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

[Ken]

And the little human being inside the woman, who the pregnancy centers around, shouldn't have a voice in the matter?

Over 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. So nature (or God if you will) is the biggest abortionist of all. Biologically speaking life does not begin with conception. It is an endless cycle with no beginning. Religiously speaking there is no definitive answer to when life begins either. Not in Christianity and not in other faiths as well. Which is why both the Mennonite Church and Southern Baptist church had what were basically pro-choice positions up until the 1980s. It is very much an unsettled question of faith. Women sometimes have very legitimate reasons and sometimes not so legitimate reasons for ending pregnancies. That is why the issue of abortion is very ill-suited to being addressed through criminalization. And more appropriately a decision for the woman and her doctors. And that is why I tend to think the more effective and compassionate approach to reducing unwanted pregnancies is to prevent them in the first place and provide better alternatives when the do occur.

But this thread isn't about what you or I believe. It is about whether or not the pro-life movement is learning from its defeats at the ballot box. From what I can see the answer is no.

I didn't say anything about when life begins. I said the "little human being". Is the little human being inside the woman, the woman, or a separate human being?

Humans have a two-stage life cycle. A haploid single cell stage (sperm and eggs) and a diploid multi-cell stage. Some plants and animals have a 3 or 4 stage life cycle. When does a collection of cells become a self-aware human being with a soul? As opposed to a collection of living cells with human DNA not much different from what you might scrape off your cheek or skin? That is a question for which we have no definitive answer. Not biologically. And not theologically. Which is exactly why this issue does not lend itself well to criminalization. And hard lines like 6 weeks which have no biological or theological justification.

[HondurasKeiser]

Gosh, I really miss the salad days of my youthful haploid cycle. What I wouldn’t give to relive those again.

[temporal1]

Gosh, I really miss the salad days of my youthful haploid cycle. What I wouldn’t give to relive those again.

https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/u ... e.jpg-.jpg

The explosion of life involved with each new creation is, in itself, life-affirming. God’s work.
Daunting though it is, God trusts us with His creation.

[Josh]

As usual, the cities are a cancer.

Again, this isn't going to get us far... certainly not in a way that helps people take steps towards changing their minds on this issue. Imo this fits into the 'woe-are-those-people' category that I suggested we Not spend anytime on in this discussion...

As most missionaries and gospel witnesses have learned in recent years, telling people 'they're going to hell' doesn't work anymore, maybe like it used to. So they've had to Change their approach; their language, etc. I believe the pro-life movement, especially its politicized efforts need to reevaluate and reassess their approach (and wording/language). Josh, do you think any think like that is needed in this moment, or should the movement just keep plowing ahead as they have for the last 30-40yrs? What about non-voting, non-politically involved Mennonites/Anabaptists? (Who in my estimation/observation shy away from the actual politicking/voting BUT have largely adopted the same rhetoric/wording/language/messaging approaches)

I lived and worked in a city and was hellbound. (I grew up in one of the most cosmopolitan cities on earth, and then moved to Cleveland and finished my growing up years in the city.)

Eventually, someone persuaded me and told me I was indeed hellbound and I came under conviction and believed.

I don’t think the gospel has changed or has needed to change in 2,000 years. Much like Sodom and Gomorrah, God’s people must be a witness to the city dwellers and call them out - and not look back.

[GaryK]

Over 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. So nature (or God if you will) is the biggest abortionist of all. Biologically speaking life does not begin with conception. It is an endless cycle with no beginning. Religiously speaking there is no definitive answer to when life begins either. Not in Christianity and not in other faiths as well. Which is why both the Mennonite Church and Southern Baptist church had what were basically pro-choice positions up until the 1980s. It is very much an unsettled question of faith. Women sometimes have very legitimate reasons and sometimes not so legitimate reasons for ending pregnancies. That is why the issue of abortion is very ill-suited to being addressed through criminalization. And more appropriately a decision for the woman and her doctors. And that is why I tend to think the more effective and compassionate approach to reducing unwanted pregnancies is to prevent them in the first place and provide better alternatives when the do occur.

But this thread isn't about what you or I believe. It is about whether or not the pro-life movement is learning from its defeats at the ballot box. From what I can see the answer is no.

I didn't say anything about when life begins. I said the "little human being". Is the little human being inside the woman, the woman, or a separate human being?

Humans have a two-stage life cycle. A haploid single cell stage (sperm and eggs) and a diploid multi-cell stage. Some plants and animals have a 3 or 4 stage life cycle. When does a collection of cells become a self-aware human being with a soul? As opposed to a collection of living cells with human DNA not much different from what you might scrape off your cheek or skin? That is a question for which we have no definitive answer. Not biologically. And not theologically. Which is exactly why this issue does not lend itself well to criminalization. And hard lines like 6 weeks which have no biological or theological justification.

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?

And since you don't know seem to know when a clump of cells becomes a human being with a soul, why are you suggesting that it is okay to kill that clump of cells like you would if you would scrape off your cheek or skin? I think we can definitely say that when you scrape off your cheek or skin there is no soul involved. Can you definitely say that when a living human clump of cells is "scraped out" of a womb, no soul is involved?

Criminalization aside, I believe intentionally killing a 6 week old little human being is clearly theologically sinful and whether or not the State criminalizes it, someone will be held accountable by God for it, because that little human being is not the woman carrying it, but rather a separate human being that has a soul.

I suggest that most of the fault, for how 21st century society has gotten to the point that we are even having such discussions, lies at the feet of the church. The church has become compromised by involving itself with the political affairs of earthly governments, effectively causing its light to have been put under a bushel and its salt to have lost its saltiness.

[JimFoxvog]

I think most Americans are pretty open about prohibiting things like murder and illegal immigration (restricting immigration and fixing the open border has majority support).

But this "open border" bit is just a bit of Republican propaganda. There is not an open border. A quick search will come up with plenty of articles like this. https://www.politifact.com/article/2022 ... icies-are/

[temporal1]

“Abortion POLITICS” is correct wording, esp following overturn of RvW.
Exploited beyond description, loaded with deception+lies for politics. Evidently, no budget or moral constraints for lib dreams.

“Are we learning?” - nothing to learn, per se. Just witnessing more of the established routine. Anything for the “W,”
just as is now taught in college sports. Groom college students, send them out into the world en masse, with godless messages.
It’s highly efficient.

Lead everyone’s children away from their families and churches, teach them amorality and godlessness, voila’ -
pridefully claim “the people” have spoken. And call it a day.

Simple primitive formulas/messages are best in crowd control. Convincing mothers to exterminate their young. Wow.
There you have it.

Public Enemy #1: the innocent+unborn. Human life at every stage.
Kill at will with no questions asked. Shame any who dare question.

[Ken]

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?

And since you don't know seem to know when a clump of cells becomes a human being with a soul, why are you suggesting that it is okay to kill that clump of cells like you would if you would scrape off your cheek or skin? I think we can definitely say that when you scrape off your cheek or skin there is no soul involved. Can you definitely say that when a living human clump of cells is "scraped out" of a womb, no soul is involved?

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.

[GaryK]

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?

And since you don't know seem to know when a clump of cells becomes a human being with a soul, why are you suggesting that it is okay to kill that clump of cells like you would if you would scrape off your cheek or skin? I think we can definitely say that when you scrape off your cheek or skin there is no soul involved. Can you definitely say that when a living human clump of cells is "scraped out" of a womb, no soul is involved?

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?

[Ken]

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?

And since you don't know seem to know when a clump of cells becomes a human being with a soul, why are you suggesting that it is okay to kill that clump of cells like you would if you would scrape off your cheek or skin? I think we can definitely say that when you scrape off your cheek or skin there is no soul involved. Can you definitely say that when a living human clump of cells is "scraped out" of a womb, no soul is involved?

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.