Your view of abortion

[Dale Cozby]

Let's see just how we fall on this issue.

[Greg Farra]

I struggled with my answer. While rape and incest are horrific, I'm not sure we should punish the unborn child. My option would be to encourage the baby of such a union to be adopted.

[Jim Franklin]

If the Bible says killing is wrong and the judges say it is ok then the judges are also wrong.

[Hal Paul]

Any choice that involves taking a human life is a bad choice. Abortion is a bad choice, euthanasia is a bad choice, capital punishment is a bad choice, war is a bad choice. Sometimes the alternatives to bad choices are also bad choices, and we in our fallen state, living in a fallen world are sometimes confronted with only bad options.

Although we are fallen, we need to strive to give ourselves and others options for good choices, but as long as we remain in a fallen world, and as long as we are limited in our understanding, we will often be confronted with alternatives between bad options. We must seek wisdom to find alternatives to the difficult choices we may be confronted with, and to understand the consequences of each decision so we may choose the least damaging option. We must also strive to avoid being confronted with bad choices, and when we are, work to mitigate the consequences of the choices we are forced to make.

[Bruce Carriker]

If the Bible says killing is wrong and the judges say it is ok then the judges are also wrong.

This would apply to the death penalty as well then, right Jim?

[Bruce Carriker]

I did not choose one of the answers, and I am opposed to abortion. But as the father of two teen-aged daughters I do know this: If one of them were raped, whether or not they have the baby is none of Dale Cozby's business.

[Glenda Harvey]

I checked the second option. If the mothers life is truly in danger than it is very much the same as trying to decide who to save in a situation where two people are drowning. I believe in life guard training it is the person who most easily saved who they are to save first rather than risk losing both and possibly yourself trying to save the person who is more difficult to get to. I think that even with the mothers life in danger it would be a difficult decision to make, especially for the parents of the unborn child. I am hesitant to check # 3 even though I feel for women in those situations because it was the reasoning used to make some abortions legal in California prior to Roe vs Wade and it was easily abused. While I agree it is none of our business when it comes to individual decisions, the question was asked as to what we feel should be legal and that is our business.

[Dale Cozby]

I did not choose one of the answers, and I am opposed to abortion. But as the father of two teen-aged daughters I do know this: If one of them were raped, whether or not they have the baby is none of Dale Cozby's business.

Bruce you seem to have a head of steam up toward really attacking me today. Sorry I have got on your bad side. You can stop attacking me any time you are ready.

I am not sure how your child becoming pregnant would in anyway be my business. Other than the general concept to care for the needs of other people is always the business of Christians.

The post here is to see where Naznetters stand on a heated and difficult issue not to intrude in the personal lives of anyone here.

If you are pro-abortion or pro-life that is your "business", the poll is anonymous.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Bruce, Dale was just wondering what we thought about abortion. I think I sort of started that discussion on another thread. That may be what made him think of a poll. I don't believe he meant an offense to anyone. No one has to take the poll, if they do not want to. God bless you and yours.
Are you a minister?

[Hans Deventer]

Interesting. For once I agree with most people here. Would I be a good Nazarene after all? Not just a weird foreign liberal? :M)

I did consider #3 but I did not like the ""health" of the mother" statement. That would already have been covered with option #2.
And the situations in #3, as terrible as they are, may find better solutions through giving the child up for adoption, for instance. Nor would I want to limit the possibilities of God's grace for obviously, the child itself is not to blame and would be entitled to nothing but love.

I would however like to know, if it can be known at all, at what point two cells become a person in the sense of a being with a human identity. I presume it is not at the moment of conception, and long before it is given birth. I don't know when, however. In other words, where does human life start?

[Hans Deventer]

I did not choose one of the answers, and I am opposed to abortion. But as the father of two teen-aged daughters I do know this: If one of them were raped, whether or not they have the baby is none of Dale Cozby's business.

Bruce, this is a weird post. Dale posted a poll. It is anonymous. How on earth would it be his business if this dreadful thing (God forbid) would happen?

I've had my share of miscommunications with Dale, but I can't see anything in his post where he would be suggesting what you are suggesting here.

[Mark Doble]

When it comes down to it, I think the mother to be is the accountable one.

It should be left up to her. One day she will have to give account to her God.

[Tami Martin]

I really struggled how to answer this.

I don't think it's right, for any reason, to kill a person. To administer justice to someone via the death penalty is not, in my opinion, killing someone. I can certainly understand the bad choices option where you have two people who are dying and can only save one.

In the end, I decided that it should be a legal proceedure until the baby is viable. It shouldn't be a legal issue. It's a moral one. As a believer, it is my duty to do everything I can to make where I live an atmosphere that is conducive to women in a crisis pregnancy to think about adoption. It's my duty to NOT be one of those "Church Ladies" who looks down her nose at a pregnant teen and perpetuate the stigma and shame so that a girl is driven to an abortion to avoid the "ruination of her life."

It's my duty to live in such a way and treat others in such a way that they want to choose life at all stages of the game.

[Dale Cozby]

I would however like to know, if it can be known at all, at what point two cells become a person in the sense of a being with a human identity. I presume it is not at the moment of conception, and long before it is given birth. I don't know when, however. In other words, where does human life start?

I thought about this for a long time before coming to a conviction about it.

If an embryo is not interfered with its development it will mature into a breathing person. At any point along that path something must interfere with its evelopment to stop the process of natural growth from cell to fetus to prenatal to postnatal to child to adult.

It doesn't make sense to say the baby must be able to live outside the womb on its own, for even after birth the baby must be cared for a great deal or else it will die. Small children must be cared for as well. And if you get sick or injured as an adult you may need life support to recover, but just because you need life support doesn't mean you are not human any longer.

So stopping this process(terminate the process of life) requires something to interfere with the cycle of life God established, abortion, disease, famine, murder etc...

It takes less than 1 second for life to begin through fertilization after that things are automatic unless stopped somehow.

[Bob Evans]

I fully agree with Tammi. I wish the question wasn't a legal one.

[David Pettigrew]

I have found myself unable to answer this poll. It kind of reminds me of that question we used to ask one another in grade school, "Does your mother know you're stupid?". I had problems with every single option.

Abortion as birth control is evil. The Church, as God's prophetic voice on earth, has an obligation to oppose it. But how does the Church make the decision of when it is birth control and when it is a health issue (be it physical or mental)?

Should our goal be to make abortion illegal, or to reduce abortion? I don't think the one necessarily accomplishes the other, anymore than making immigration "illegal" stops the flow of immigrants across our borders. Outlawing anything doesn't stop it. For example, what would you all do with your guns if it was suddenly illegal to posses them?

If our goal is to reduce the number of abortions performed as a matter of convenience, how do we go about that? The abortion epidemic is a failure of the Church to be salt and light, and the fallen nature of humankind. So we start there. Not with legislation, not with education, but with sanctification. Social holiness means not just the sanctification of individuals, but whole societies. We really could redeem the world!

I read somewhere recently that God must be very lonely. The people who believe in the salvation of the world don't believe in Him, and the people who believe in Him don't believe in the salvation of the world.

[Ian Gentles]

I went for, to save mothers life. Here guy who origenaly put foreward abortion bill now says its abused legaly.

[Hans Deventer]

It takes less than 1 second for life to begin through fertilization after that things are automatic unless stopped somehow.

Yes. Still don't know when an x number of cells become a person, though.

[Glenda Harvey]

If our goal is to reduce the number of abortions performed as a matter of convenience, how do we go about that? The abortion epidemic is a failure of the Church to be salt and light, and the fallen nature of humankind. So we start there. Not with legislation, not with education, but with sanctification. Social holiness means not just the sanctification of individuals, but whole societies. We really could redeem the world!

.

I think it is too late to ever make abortion illegal. I think we can push for legislation that will minimize abortion paricualarly in the area of late term, partial birth abortions, parental consent and informed consent laws. I do agree that the Church can help women and girls see that there are other options available and make it easier for them to either keep the baby or place it for adopion.

[Ryan Scott]

I believe abortion is a horrible, tragic thing. I believe we should work to eliminate the stigma, barriers, issues, and concerns that lead women to have abortions.

I don't think outlawing abortion will help anyone. I would be in favor of limiting the reasons abortions can be performed; I don't think it should be a matter of convenience. However, in order for that to be feasible, there has to be a lot of changes to the way we deal with pregnant women in our society.

Simply outlawing all abortions does nothing but appease the conscious of some people. For a good portion of my life, I was one of those people. Now my conscious is screaming about the life into which these babies would be born. Unless we can also pass a law that would assure them all a loving home in which their needs are adequately met, it doesn't serve my conscious one way or another.

I don't think there should be any abortions. I just don't think outlawing them is the best way to accomplish that goal.

[Chuck Wilkes]

Abortion is a currently legal act...with certain restrictions. It should remain legal. Abortion is also a balancing act...balancing the duties and privilieges of the parties (mothers, dads, unborns, the general society). Whether or not it involves the taking of a human life begs the question. We currently take human lives in a variety of situations without questioning whether the life is a "life". We do so by balancing competing interests. The real question is "Who gets to do the balancing?" and when the balance is close or uncertain, "Who gets the final vote?"

I come down on the side of the mother and her advisors making the final decison. If it is morally wrong, I strongly believe the God will hold her and her advisors accountable. I do not trust the "law" to make those kinds of intensely personal decisions.

That said, I believe the role of the church is to be one of the compassionate, wise, Spirit-directed advisors in the lives of the young women who must make these decisions. Treating them and their doctors as criminals simply relieves us of the burden of seeking God's direction in every case.

Chuck

[Bruce Carriker]

Bruce, this is a weird post. Dale posted a poll. It is anonymous. How on earth would it be his business if this dreadful thing (God forbid) would happen?

I've had my share of miscommunications with Dale, but I can't see anything in his post where he would be suggesting what you are suggesting here.

I just find the "polling" on an issue like this to be of little value, as well as offensive. Much as they might like, the majority cannot determine what the answer should be for everyone else. This is an intensely divisive, difficult, and personal issue and the "answer" cannot be reduced to choosing A, B, C, or D.

When the question is not what one thinks about abortion in general, but about whether and under what circumstances it should be "legal", I consider that meddling in an issue that, should it ever occur, is between my daughter, her mother and me, the doctor, our pastor, and God. No one else has any right...or any business..knowing what is said in those discussions, what decision is arrived at, or why.

[Hans Deventer]

I just find the "polling" on an issue like this to be of little value, as well as offensive. Much as they might like, the majority cannot determine what the answer should be for everyone else. This is an intensely divisive, difficult, and personal issue and the "answer" cannot be reduced to choosing A, B, C, or D.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But the fact that you find it offensive, doesn't make it offensive to others. And you certainly cannot concluded that Dale's intentions were to be offensive. THAT I protest against.

When the question is not what one thinks about abortion in general, but about whether and under what circumstances it should be "legal", I consider that meddling in an issue that, should it ever occur, is between my daughter, her mother and me, the doctor, our pastor, and God. No one else has any right...or any business..knowing what is said in those discussions, what decision is arrived at, or why.

And everyone is free to post a poll with whatever options one may think proper, within the usual NazNet rules. And you are free not to respond, to think about the poll what you think etc. But again, you are not free to suggest that Dale did anything wrong.

[Bruce Carriker]

I did not suggest that he violated any rules of NazNet. I said I was offended.

[Charles W Christian]

Abortion is a currently legal act...with certain restrictions. It should remain legal. Abortion is also a balancing act...balancing the duties and privilieges of the parties (mothers, dads, unborns, the general society). Whether or not it involves the taking of a human life begs the question. We currently take human lives in a variety of situations without questioning whether the life is a "life". We do so by balancing competing interests. The real question is "Who gets to do the balancing?" and when the balance is close or uncertain, "Who gets the final vote?"

I come down on the side of the mother and her advisors making the final decison. If it is morally wrong, I strongly believe the God will hold her and her advisors accountable. I do not trust the "law" to make those kinds of intensely personal decisions.

That said, I believe the role of the church is to be one of the compassionate, wise, Spirit-directed advisors in the lives of the young women who must make these decisions. Treating them and their doctors as criminals simply relieves us of the burden of seeking God's direction in every case.

Chuck

Chuck -
I think I agree with some of your points here, including:
1) the role of the church (in the last paragraph) -- I don't think we should treat people as criminals even if they disagree with us, and I do think we should offer advice/guidance/counsel in these kinds of situations. That's the gift of community that we've been given by God through the church....

2)I don't know exactly what you're referring to in the first paragraph regarding our taking of human life in many circumstances without debating whether or not it's a "life." We do indeed take lives in many technically legal ways, including capitol punishment and war. In those two cases, though, I do not think there is a question about whether or not we're taking an actual "life." In fact, that does factor in: these are lives, they are people. So, I don't understand what you're saying in that part, but I agree in general that we do take human life legally in many circumstances. These circumstances, along with abortion, should always be analyzed carefully since indeed a life (or "potential life" according to some) is involved!

3) I do think we should always balance "competing interests" as you put it, in all of these kinds of situations. God's interests should be included here, too, so overall I agree with you sentiments.

-------------------------
Here's where I have some red flags about what you say:
1) The "law", as you put it, does indeed exist (even according to Scripture) as a possible restraint to immoral behavior. I'm not saying civil laws are always "right," nor am I saying that civil laws prevent immortality, nor do I say that civil laws necessarily equal moral preventatives. However, there is a valid moral function -- even a preventative function -- that is valid. We have laws against taking human life, for example (murder, homicide, etc.), and these don't stop murders from happening, but they are there as barriers/boundaries for civil behavior in order to assist in moral decision-making. So, to say that the "law" (meaning civil law) has no place, I think misunderstands the role of the rule of law.

2) To say the mother and her advisors are responsible is de facto assuming that the church (for the Christian), society, etc., is part of the decision. And the church has never held a positive view of abortion, and I think that this should affect our legal determinations, as well, at least in some way.

3) By having laws that restrict or even forbid most types of abortion, we are not asking the law to simply make the decision for us. We are instead challenging people to walk within the boundaries of what the civil authorities (and moral law, I would argue in the case of most abortions) sets in place as acceptable. These kinds of boundaries can be preventative, meaning that they can cause people to "think twice" about behavior that can lead to "unwanted pregnancies." They can also spur creativity, by challenging the church and the state to provide better alternatives than abortion to mothers and others in these situations. Again, all laws do this, and I don't see why anti-abortion laws couldn't help accomplish this, too....
=============
Sorry to ramble on so, but I teach ethics to graduate and undergrad students (in addition to my full-time pastor assignment), so my ears (and fingers in this case) "perk up" when I see these kinds of topics.

I think we should be "pro-life" and not just "pro birth" as Evangelicals. This means I think we should be comprehensive and realistic in our dealings with real people who are in real life tough situations. But being realistic doesn't necessarily rule out (in my opinion) putting laws in place that protect the unborn and preserve the sanctity of human life as a valuable gift from God.

My personal view: I can see allowances for legal abortions when lives hang in the balance. I think these are the kinds of situations that people deal with all the time, and I see (and have seen) situations where choices were made that resulted in what would technically be an abortion, and I personally saw moral and legal validity in these. But, as a society, to put strict boundaries up in regard to human life, both at the beginning and the end, I think is positive and valuable if we are to profess any kind of value for human llife....

Just thoughts....

Thanks for your endurance!

Charles

[Chuck Wilkes]

Let me take a stab at a reply (and by the way, thanks for your thoughtful response).

First, reason I mentioned the taking of life without regard to whether it was "life" was in response to Hans' question about how many cells it takes to make a "life". The whole conversation about when life begins, etc. misses the point. The reason for prohibiting abortion cannot be grounded on whether an embryo/fetus constitutes a "life". The fact is that we take lives in various contexts already. We have already decided that the fact a person is alive does not determine whether or not they are protected from death.

What it does say is that one who is alive is entitled to a balancing of the interests test for continuing that life without interference or early termination. And, I agree with you that for the devout God's interests have a role to play in the balancing...assuming his interests can be determined.

I understand your arguments regarding the law. I've been licensed as an attorney for nearly 30 years. In addition to my ordination as a Nazarene elder, that legal training informs my thoughts about the civil (technically the "criminal") law. While I concur that a particular law may have a teaching or influencing component, the fact is that the law has very little influence on human behavior in a representative democracy.

That is because in that political setup, the law almost always follows human behavior norms--it rarely leads. Therefore, vis-a-vis a particular law, there are those who already follow it because they believe that conduct to be correct, with or without the law; there is a group of people who don't follow it because they don't conform their behavior to the law--they only do what they want (the criminal element); and there is a very small group of people who determine their conduct by reference to the law. The battleground for the church is not in passing the law, it is in creating the cultural and political consensus that allows (or requires) the law to pass.

I too have taught ethics and I understand your approach and interest. We could go on [I]ad nauseum[I] but I should stop here I think. My summary statement would be that I think our proper role as Christians (and as the "church") is to influence the hearts of people. A right heart does not need to the law to cause it to do right. It is rightly connected to the source of "right" and will follow that "right" because of the relationship, not the law.

Chuck

[Charles W Christian]

Let me take a stab at a reply (and by the way, thanks for your thoughtful response).

First, reason I mentioned the taking of life without regard to whether it was "life" was in response to Hans' question about how many cells it takes to make a "life". The whole conversation about when life begins, etc. misses the point. The reason for prohibiting abortion cannot be grounded on whether an embryo/fetus constitutes a "life". The fact is that we take lives in various contexts already. We have already decided that the fact a person is alive does not determine whether or not they are protected from death.

What it does say is that one who is alive is entitled to a balancing of the interests test for continuing that life without interference or early termination. And, I agree with you that for the devout God's interests have a role to play in the balancing...assuming his interests can be determined.

I understand your arguments regarding the law. I've been licensed as an attorney for nearly 30 years. In addition to my ordination as a Nazarene elder, that legal training informs my thoughts about the civil (technically the "criminal") law. While I concur that a particular law may have a teaching or influencing component, the fact is that the law has very little influence on human behavior in a representative democracy.

That is because in that political setup, the law almost always follows human behavior norms--it rarely leads. Therefore, vis-a-vis a particular law, there are those who already follow it because they believe that conduct to be correct, with or without the law; there is a group of people who don't follow it because they don't conform their behavior to the law--they only do what they want (the criminal element); and there is a very small group of people who determine their conduct by reference to the law. The battleground for the church is not in passing the law, it is in creating the cultural and political consensus that allows (or requires) the law to pass.

I too have taught ethics and I understand your approach and interest. We could go on [I]ad nauseum[I] but I should stop here I think. My summary statement would be that I think our proper role as Christians (and as the "church") is to influence the hearts of people. A right heart does not need to the law to cause it to do right. It is rightly connected to the source of "right" and will follow that "right" because of the relationship, not the law.

Chuck

Chuck -
Thanks for your response!

I agree with you that "life alone" (or viability, etc.) should not be the basis for legalization (or not) of abortion. Life/viability is important, though.

In addition to creating the climate for the law to pass, which is well said, I think we should also help create an environment where laws are consistent, and where all of life is valued. A renewed valuing of all of life, including sound economic policies, etc., is a great way (in my view) to prevent unwanted pregnancies!

A right heart may need some boost/help from the law in order to make right decisions -- accountability always helps -- however, you're right in saying that a right heart produces right actions.... We do have laws for some reason, though... right, Counselor? :q):basic07

God bless,
Charles

[Jamie Wayne]

I think that there are really two questions at the core of the abortion debate:

First, what is a person.

Second, when is a person.

In answering the first question, I tend to think that a human being, i.e., a person, has a soul; having said that, when addressing the second question, I look to when twinning occurs in humans, and I wonder: if twinning occurs days after conception, was there one soul that split to become two - or what? Of course, souls are indivisible and non-locational (by my thinking, anyway), so that sort of material thinking doesn't really work, but the issue of twinning certainly raises the question of when is a person, i.e., human being. I would think that an embryo isn't a "person" any earlier (at least) than when the potential for twinning has past, but that's just my personal thoughts. Therefore, I doubt whether the "morning after" pill constitutes "murder", as I really don't consider a day old embryo to be a "person" - but, again, that's just my personal thoughts. I would still want to err on the side of caution.

Ultimately, I would ask anyone those two questions before considering whether abortion ought to be legal: what is a person, and when is a person - and, if you don't know the answer to both, then I suggest that wisdom errs on the side of caution. If I'm out hunting, do I shoot at something without being absolutely sure what I'm shooting at? Of course not!

I doubt that any secular law is going to consider the "soul" in its definition of what a person is, but my point stands. Without knowing what and when, it seems to me that legalizing abortion is no better than legalizing the killing of what might be a person. The law is meant to protect the minority...and if there's even the remotest chance that what is being killed is a person, then, I believe, we must err on the side of caution.

That's my two cents...

btw - I received a 100% on my first exam in Honours Ethics class (taught by a D.Phil from Oxford in ethics)...and I failed my last exam - for what it's worth!

In my opinion it all goes back to question of the nature of persons...and that's not an issue that, unfortunately, is easy to come to agreement on. Physicians Assisted Suicide (another "nature of persons" issue) is legal in Oregon, and illegal in every other State - it sort of brings to mind the is/ought or fact/value fallacy. I think it's really a matter of common sense, though: if we can't prove, i.e., have 100% certainty, what we're shooting at, then we ought not shoot at all.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Jamie, guess what? I judged you. I took time to think what you might say. Then, I said to myself, "Jamie will not be for abortion." Whew! glad I was right, just as I thought I would be. That is my opinion of you. It made be feel very happy.
Glad you are doing good in school.
Are you still attending the COTN?
Love you,
Anne

[Jamie Wayne]

Outside of the legal issue, and more to the point of the nature of persons, I think that, if we consider a "person" one who bears the image of God, then the questions becomes what it means to bear the image of God. In other words, what is the image of God, and when does one bear it?

I tend to think of the image of God in terms of the soul. Does a 3 hour old fetus bear the image of God? Does a 3 hour old fetus "have" a soul? I don't think so, but let's look at the "abortion" issue from the opposite end (as I alluded to in my last post). My grandmother recently died; she was in her early 90's, and she has had Alzheimer's for many years. It is not only at the beginning of life that we question what is a person - and when.

I am not "this functioning body" anymore than my "mind" is "this functioning brain". I am much more than that. Sure I "live" in this body right now, and, I suppose, there is something of my mind that "resides" in my brain, but I tend to think that God "thinks", yet I don't believe for a second that God, outside of the incarnate Christ (on earth) has a brain.

Having said that, if I don't think that my "self" is equivalent to my flesh, then what am I?

If "I" am merely my flesh, then I am not the same person as I was in kindergarten, as much of my body has come and gone. Parts of my body have completely regenerated. If I am merely "this functioning body", then "I" am constantly changing, and parts of me, now, are completely foreign to the kindergarten student that I was. So, I ask, what is the "me" that is the same?

Has the image of God "in" me changed? When did I first come to "be" with such an image, and when will I cease to "be" with such an image (if ever)?

Did my grandmother cease to "be" a "person" when her mental capacity escaped her? She was - more or less - simply a "functioning body", really. It would be difficult to really call her a "person." My other grandmother died on my 16th birthday, having been a "vegetable" for 8 years - was she a "person" during those 8 years, after her multiple strokes?

I really think that we, as Christians, need to seriously consider, especially when it comes to "Christian" ethics, what exactly we mean when we speak of the intrinsic worth of persons created in the image of God.

I certainly do not claim to know all of the answers, but I sure do have many questions...

How the "world" defines the nature of persons may be different, but on either side of life - the beginning and the end - I think that we need to examine more carefully what it means to be a "person". "Persons", I would say, deserve the intrinsic value that we often call the "sanctity of life", but I don't think that the same "sanctity" applies to mere "functioning bodies."

The legal questions need to better address this, too, because, so it seems, often the "abortion" issue is one about a woman's "right" to do with her body as she chooses - or the issue of a woman having the "right" to privacy regarding her body. Yet, not to downplay the physical body - as God created us with bodies, and the Incarnate Christ possessed a body, Himself - I think that the "body" is really only a part of what it is to be a person, and until the law reflects that, we're really looking at the wrong issues.

[Jamie Wayne]

Jamie, guess what? I judged you. I took time to think what you might say. Then, I said to myself, "Jamie will not be for abortion." Whew! glad I was right, just as I thought I would be. That is my opinion of you. It made be feel very happy.
Glad you are doing good in school.
Are you still attending the COTN?
Love you,
Anne

Anne,

I took that class many, many years ago, but thank you, anyhow.

Yes, I still attend the CotN, and I'm usually there no less than 3 times per week. :) I still play guitar and piano on the worship team, and I'm enjoying myself very much; thanks for asking, Anne.

I have never been for abortion, Anne, and I have marched with Pro Life signs and whatnot. In fact, in my Introduction to Public Speaking class (years ago), I gave a speech basically arguing for the "don't shoot unless you know what it is" approach. I usually opt for ethical arguments that don't appeal to Scripture, Anne, because if I can convince someone without Scripture, I usually think that I can engage a wider audience - and the argument is usually better, anyway.

Regardless, I'm glad that you thought of me, Anne.

Thank you,

Jamie

[Hans Deventer]

I think that there are really two questions at the core of the abortion debate:

First, what is a person.

Second, when is a person.

Thanks for joining me in that question, Jamie. I was rather lonesome in stating it.

[Ian Gentles]

Someone who was closer to me than life once had an abortion, it was advised on medical grounds at that time. I cant say more but it was advised, probably wouldent today.

[Barbara Moulton]

Thanks for joining me in that question, Jamie. I was rather lonesome in stating it.

At the end of life, we acknowledge that life has ended when there is no more brain activity. Could it be that the beginning of brain activity is when someone becomes a person?

I'm just thinking this through here and throwing this out for discussion....not stating it as fact. And the fact that I am musing about this should not be taken as endorsement of abortion.

[DA Weaver]

My husband and I nearly didn't get married over this issue. I said a woman should lay down her life for her child and sacrifice so her child could live. My husband, then fiance, disagreed. He seriously considered calling off our wedding until he spoke with his mother, who agreed with me.

[Hans Deventer]

At the end of life, we acknowledge that life has ended when there is no more brain activity.

Could it be that the beginning of brain activity is when someone becomes a person?

Recently, a Dutch cardiologist has written about studies he did with NDE's. It seems that people can still be alive mentally though there are no brain activities. We knew that as Christians, but it's nice to hear the same from science.

So I like the suggestion, Barbara, but it does not work that way at the end. It might still be true at the beginning though.

[Hans Deventer]

My husband and I nearly didn't get married over this issue. I said a woman should lay down her life for her child and sacrifice so her child could live. My husband, then fiance, disagreed. He seriously considered calling off our wedding until he spoke with his mother, who agreed with me.

I agree with your husband. I've since long made up my mind. I love my children, but when it comes to lives, I have only one priority. Nobody is more important than Hannie to me.

[Barbara Moulton]

My husband and I nearly didn't get married over this issue. I said a woman should lay down her life for her child and sacrifice so her child could live. My husband, then fiance, disagreed. He seriously considered calling off our wedding until he spoke with his mother, who agreed with me.

While I agree in principle, I can think of someone I knew a long time ago. I will speak as generically as possible. She had two lovely children (about 8 and 7). She also had a serious medical condition which necessitated that she take medication every day. Without that medication her illness put her life at serious risk.

She became pregnant and the nausea from the pregnancy meant she couldn't keep her medicine down. Serious issues arose. Then an ultrasound revealed that her baby had a medical condition which meant it was very unlikely that it would survive after it was born.

After much thought, she and her husband made a decision to have an abortion. They wrestled with this decision and prayed about it. It was not easy for them and it broke her heart.

It was knowing this couple and watching them make this painful journey that changed me a little. I am still adamantly opposed to abortion as birth control. But this was not the case for this family. When I looked into her eyes I saw a woman trying to do what she felt was right in the middle of a tragic situation.

[Barbara Moulton]

Recently, a Dutch cardiologist has written about studies he did with NDE's. It seems that people can still be alive mentally though there are no brain activities. We knew that as Christians, but it's nice to hear the same from science.

So I like the suggestion, Barbara, but it does not work that way at the end. It might still be true at the beginning though.

I'd like to see that study Hans. Do you have a link?

How did he define "being mentally alive".

[Barbara Moulton]

I'll look around!

The reason I ask is that I am extremely reluctant to extrapolate conclusions about the real end of life from what happens in NDE's.

I am not sure that we can take what happens in a NDE as proof that the person who has a no brain activity (due to traumatic injury for example) is still alive.

[Hans Deventer]

I'd like to see that study Hans. Do you have a link?

How did he define "being mentally alive".

His name is "Pim van Lommel" and I found the following article he wrote. Perhaps it helps, haven't read it yet but it seems to deal with the issue: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm

[Barbara Moulton]

His name is "Pim van Lommel" and I found the following article he wrote. Perhaps it helps, haven't read it yet but it seems to deal with the issue: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm

A brief skimming doesn't really convince me though. The study dealt with people who had a cardiac arrest and who were clinicaly dead...not "brain dead".

But I'll read it in more depth and get back to you.

[Ian Gentles]

Lady you mentioned did right Barbara, abortion was neccesary. What get me is folks who say., no abortion ever!!

[Hans Deventer]

A brief skimming doesn't really convince me though. The study dealt with people who had a cardiac arrest and who were clinicaly dead...not "brain dead".

But I'll read it in more depth and get back to you.

I found the original article from "The Lancet" here http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

[Ian Gentles]

Some say, "Have child adopted" as if this were ever an easy option. My oldests mom carried him, he was adopted. Adoption broke down before he was four, he went back into care. We adopted him age 7. He did contact birth mom, she did reply, but had a new life annd kids, she really didnt want to know, pain for both sides. All i am saying is, no options are easy.

[DA Weaver]

I agree with your husband. I've since long made up my mind. I love my children, but when it comes to lives, I have only one priority. Nobody is more important than Hannie to me.

I don't know that we ever did "agree" on the issue... it really doesn't matter to me. It's one of those things we needed to let go and let God deal with.

[DA Weaver]

While I agree in principle, I can think of someone I knew a long time ago. I will speak as generically as possible. She had two lovely children (about 8 and 7). She also had a serious medical condition which necessitated that she take medication every day. Without that medication her illness put her life at serious risk.

She became pregnant and the nausea from the pregnancy meant she couldn't keep her medicine down. Serious issues arose. Then an ultrasound revealed that her baby had a medical condition which meant it was very unlikely that it would survive after it was born.

After much thought, she and her husband made a decision to have an abortion. They wrestled with this decision and prayed about it. It was not easy for them and it broke her heart.

It was knowing this couple and watching them make this painful journey that changed me a little. I am still adamantly opposed to abortion as birth control. But this was not the case for this family. When I looked into her eyes I saw a woman trying to do what she felt was right in the middle of a tragic situation.

I'm thankful I wasn't in her shoes. I can't imagine it would be an easy decision to make. Of course my husband and I were discussing this prior to marriage, prior to having children, etc... My heart goes out to women in such circumstances.

[Chuck Wilkes]

Chuck -

A right heart may need some boost/help from the law in order to make right decisions -- accountability always helps -- however, you're right in saying that a right heart produces right actions.... We do have laws for some reason, though... right, Counselor? :q):basic07

God bless,
Charles

Risking that this thread will veer off in a strange direction, let me address two points. First, your question about the reason for laws. Jamie mentions in a post that the reason for laws is to protect the minority. That is simply not correct. The reason for "laws" in the United States (and other "common law" countries) is to codify the pre-existing understanding of the voting public about what is correct conduct. The English common law system arose as judges appointed by the king declared what was the "common" law--that code of conduct that the people had already informally adopted and by which they already lived. These laws eventually came to be embedded in statutes so everyone would know what was "common". Therefore, the basis principle is that the law never leads, it always follows.

That said, the act of codifying the law, because it involves debate, also picks up notions of what the law should be. That's an American twist to the concept of the common law. That debate is the teaching point of the system.

Second, the portion of this thread dealing with when and what is life and the like continues to miss the point. The law in the United States, and indeed around the world, has already long settled the issue that "when" and "what" life is doesn't matter when it comes to the taking of life...it only informs the balancing test that determines the conditions under which that life may be taken or modified.

One cannot logically oppose abortion based on an understanding of when life begins or on an understanding that an embryo/fetus is truly life, unless one opposes the taking of human life under all conditions. Almost no one takes that position, so it follows that the more honest argument should be "Under what conditions may a embryo/fetus existence/life be terminated and who should make the final decision?"

"Sanctity of Life" is a non-sensical catch phrase. What it means is that my conditions for terminating this "life" differ from yours.

I'll stop now.

Chuck

[Chuck Wilkes]

One other quick comment: The poll results prove my point about the "what" and "when" of life. The great majority of the poll respondants have engaged in a balancing test to determine their response. The issue of the "sanctity of life" is not relevant...the issue is "Whose life has precedence under this set of circumstances?"

Chuck

[Jamie Wayne]

First, your question about the reason for laws. Jamie mentions in a post that the reason for laws is to protect the minority. That is simply not correct.

Ok, but ought the law, if it is good, protect the minority? This is not an issue of what the law is doing, but what the law ought to be doing. I think that the law ought to protect the minority; whether it actually does, well...you are probably right that the law was not necessarily intended to do that at all.

Second, the portion of this thread dealing with when and what is life and the like continues to miss the point. The law in the United States, and indeed around the world, has already long settled the issue that "when" and "what" life is doesn't matter when it comes to the taking of life...it only informs the balancing test that determines the conditions under which that life may be taken or modified.

I don't think that such ethical questions miss the point at all, since laws ought to be ethical. The problem is that law doesn't seem to be so concerned with ethics. In the United States, for example, I would love to have a Supreme Court Justice who is NOT a lawyer, but an ethics professor.

One cannot logically oppose abortion based on an understanding of when life begins or on an understanding that an embryo/fetus is truly life, unless one opposes the taking of human life under all conditions.

The intentional killing of an innocent person is always wrong under all conditions. In other words, "murder" is the killing of an innocent person, and murder is always wrong. If we know what a person is, and when a person is, then we can determine whether murder is involved or not.

Almost no one takes that position, so it follows that the more honest argument should be "Under what conditions may a embryo/fetus existence/life be terminated and who should make the final decision?"

I would like to think that most people do take the position that murder is wrong, so it follows that the more honest argument should be what is a person and when, so that we can discern whether an act constitutes the murder of a person.

"Sanctity of Life" is a non-sensical catch phrase.

I agree with you on that, as the phrase has nothing to do with "persons"; rather, it talks about "life", and we, as a society, don't seem to care very much about "life", either. If we did care, for example, we wouldn't pollute the environment so much. The "sanctity of life" should refer to "life" far beyond the limited scope of "human" life. As it is, however, we commit speciesism, by attaching special importance to human beings. We have elevated the status of people far higher than any other form of life, and my question is why we have done so? Perhaps it is because humans have been created in the image of God and venus fly traps have not. Perhaps it's because human beings have souls and venus fly traps do not. If this is the case, then we need to look at what is a person - and when.

The issue is really about the moral worth of persons, and our duty to value that worth. If a fetus is not a person, then we do not have a duty to value it as a person, but that begs the questions: what is a person and when.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Years ago, before abortion was as strong an issue as it is now, it seems that the COTN took the stand of "where the life of the mother is involved." I don't remember exactly what the manuel says now.
Speaking of adoptions, Ian, I sort of see where you are coming from, considering some of your hearaches. But, in my opinion, I still feel that is the way to go, instead of abortion. I do admit, that my adoptd sister causedd us much heartache, and is still causing me heartache, with the life she and her family are living. She ran away from home several times. Part of that, was because mother was far too strict. the other part was, because she wanted to find her twin, after she knew about her.
It seems that things starting going down hill with you when you began experiencing BIG problems with your children. It was a big turning point in your emotions and problems. I may be wrong.

[John Kennedy]

Years ago, before abortion was as strong an issue as it is now, it seems that the COTN took the stand of "where the life of the mother is involved." I don't remember exactly what the manuel says now.

I seem to recall that sometime back in the late 80's - early 90's, the church had a 'bioethics committee', presumably appointed by the Gen Assembly that was charged with studying these issues. Was there ever any action taken on the basis of that committee's deliberations?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The COTN opposes laws that allow abortion, while still considering that there are rare but real medical situations where the mother, baby, or both could not survive the pregnancy--then the ones involved are to have sound medical and Christian counseling, concerning making the decision--just the jist of the statements in the Manuel. Then, it goes on to mention supporting programs etc. to help the mother and child.

[Hans Deventer]

I seem to recall that sometime back in the late 80's - early 90's, the church had a 'bioethics committee', presumably appointed by the Gen Assembly that was charged with studying these issues. Was there ever any action taken on the basis of that committee's deliberations?

Yes, I think they did. The report can be found here: http://www.nazarene.nl/info/download/english.php

[Charles W Christian]

One other quick comment: The poll results prove my point about the "what" and "when" of life. The great majority of the poll respondants have engaged in a balancing test to determine their response. The issue of the "sanctity of life" is not relevant...the issue is "Whose life has precedence under this set of circumstances?"

Chuck

Not to quibble, Chuck, but sanctity of life is, by your own definition ,relevant to some degree: Whose life has precedence...., etc., already places a degree of importance/value upon human life.

The idea that life is precious derives from the idea that it is a gift from God. Now, what life IS becomes a big question, I guess, but life as important/valuable is indeed relevant. It's just hard to measure what "life" is, especially since in biblical terms, life is measured in terms of things like fellowship with God and others in the community, the ability to respond to God and others, progeny, etc., etc.

Many of the abortion debates regarding when life "begins" are actually more about Platonic philosophy than about biblical measurement, so I think we have some agreement here....

Just thinking,
Charles

[Chuck Wilkes]

I agree with you regarding the use of a "value of life" measure...I guess I'm using the "sanctity of life" phrase in it's more street sense of "if it's life, it must be preserved". That's probably a gross simplification of the meaning. Yours is more nuanced...so I agree with it!

Chuck

[Gina Stevenson]

Tho' it's been such a popular cliche', I've never quite --- not 100% --- been able to agree with the "You cannot legislate morality (period)" stance. No, you cannot make someone "desire" to do the right, but you can --- even if with the "reality discipline" of resulting consequences --- surely influence one towards such action(s). If that cliche' were an actuality ... God was wasting His time with those first ten (laws), around which the majority of our "civil laws" have been constructed, wasn't He?



A right heart may need some boost/help from the law in order to make right decisions -- accountability always helps -- however, you're right in saying that a right heart produces right actions.... We do have laws for some reason, though... right, Counselor? :q):basic07

God bless,
Charles

Yes, here we do agree ... re the "encouragement"/("boost," as you say) towards right behavior by the consequences instituted via "laws," after all.

If I'm out hunting, do I shoot at something without being absolutely sure what I'm shooting at? Of course not!

Unlike Dick Cheney [OK, enough of that, Gina! It's already been overworked.] ;)

.... we must err on the side of caution.

That's my two cents...

Yes.

btw - I received a 100% on my first exam in Honours Ethics class (taught by a D.Phil from Oxford in ethics)...and I failed my last exam - for what it's worth!

Interesting ... does this prove what we've heard re the more we learn, the more we realize what we do not yet know? ;)[/quote]

Yes, I still attend the CotN, and I'm usually there no less than 3 times per week. :) I still play guitar and piano on the worship team, and I'm enjoying myself very much; thanks for asking, Anne.

I have never been for abortion, Anne, and I have marched with Pro Life signs and whatnot.

Haven't marched, but have helped some [long ago in CA, since an employer's wife was an MD working with helping gals in crisis pregnancy] within that realm of Right to Life.

I usually opt for ethical arguments that don't appeal to Scripture, Anne, because if I can convince someone without Scripture, I usually think that I can engage a wider audience - and the argument is usually better, anyway.

Not Anne, but good to see you haven't "fallen off the face of the Earth." :basic05 Good concept, too, re convincing, even without Scripture ... for, sadly, there are many who would discount its validity, anyway.

[Glenda Harvey]

My husband and I nearly didn't get married over this issue. I said a woman should lay down her life for her child and sacrifice so her child could live. My husband, then fiance, disagreed. He seriously considered calling off our wedding until he spoke with his mother, who agreed with me.

While I fully believe that if the life of the mother is truly in danger the issue of abortion should be between the woman and her doctor I have always thought that if I was in a position of having to make a choice I could not have an abortion. I realize though that often times if the womans life is in danger so is the baby's and in the end both the mother and the child could die. This is why I feel it should be an informed medical decision.

I think that the natural instinct of a woman is to protect her child. Most women feel an almost immediate connection to the baby growing inside them. Women who accept the societal premise that the fetus is not a human life and go through with the abortion will in most cases at some point feel guilty and have regret. Sometimes this doesn't happen until they have a child and the come to the realization that there was a life growing inside of them that they destroyed. We should have compassion for the woman who has gone through an abortion while at the same time trying to minamize the number of abortions that are performed every year. We should also provide services that will make it easier for a woman who is pregnant to make a decision that will allow the baby growing inside of her a chance for life.

[Andrea Larabee]

While I fully believe that if the life of the mother is truly in danger the issue of abortion should be between the woman and her doctor I have always thought that if I was in a position of having to make a choice I could not have an abortion. I realize though that often times if the womans life is in danger so is the baby's and in the end both the mother and the child could die. This is why I feel it should be an informed medical decision.



I agree with your entire post. Not only should it be a decision between the mother and the doctor, if she is a Christian, it should be covered with prayer if she doesn't instantly have a sense of direction from the Lord. I know a woman who was told she would likely die within a month if she did not have the baby in her womb aborted because it was threatening her life. She told the doctor "no" and went home to pray about it. Two weeks later, she miscarried the baby and her life was spared. She did not suffer any regrets/questions that would have happened had she aborted it. Like, "what if the doctor was wrong?", "I killed my baby, did I make a mistake?", etc.

After 20 weeks, modern medical doctors do not call it an abortion. A fetus removed from the womb after that point is called an "early delivery" BUT it IS LETHAL! The baby will die. Sounds like an abortion to me. At 20 weeks my baby, in utero, was diagnosed with a bad birth defect and we were told she would not live. My life was not in danger. That same doctor's visit they asked if we wanted to set an appointment to have her delivered that day! We went home and prayed about it. Then sensed it was God's will I carry her as long as I could. I did! I made it to 7 1/2 months. She did die. But I have no regrets, doubts, and am completely satisfied with the decision that was made.