I do not, however, believe that state legislatures can do it for us by picking random numbers like 6 weeks or 12 weeks or even conception. Which is why I think this subject is ill-suited for being addressed through criminalization and criminal law. And that there are other more Christian and life-affirming approaches that we seem to have left behind in the current pro-life movement.

It's like saying we are going to outlaw war. OK then, we pass a UN resolution outlawing war. Now what? What are you actually going to do to build a more peaceful and just world in which war becomes just a distant memory? That is the real question.

The question was: is the clump of cells' identity (or humanity) the same as the woman's carrying it?

[Jazman]

I would really like to hear your answer to this question and this question has nothing to do with when life begins. To me it's a very fundamental question that goes to the heart of the pro-choice movement.

A haploid single cell stage (sperm and eggs) and a diploid multi-cell stage. Are either of those the woman carrying them or are they a separate human being?

Another way to frame the question: does the human clumps of cells have its own identity or is its identity the same as the woman carrying it?

My own particular thoughts are that an individual gains self-identity when it becomes self-aware and capable of it own thoughts and emotions. Cogito, ergo sum if you will. When exactly that happens in the stages of development from a clump of cells to a bouncy baby? I really can't say.

I do not, however, believe that state legislatures can do it for us by picking random numbers like 6 weeks or 12 weeks or even conception. Which is why I think this subject is ill-suited for being addressed through criminalization and criminal law. And that there are other more Christian and life-affirming approaches that we seem to have left behind in the current pro-life movement.

It's like saying we are going to outlaw war. OK then, we pass a UN resolution outlawing war. Now what? What are you actually going to do to build a more peaceful and just world in which war becomes just a distant memory? That is the real question.

The question was: is the clump of cells' identity (or humanity) the same as the woman's carrying it?

I'd suggest Ken's answers about the complexity of this, including the historical theological complexity around it, should be sufficient answers to your question. Could you address the starting post's questions? Do you feel you've learned anything new about this issue in the last year or so?
Have you thought about personal changes or collective Christian community changes in approach or messaging or outreach or strategy or even lifestyle - in the face of the initial 'win' of the Supreme Court decision, followed by the very predictable btw, backlash, to the 'stick' that the political-solution wing of the pro-life movement is attempting to implement, wield?

I know polling is derided in many quarters, particularly the current GOP/conservative side, but sometimes it can be somewhat useful in giving one a glimpse of what a general consensus on a matter might be... I could be wrong, but I think polling for years has shown that a majority of people want some restrictions and accountability on this issue, etc, but they also don't want total criminalization bans, with exceptions, etc. I think these kinds of things also show that a majority of Americans don't think like, don't value, don't hold the same theologically conservative beliefs that a small portion of the population (25%, 30%? at best) holds to. It's pretty basic human psychology; a majority doesn't take well to a small minority pushing them around or deciding things for them. Never goes well. I've never seen that work out in a church setting or a family setting. It's not going to work well in this situation either. So if that's the context we're in, what do you suggest Christians individually or collectively should do?

If a minority in this country tries to lord it over the majority in this country, the backlash to that will actually end up in a place where the minority ends up with less and in a worst place for all involved. (Study Europe and its state churches for exhibit A on how that kind of approach plays out).

[Szdfan]

My own particular thoughts are that an individual gains self-identity when it becomes self-aware and capable of it own thoughts and emotions. Cogito, ergo sum if you will. When exactly that happens in the stages of development from a clump of cells to a bouncy baby? I really can't say.

I do not, however, believe that state legislatures can do it for us by picking random numbers like 6 weeks or 12 weeks or even conception. Which is why I think this subject is ill-suited for being addressed through criminalization and criminal law. And that there are other more Christian and life-affirming approaches that we seem to have left behind in the current pro-life movement.

It's like saying we are going to outlaw war. OK then, we pass a UN resolution outlawing war. Now what? What are you actually going to do to build a more peaceful and just world in which war becomes just a distant memory? That is the real question.

The question was: is the clump of cells' identity (or humanity) the same as the woman's carrying it?

I'd suggest Ken's answers about the complexity of this, including the historical theological complexity around it, should be sufficient answers to your question. Could you address the starting post's questions? Do you feel you've learned anything new about this issue in the last year or so?
Have you thought about personal changes or collective Christian community changes in approach or messaging or outreach or strategy or even lifestyle - in the face of the initial 'win' of the Supreme Court decision, followed by the very predictable btw, backlash, to the 'stick' that the political-solution wing of the pro-life movement is attempting to implement, wield?

I know polling is derided in many quarters, particularly the current GOP/conservative side, but sometimes it can be somewhat useful in giving one a glimpse of what a general consensus on a matter might be... I could be wrong, but I think polling for years has shown that a majority of people want some restrictions and accountability on this issue, etc, but they also don't want total criminalization bans, with exceptions, etc. I think these kinds of things also show that a majority of Americans don't think like, don't value, don't hold the same theologically conservative beliefs that a small portion of the population (25%, 30%? at best) holds to. It's pretty basic human psychology; a majority doesn't take well to a small minority pushing them around or deciding things for them. Never goes well. I've never seen that work out in a church setting or a family setting. It's not going to work well in this situation either. So if that's the context we're in, what do you suggest Christians individually or collectively should do?

If a minority in this country tries to lord it over the majority in this country, the backlash to that will actually end up in a place where the minority ends up with less and in a worst place for all involved. (Study Europe and its state churches for exhibit A on how that kind of approach plays out).

Well said

[Ken]

I would really like to hear your answer to this question and this question has nothing to do with when life begins. To me it's a very fundamental question that goes to the heart of the pro-choice movement.

A haploid single cell stage (sperm and eggs) and a diploid multi-cell stage. Are either of those the woman carrying them or are they a separate human being?

Another way to frame the question: does the human clumps of cells have its own identity or is its identity the same as the woman carrying it?

My own particular thoughts are that an individual gains self-identity when it becomes self-aware and capable of it own thoughts and emotions. Cogito, ergo sum if you will. When exactly that happens in the stages of development from a clump of cells to a bouncy baby? I really can't say.

I do not, however, believe that state legislatures can do it for us by picking random numbers like 6 weeks or 12 weeks or even conception. Which is why I think this subject is ill-suited for being addressed through criminalization and criminal law. And that there are other more Christian and life-affirming approaches that we seem to have left behind in the current pro-life movement.

It's like saying we are going to outlaw war. OK then, we pass a UN resolution outlawing war. Now what? What are you actually going to do to build a more peaceful and just world in which war becomes just a distant memory? That is the real question.

The question was: is the clump of cells' identity (or humanity) the same as the woman's carrying it?

I gave you an answer: Cogito, ergo sum to quote René Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." When exactly a clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions I cannot say. I don't think any of us can. The religions of the world are certainly not of one mind on that question. Neither historically has been the Mennonite church.

[GaryK]

My own particular thoughts are that an individual gains self-identity when it becomes self-aware and capable of it own thoughts and emotions. Cogito, ergo sum if you will. When exactly that happens in the stages of development from a clump of cells to a bouncy baby? I really can't say.

I do not, however, believe that state legislatures can do it for us by picking random numbers like 6 weeks or 12 weeks or even conception. Which is why I think this subject is ill-suited for being addressed through criminalization and criminal law. And that there are other more Christian and life-affirming approaches that we seem to have left behind in the current pro-life movement.

It's like saying we are going to outlaw war. OK then, we pass a UN resolution outlawing war. Now what? What are you actually going to do to build a more peaceful and just world in which war becomes just a distant memory? That is the real question.

The question was: is the clump of cells' identity (or humanity) the same as the woman's carrying it?

I'd suggest Ken's answers about the complexity of this, including the historical theological complexity around it, should be sufficient answers to your question. Could you address the starting post's questions? Do you feel you've learned anything new about this issue in the last year or so?
Have you thought about personal changes or collective Christian community changes in approach or messaging or outreach or strategy or even lifestyle - in the face of the initial 'win' of the Supreme Court decision, followed by the very predictable btw, backlash, to the 'stick' that the political-solution wing of the pro-life movement is attempting to implement, wield?

I know polling is derided in many quarters, particularly the current GOP/conservative side, but sometimes it can be somewhat useful in giving one a glimpse of what a general consensus on a matter might be... I could be wrong, but I think polling for years has shown that a majority of people want some restrictions and accountability on this issue, etc, but they also don't want total criminalization bans, with exceptions, etc. I think these kinds of things also show that a majority of Americans don't think like, don't value, don't hold the same theologically conservative beliefs that a small portion of the population (25%, 30%? at best) holds to. It's pretty basic human psychology; a majority doesn't take well to a small minority pushing them around or deciding things for them. Never goes well. I've never seen that work out in a church setting or a family setting. It's not going to work well in this situation either. So if that's the context we're in, what do you suggest Christians individually or collectively should do?

If a minority in this country tries to lord it over the majority in this country, the backlash to that will actually end up in a place where the minority ends up with less and in a worst place for all involved. (Study Europe and its state churches for exhibit A on how that kind of approach plays out).

My conversation with Ken centered around his usage of "forced pregnancy" and some following comments. I asked him if the little human being inside the woman has any say in the matter of whether to be aborted or not. He then compared getting rid of the clump of cells that constitutes the pregnancy to scraping off your skin or cheek. That implies that the clump of cells is part of the woman and not a distinct human clump of cells. I believe it is a distinct human clump of cells and is not a part of the woman like any other part of her body.

How society has gotten to the point that a large segment, and it seems a growing segment of Christians, views a human embryo as just another part of the woman's body, is quite shocking in my view. 100 years ago, such a view would have been decried by most of society.

I think the answer lies in Christians and churches getting much more involved in local communities and working on more of an individual level. I believe presenting a compelling argument for why, when sperm and egg meet and a pregnancy results, a distinct human being begins to develop and at all stages, that human being deserves the dignity that God has given it, will do much more to change society on this matter than state or federal legislation can.

[GaryK]

My own particular thoughts are that an individual gains self-identity when it becomes self-aware and capable of it own thoughts and emotions. Cogito, ergo sum if you will. When exactly that happens in the stages of development from a clump of cells to a bouncy baby? I really can't say.

I do not, however, believe that state legislatures can do it for us by picking random numbers like 6 weeks or 12 weeks or even conception. Which is why I think this subject is ill-suited for being addressed through criminalization and criminal law. And that there are other more Christian and life-affirming approaches that we seem to have left behind in the current pro-life movement.

It's like saying we are going to outlaw war. OK then, we pass a UN resolution outlawing war. Now what? What are you actually going to do to build a more peaceful and just world in which war becomes just a distant memory? That is the real question.

The question was: is the clump of cells' identity (or humanity) the same as the woman's carrying it?

I gave you an answer: Cogito, ergo sum to quote René Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." When exactly a clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions I cannot say. I don't think any of us can. The religions of the world are certainly not of one mind on that question. Neither historically has been the Mennonite church.

But everyone agrees that when a baby is born it has its own identity that is separate from the mother's. Are you saying that up until the time the clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions there is no difference between the embryo and the mother? It's just part of the mother, like her hand or foot or teeth?

That can't be true because that embryo came into being by the sperm of the father fertilizing the egg of the mother and that sperm was never a part of the mother.

[HondurasKeiser]

The question was: is the clump of cells' identity (or humanity) the same as the woman's carrying it?

I gave you an answer: Cogito, ergo sum to quote René Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." When exactly a clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions I cannot say. I don't think any of us can. The religions of the world are certainly not of one mind on that question. Neither historically has been the Mennonite church.

But everyone agrees that when a baby is born it has its own identity that is separate from the mother's. Are you saying that up until the time the clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions there is no difference between the embryo and the mother? It's just part of the mother, like her hand or foot or teeth?

That can't be true because that embryo came into being by the sperm of the father fertilizing the egg of the mother and that sperm was never a part of the mother.

One wonders also why “cogito ergo sum” and Rene Descartes of all people should be the standard by which the humanity of a being is determined.

[Ken]

The question was: is the clump of cells' identity (or humanity) the same as the woman's carrying it?

I gave you an answer: Cogito, ergo sum to quote René Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." When exactly a clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions I cannot say. I don't think any of us can. The religions of the world are certainly not of one mind on that question. Neither historically has been the Mennonite church.

But everyone agrees that when a baby is born it has its own identity that is separate from the mother's. Are you saying that up until the time the clump of cells becomes a separate self-aware individual with thoughts and emotions there is no difference between the embryo and the mother? It's just part of the mother, like her hand or foot or teeth?

That can't be true because that embryo came into being by the sperm of the father fertilizing the egg of the mother and that sperm was never a part of the mother.

I think you are asking the wrong question. The question isn't when the fetus becomes a separate organism from the mother. The fetus is always a separate organism from the mother. The more relevant question is when does the fetus become a human individual with a soul. That is the question I am trying to answer.

Assume Catholicism is correct and the soul enters the embryo at the moment of conception. Let's do a little math exercise.

To make the math simple, let's assume we have 100 fertilized embryos. How many of them will make it to birth? That is a question of some scientific debate, but the consensus seems to be that between 40% and 60% will not make it to birth. Some estimates put the number as high as 70%. A large portion of them simply do not implant and develop into blastocysts. And another large percentage are miscarried early in pregnancy. To make the math simple, let's pick the mid-range of 50%. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/

So we start with 100 fertilized embryos of which approximately 50 of them naturally survive until birth.

If we assume they all survive until adulthood or maturity, what percentage of those 50 will be saved and go to heaven? Of course no one knows the answer to that question. But if we very generously consider that all the people in the world who self-identify as Christian are going to heaven (which is a very generous assumption) that gives us a number of about 30%. According to Pew, approximately 30% of the world's population identifies as Christian: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/20 ... nity-exec/

So out of our 100 fertilized embryos we get the following:

100 fertilized embryos
---------------------------
50 fertilized embryos naturally perish before birth, the vast majority by failing to implant or miscarriage very early in pregnancy
35 survive to adulthood but are not Christian and so not bound for heaven (70% of 50)
15 survive to adulthood and are Christian and so bound for heaven (30% of 50)

This means according to our rough estimates, out of every 100 fertilized embryos, 65% are bound for heaven (50 embryos and 15 individual humans). That further means that the population of heaven will be:

77% embryos that have never breathed a breath, had a human thought, or felt a human emotion (50/65 = 77%)
23% Christians who have led a Christian life and have been saved. (15/65 = 23%)

And those percentages only result if you make the most generous assumption that every person who identifies in any way as Christian is saved.

Is that consistent with your understanding of Christianity and heaven? That at least 77% or more than 3/4ths of the population of heaven will be fertilized embryos that have not yet developed brains or a central nervous system or ever thought an actual thought? It isn't mine. Do I know all the answers? Of course not. No one does. But I do not find the Catholic position convincing theologically, or as a basis for public policy and criminal law.

[Nomad]

The question was: is the clump of cells' identity (or humanity) the same as the woman's carrying it?

I'd suggest Ken's answers about the complexity of this, including the historical theological complexity around it, should be sufficient answers to your question. Could you address the starting post's questions? Do you feel you've learned anything new about this issue in the last year or so?
Have you thought about personal changes or collective Christian community changes in approach or messaging or outreach or strategy or even lifestyle - in the face of the initial 'win' of the Supreme Court decision, followed by the very predictable btw, backlash, to the 'stick' that the political-solution wing of the pro-life movement is attempting to implement, wield?

I know polling is derided in many quarters, particularly the current GOP/conservative side, but sometimes it can be somewhat useful in giving one a glimpse of what a general consensus on a matter might be... I could be wrong, but I think polling for years has shown that a majority of people want some restrictions and accountability on this issue, etc, but they also don't want total criminalization bans, with exceptions, etc. I think these kinds of things also show that a majority of Americans don't think like, don't value, don't hold the same theologically conservative beliefs that a small portion of the population (25%, 30%? at best) holds to. It's pretty basic human psychology; a majority doesn't take well to a small minority pushing them around or deciding things for them. Never goes well. I've never seen that work out in a church setting or a family setting. It's not going to work well in this situation either. So if that's the context we're in, what do you suggest Christians individually or collectively should do?

If a minority in this country tries to lord it over the majority in this country, the backlash to that will actually end up in a place where the minority ends up with less and in a worst place for all involved. (Study Europe and its state churches for exhibit A on how that kind of approach plays out).

My conversation with Ken centered around his usage of "forced pregnancy" and some following comments. I asked him if the little human being inside the woman has any say in the matter of whether to be aborted or not. He then compared getting rid of the clump of cells that constitutes the pregnancy to scraping off your skin or cheek. That implies that the clump of cells is part of the woman and not a distinct human clump of cells. I believe it is a distinct human clump of cells and is not a part of the woman like any other part of her body.

How society has gotten to the point that a large segment, and it seems a growing segment of Christians, views a human embryo as just another part of the woman's body, is quite shocking in my view. 100 years ago, such a view would have been decried by most of society.

I think the answer lies in Christians and churches getting much more involved in local communities and working on more of an individual level. I believe presenting a compelling argument for why, when sperm and egg meet and a pregnancy results, a distinct human being begins to develop and at all stages, that human being deserves the dignity that God has given it, will do much more to change society on this matter than state or federal legislation can.

Well said

[Josh]

The arguments made in this thread are identical to the ones made for why slavery was OK back in the 19th century.