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

[Ken]

I recognize that some of the cases like cancer are difficult choices people have to make and I don't think it's in my place to judge such cases. If the types of cases you refer to above were the majority of abortions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Medical complications actually represent a large percentage of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.

I don't think it is any of our place to judge such cases, just the women, family, and their doctors. I expect the majority of Americans agree. Which is why harsh abortion restrictions continue to fail every time they face the voters, even in some of the most conservative states in the country like Kansas and Kentucky.

[GaryK]

I recognize that some of the cases like cancer are difficult choices people have to make and I don't think it's in my place to judge such cases. If the types of cases you refer to above were the majority of abortions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Medical complications actually represent a large percentage of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.

I don't think it is any of our place to judge such cases, just the women, family, and their doctors. I expect the majority of Americans agree. Which is why harsh abortion restrictions continue to fail every time they face the voters, even in some of the most conservative states in the country like Kansas and Kentucky.

Taking 100% of abortion cases, what percent involve whatever you mean by "such cases"?

[Ken]

I recognize that some of the cases like cancer are difficult choices people have to make and I don't think it's in my place to judge such cases. If the types of cases you refer to above were the majority of abortions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Medical complications actually represent a large percentage of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.

I don't think it is any of our place to judge such cases, just the women, family, and their doctors. I expect the majority of Americans agree. Which is why harsh abortion restrictions continue to fail every time they face the voters, even in some of the most conservative states in the country like Kansas and Kentucky.

Taking 100% of abortion cases, what percent involve whatever you mean by "such cases"?

Abortion is a complex topic. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are rare, but when they occur they are usually due to medical complications of some sort, not because women simply decide they don't want to be pregnant. When legislatures wade into that area with punitive criminalization, women end up suffering. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-tex ... 3836393b86

[Josh]

You know, Europe hasn’t allowed 2nd/3rd trimester abortions and it’s never been “complicated”. Demanding the “right” to murder a baby is a uniquely American thing. It’s not like Europe is some bastion of social conservatism either.

[Ken]

You know, Europe hasn’t allowed 2nd/3rd trimester abortions and it’s never been “complicated”. Demanding the “right” to murder a baby is a uniquely American thing. It’s not like Europe is some bastion of social conservatism either.

This is not accurate. France, for example, allows abortions after 12 weeks as long as the woman's physicians "certify that the abortion will be done to prevent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable" Most other European countries other than Poland have similar laws.

[Josh]

You know, Europe hasn’t allowed 2nd/3rd trimester abortions and it’s never been “complicated”. Demanding the “right” to murder a baby is a uniquely American thing. It’s not like Europe is some bastion of social conservatism either.

This is not accurate. France, for example, allows abortions after 12 weeks as long as the woman's physicians "certify that the abortion will be done to prevent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable" Most other European countries other than Poland have similar laws.

Right. But they don’t allow blanket abortion on demand in 2nd and 3rd trimester, unlike what American abortion advocates demand (including the upcoming ballot issue in Ohio for November).

[Jazman]

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.

Easy to understand and thoughtful answer. I second your final thoughts.
I would however dispute some of the gist of the second paragraph. Maybe 100yrs ago they did believe the embryo was a separate being... but I do know what I've observed lately and that is people are assigning much more value (and also trauma) to miscarriages than they did in the past... people are burying; they are marking the date as birthday...etc. If that helps with healing etc I have no problem with it. But did anybody, including Christians do that 100yrs ago, even 25yrs ago? Based on this, it seems the sentiment, especially among self-identifying Christians, is actually going the opposite of what you proposed.

[Ken]

You know, Europe hasn’t allowed 2nd/3rd trimester abortions and it’s never been “complicated”. Demanding the “right” to murder a baby is a uniquely American thing. It’s not like Europe is some bastion of social conservatism either.

This is not accurate. France, for example, allows abortions after 12 weeks as long as the woman's physicians "certify that the abortion will be done to prevent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable" Most other European countries other than Poland have similar laws.

Right. But they don’t allow blanket abortion on demand in 2nd and 3rd trimester, unlike what American abortion advocates demand (including the upcoming ballot issue in Ohio for November).

France's current law is more or less consistent with Federal law under Roe v. Wade before it was overturned by Dobbs. Roe contained the same trimester criteria as used by the French.

Now that the Supreme Court threw out any sort Federal standards for abortion, each state is doing it own thing. That was the point of Dobbs. If Ohio legalizes abortion in November it won't be because some activists demand it. It will be because a majority of voters approve it under the laws of the state. Just as Dobbs anticipated. Or did you naively think that the repeal of Roe would only move the needle in one direction?

[Josh]

And 150 years ago, people didn’t think slaves were fully human. The fact that people in the past thought something doesn’t make it actually true.

But the debate about abortion in America is not about edge cases, but about abortion-on-demand for third trimester abortion right up until moments before a woman gives birth. Let’s review the “partial birth abortion”, which is what abortion advocates and the left tell us should be legal:

During the surgery, the fetus is removed from the uterus in the breech position. If the fetal presentation is not breech, forceps or manual manipulation can be used to turn it to a breech presentation while in the uterus (internal version). The fetal skull is usually the largest part of the fetal body and its removal may require mechanical collapse if it is too large to fit through the cervical canal. Decompression of the skull can be accomplished by incision and suction of the brain or by using forceps to collapse the skull

In other words, a baby exactly the same size as a newborn literally has its skull stabbed open and its brains sucked out, or it’s crushed through sheer force from a pair of forceps.

I don’t think it should be legal to crush a baby’s skull or stab it and suck its brains out.

[GaryK]

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.

Easy to understand and thoughtful answer. I second your final thoughts.
I would however dispute some of the gist of the second paragraph. Maybe 100yrs ago they did believe the embryo was a separate being... but I do know what I've observed lately and that is people are assigning much more value (and also trauma) to miscarriages than they did in the past... people are burying; they are marking the date as birthday...etc. If that helps with healing etc I have not problem. But did anybody, including Christians do that 100yrs ago, even 25yrs ago? Based on this, it seems the sentiment is actually going the opposite of what you proposed.

I actually had abortion in mind when I wrote the 2nd paragraph, not miscarriages.

I have seen the same with miscarriages and appreciate what I see. To me that says that the parents going through a miscarriage do see the fetus as a human being that is worthy of dignity at every stage of life.