A rabbi, a priest, and a minister discuss the beginning of life. The Rabbi says it is first breath. The Priest says it is conception. The Minister says it is when the kids move out and the dog dies.
To say that abortion isn't ideal is an understatement, particularly when it comes to late term abortion. The thing about late term abortion is that nobody waits that long unless they were planning on keeping the pregnancy and giving birth (unless they were prevented from getting an abortion earlier due to lack of access, which wouldn't be their fault). They probably already had a baby shower. Already had a name picked out. Already had a space set up in their home. Already made plans with their family and friends for the future. Also, pregnancy isn't exactly an enjoyable experience in some ways. It comes with health risks. It comes with unpleasant side effects. If late term abortion is even being considered, it's probably for a very good reason. I trust that those who are pregnant and their doctors can make a better decision than politicians who likely know little to nothing about the impact the laws that they pass would have. In any case, the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent them at their source: unwanted pregnancies.
@averageuser4367 I encourage you to go read a May 2023 Atlantic article about an abortionist (Hern) in Boulder, CO titled, "The Abortion Absolutist". It may make you think twice about your optimistic position here. Here are a few tidbits from the article: "Abortions that come after devastating medical diagnoses can be easier for some people to understand. But Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic do not have these diagnoses... The reason doesn’t really matter to Hern. Medical viability for a fetus-or its ability to survive outside the uterus-is generally considered to be somewhere from 24 to 28 weeks. Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it... Hern and his staff carry out up to a dozen such [2nd and 3rd trimester] terminations every week... Hern sent me a copy of his poetry collection and his new book on global ecology. In the latter, titled Homo Ecophagus, he compares mankind to a cancer on the planet, writing that our unrelenting population growth will ultimately lead to the demise of every species on Earth. To view human beings as a scourge seems a rather ominous perspective for a man who ends pregnancies for a living."
My thoughts on this matter can't really move past the lived experiences I and others I know have experienced. I knew a woman who was forced to Cary her dead baby for 2 and a half weeks until her body finally went into labor because she couldn't afford to travel several states away. She didn't develop sepsis which was nearly a miracle but the agony what she went through, Noone should suffer that.
@@rebeccaholcombe9043 My understanding of situations like you have described here are that many are based on lack of clarity or confusion in transitioning to these new laws and not necessarily the new laws themselves. There is not a single state which has implemented law which are not protective of the life of the mother, or that restrict D&C's if the baby has already died. If the baby was determined to be dead, can you tell me exactly why the doctors did not perform a D&C? Was it because of the plain letter of the law, or lack of clarity and interpretation of the law?
@@StumblingThroughItAll they didn't deliver because abortion was defined as termination of a pregnancy. She wasn't septic so her life wasn't in danger immediately, and the fact that the baby was dead didn't mean she wasn't pregnant.
Amen Kaitlyn. At the approximately 26 minute mark. These have been my arguments for a long time. Even if we make abortion totally illegal everywhere and always in the United States, it will never completely go away. So we are not talking about eliminating abortion. We are talking about improving life so fewer abortions happen. That is what I focus on, and that is why I got away from conservative right wing politics
No law has ever eliminated any crime. There is not a single crime; misdemeanor or felony, which has been eradicated because a law against it has been passed into law. Biblically speaking, one of the very, very few expectations and roles of government is the restrain & punish evil & to protect it citizenry. And this would include abolishing abortion, as otherwise is denying specific people equal protection under the law.
Thank God you guys exist. I am a conservative leaning christian who struggles with how to deal with this topic. I am not convinced by either side but I do believe that life is a blessing and we should aim for promoting life. As for the specific details of whether life begins at conception, i cannot answer. I love how you guys try to apply wisdom in these discussions and your honesty in stating that the boundaries are blurry.
Fear is the beginning of wisdom. Fear is always about the unknown, and if we are honest fear is an admission that we do not know. We cannot learn if we think we already know.
Hi Noah. There's no one solution that'll make everyone a whole lot happy, so how about one that makes everyone a little bit unhappy? If Life ends when the heart stops beating, then life starts when the heart starts beating, at about six weeks into gestation. It's not a perfect solution, but at least it's democratic. Cheers, P.R.
@@noahfletcher3019 Hi Noah. That's an interesting thought, but the problem is that consciousness cannot be scientifically defined or measured. Is a person in a coma dead? How can we tell when the baby becomes conscious? Plants are alive but not conscious. I think if we're discussing physical life we must use physical definitions. Cheers, P.R.
The crew left out an important piece of the story. Yes Catholics had been absolutists on abortion since 1869. But Protestants hadn't, and the two had never been friendly. Why did conservative evangelicals agree to join forces with Catholics? What was in it for them? Could it be that Weyrich offered them a way to gain power so as to protect the tax exempt status of their segregated universities? I think so. And when the Moral Majority helped Reagan get elected and his IRS backed off, did that support pay off. I think so. As someone raised Catholic I'm pretty disgusted by what transpired. My tribe threw the dignity of non whites under the bus to 'protect' the unborn, while doing nothing else to promote a culture of life, and also failing to recognize that racism harms a culture of life. Is it any wonder that my faith died. No, not really.
Evangelicals care only about “life” in the womb. After that, baby, you’re on your own. Good Luck! Pastors will always be able to take their mistresses in for an abortion. Catholics just want all the like papists they can get. Thus, no family planning of any kind.
As one who lived through that era, I believe there was not widespread concern, but a minority of powerful ministers who approached the RCC. I myself studied in seminary and learned that the souls of miscarriages and aborted babies go to Heaven-saved by God’s grace because the could not make a decision or exercise faith at that undeveloped stage. Protestants reject the Catholic prohibition on all forms of birth control.
I'm pretty sure the ancients knew about conception. They knew it happened when the seed was deposited. They had livestock. They had their own babies. They didn't know about how it happened microscopically or genetically and they might have been fuzzy about eggs. But they for sure knew conception happened.
The concept that the mother is “fertile ground” where the father “plants a seed” (the word “semen” and “et semini eius” from the Magnificat) imply that the father is doing all of the work of conception and that the mother is just a caretaker. This is completely and totally false - the sperm barely contributes anything beyond some redundant DNA that isn’t even, strictly speaking, needed. It’s just a starting gun. They may have had ideas about it, but they were so bizarre that they weren’t even coherent enough to be called wrong.
Where is the conversation about men? What role do they have in this issue? Will they be criminalized? As I read somewhere, Zero pregnancies occur without a man.
🎯 No baby is ever conceived without male participation at some stage of things, even in IVF. If they drove and/or paid for their wife, mistress, girlfriend, daughter, etc to get the abortion, aren't they complicit? 😒 If we're going to label this as murder, then that makes that man an accessory to murder at least.
Criminalized for what ? If they kick a girl in the stomach with child they should be ! Otherwise, charge a man because he impregnated a woman who then went and killed the baby?? Not unless he aided and abetted in the murder , how else toe the man in the death unless he had something to do with it just for being part in its creation?
”For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” Psalm 139:13-16 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place. Psalm 51
Thanks for saving my time. Though it does seem Ol' Philly is on the side of "life does not begin at conception." The funny thing is, most scientists think/believe that life begins at conception, according to those surveyed by UCLA. So, are we talking about a different life, from a qualitative standpoint, Mr. Visscher? It's so sad that people justify k*lling a human being by changing the rules regarding a technicality. Turtle eggs have more rights than a human embryo.
Well, christians are moving away from talking about it when it comes to running for office, but if they get in you can bet they will enforce whatever they can get away with by any means necessary. Christianity contains no morality, just a desire for power. Don't trust them. They may not be saying anything while running for office, but they intend to outlaw abortion in ALL cases, outlaw contraception in most cases (if not all) and force EVERYONE to obey their religion. They don't run on it, but it is what they intend to do. The Heritage Foundation has released their Project 2025 document making it all VERY clear.
If everyone on this planet thinks that I am a " loser" because I refuse to trample on others to get ahead yet I hear the words " Well done good and faithful servant"when I actually stand before the only and only true King 👑 because I took the ACTUAL Words of Jesus to heart " love your neighbor as yourself" I will be a "/Winner ' in God's eyes and God is the only omniscient being . So his " vision " alone matters.
Good conversation. Problems these days: The people making the laws have no medical knowledge about pregnancies and are going strictly on personal conscience. In many cases, they didn't even consult with medical professionals in the field before writing and introducing these laws. The absolute abortion ban and possible punishment of women doesn't take into account things like ectopic pregnancies (which are a matter of life or death for the expectant mother) and must be surgically removed. Potential life may begin at conception but will not develop unless the embryo is attached to the uterus. A woman can have a fertilized egg slip on through and never be "pregnant" in the common thought of what a pregnancy is. IVF cells are not attached to the uterus until implanted, and then some of them may not implant. (a friend had 3 introduced at one time and only one was successful. This was on her second try. The first time they placed 2 and neither successfully implanted. Should we say that she "killed" 4 children while finally giving birth to 1?) Jewish thought has been that full personhood status begins with the first breath after at least the baby's head passes out of the mother, as G-D formed Adam (as a complete form) and breathed life into him. The soul of a person, however, is pre-destined and the combining of the particular soul with the particular body it enters results in a breathing human at birth and leaves the body at death, when life ends and breathing stops. Also, Jewish belief is that the life of the mother must be the priority is cases where carrying the child to full term would result in her harm. There are, unfortunately, many in evangelical circles who would insist that a woman die trying rather than save her life.
Well said. We live in a fallen world, Such that not every combination of sperm and eggs will result in healthy children. As noted here unless successfully attached to the uterus, the development of the fertilized egg, will not become a child. Because of variability a single, all encompassing definition of life's beginning is beyond us. When is killing murder or self-defense. How should we weigh the life of the mother against that of the developing fetus? It is way too easy to take an unyielding stance and miss the nuanced wisdom God has shown us in his Word.
"The people making the laws have no medical knowledge about pregnancies." THIS. And it's evident that they don't have knowledge about basic female anatomy and reproductive system to begin with. I frequently complain that TV and movie scriptwriters should consult actual professionals about pregnancy and birth stuff, but that's trivial. When it comes to making laws about our lives, it's crucial that not just one but multiple professionals for whom this is their life's work should have input. You know, actually licensed and practicing OB/GYNs, Midwives, Maternal Fetal Medicine specialists, etc. (I'm a professional Birth Educator and, even not being a healthcare provider, some of the completely erroneous info in the legal stuff that's come up in recent years has been baffling.)
Adam "became a living soul," not when he was formed, but when he breathed. The people raised from the grave in Ezekiel's prophecy of the Valley for Dry Bones were said to be alive, not when their bones came together and they stood on their feet, but when they breathed. "But from conception there is a total blueprint for the person!" Well, yes, but if I snatched a blueprint for a house from an architect's hands and threw it into a fire, I am not guilty of arson, because I didn't burn down a house.
@thomasgruseck7971. So, then, is it your contention that the dry bones had become fully alive, but weren’t “living souls” until they breathed? Similarly, with Adam, did he just lie there on the ground, fully alive…but didn’t become a “living soul” until he breathed? Exactly how long do you figure he lay there in that condition? Unborn babies start sharing oxygenated blood with their mother very early on in the pregnancy. So they have respiration in that sense. In abortion, you not only burn the blueprint and all its copies but also any chance of recreating the design. In essence, you kill the architect. But I guess you’re ok with that.
@@HannahClapham Adam was not alive when he was formed from the dust. No such thing as "Unborn babies". Unborn is a pre-birth term and babies is a post-birth term. Doesn't respiration require functioning lungs? How can the architect be killed? Isn't God the one who designed the DNA for potentially building a human in the womb or in a test tube (as in IVF)? Sorry, maybe I am not getting your point.
- Phil, opens and modulates within the context towards an exemplary :could DJ both music and conversation forums with a natural leading and easing -in my humble opinion
Luke 1:41 “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,” Luke 1:44 “For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.”
Verse 15 implies but doesn't state that John was unique in being filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb. Luke 1 - 13But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall name him John. 14You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice over his birth. 15For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb.
Luke 1:30. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33. and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end. After the angel told Mary she would conceive, Luke 1:39 "At that time Mary got ready and "hurried" to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40. where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth." Nazareth and Judea are about 90 miles apart. Mary would have to walk this between Sabbaths, about 15 miles a day. When she arrived at Elizabeth's home, she would be about 2 weeks from conception. 41. "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42. In a loud voice she exclaimed: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43. But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44. As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” At 2 weeks from conception, Elizabeth recognized Mary was pregnant with "her Lord", Jesus our Savior. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And the baby in her womb (John the Baptist) 6 month from conception "leaped for joy." To me, I see this saying an unborn baby, 6 months from conception, recognized an unborn baby, 2 weeks from conception as Jesus.
I see the same dilemma as Adam and Eve where God told them something specific. Then, in walks the satan with a rationale reason to question and cause doubt in what God had actually told them initially. And since then, that type of process has trickled on and through to this topic today. For me, Psalm 139:13, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb." We know what a mother's womb is. And the language in this verse does not declare anything about a baby, or anything we want to categorize or rationalize our positions today. It simply says, "You created my inmost being, you knit me together..." Again, what does that mean? That is the minimalist of tiniest form stationed in the mother's womb declares us to be a living being put there by God. Now, if you wish to debate all the rationed reasons the satan has entered into the arena today. By all means, do so. But, by mindful of this one thing. God put that "inmost being" in the mother's womb. And at the end of the day, if He decides to take it away. That is completely up to Him. We do not have the right to step into that role. We are not God. And usurping His authority was what got us kicked out of the garden in the first place. When will we ever learn?!
The Bible also says Adam did not become a living soul until he took his first breath. In the womb the mom is breathing for the baby. Maybe that’s the reason the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament written by Moses, only had a penalty for assault when the mother died (story told by host). Greece was a pagan society. No body has late term abortions. Churches should not put a scarlet letter on a woman if she gets pregnant out of wedlock. Catholic Church fired a teacher who became pregnant. That’s scares other women even if it was a mistake. No forgiveness.
@@batmanop9254 Well, sharing a long form video is just as easy as sharing a RUclips short. No difference. No other podcast I follow which has video and streams on a podcasting app does this. They post both video and audio. Typically, you want your pod to be available to as many people as possible on as many formats as possible. I can't access Patreon on my VPN...so no. I can't see it nor share it the podcast. So, they have limited themselves. The only reason I can deduce from this is to drive people to become HP+ subscribers. I think they offer great content for fees, I just can't afford it. So I'm left with the bits they share in short form to share instead of the whole podcast. And the special guests don't seem to be getting much of the short play visibility on YT either.
Such a great, thoughtful discussion. Like many bioethics topics, abortion is complex. As a nation, the question becomes , when does a developing child in the womb become a person who is entitled to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I like Kaitlyn’s thought process of realizing without making this life or death, it is morally significant. We all realize that and it is a good place to engage, to deepen care about creating new human beings and those in the process of creating new human beings.
I think that my position has the highest levels of nuance and thought and is the only right position: y'all need to start putting the whole podcast up on RUclips again.
Many decisions that we make in life are ultimately between ourselves and God - and we alone will answer for the choices we have made. This is far too personal, life-altering, and complicated of a decision to legislate by law. Women are human beings with God-given free will. They should not be forced, coerced, or compelled to carry any pregnancy to term.
A little late to the game, but ... Politics is so rancid (in part thanks to the Jerry Falwell, Robertsons and such), I turned to a "When Does Life Begin" video ... I liked and would tend to agree with most of what Caitlyn said. There should be incredible respect and appreciation for life and what it really is. But, the pro-life movement in my lifetime (68 yrs old) has really, honestly, been only pro-birth. As a Catholic (clergy), my position has developed/morphed over the years, but, I really believe more firmly than ever that, pro-lifers (in general) are willing to sacrifice all rights of the woman to save an even non-viable fetus. But once it's born, no quality health care; no developmental childcare; "illegals" are sent back to places where they will suffer and die probably; blah, blah, blah, the list goes on. And then, there's the death penalty, the ultimate post-birth abortion, which most pro-lifers applaud or at least tolerate, even when the "victim" of that penalty has a glimmer of innocence. Pro-life adherents tend to be single-issue voters: abortion. They've sold their souls and our countries democratic ideals to enshrine abortion as the ultimate evil in all cases. No discussion is allowed; no compromises; no nuanced understanding of the issue; no room for Jewish or Muslim or Hindi or atheist thought, just a totally patriarchal, non-Scriptural, dare I say white "Christian" simple demand that life begins at conception and that must be enshrined, as brutally as possible, in law. It was a good, pretty thoughtful video imho. The young guy got a little carried away with the whole Sixtus V thing (take a Christian History class ) and he did sort of represent the male understanding of abortion pretty well ... sadly. But, good talk. Thanks for the video and the insights. Wish there was more of this around ... Joe
I knitted a scarf once. The thread wasn't the scarf, and it wasn't a scarf until I finished knitting it. And the message to Rebekah was a prophecy. But you make an excellent point. If the common belief by the Hebrews was that ensoulment begins at first breath, how did they interpret these verses that seem to imply pre-natal ensoulment?
@@hgservices5572 sometimes it's not the right season for a scarf, or the scarf you're making is too big for the intended recipient. Btw, I'm very curious how long we can keep this metaphor going.
True , perhaps the season isn’t cold enough for a scarf, but why discard its future potential , perhaps someone else needs a scarf in colder climate or perhaps one is freezing to death and don’t know it until they felt the warmth of the scarf they initially intended to destroy ?
This is the first Christian channel I subscribed to, some time in the past year. Phil mentioning Paul Weyrich in the last minute encapsulates why I like it, someone with very little discussion but huge influence. He also founded the Moral Majority. If the developing human gets a soul at quickening, this video got its soul at squirming. [24:30]‚ 😂 Phil: "A human life begins developing at conception" [25:00] To Kaitlyn's point about, "This is life and death", [25:45], perhaps that is a decoy. On the political side, it is about power, following the Jerry Falwell/Paul Weyrich mindset. On the legal side, this is about a property crime, going back to the verse in Exodus Phil quoted: "He shall be fined as her husband shall assess" [9:00]. The "tweet": Abortion is not a political issue, it has been used for political power. Abortion is not a legal issue, that occurred when the baby was the husband's property. Abortion is a reproduction and personal issue. Offer counsel and leave the decision to the pregnant person, because she is being used for the development of the new life. The "bumper sticker": Abortion: not politics, not legal, only personal.
This 40/80 days timeframe for ensoulment is interesting because in Leviticus a new mother is ritually unclean for 40 days after having a son and for 80 days after having a daughter. I wonder if that informed this weird hypothesis of Aristoteles?
I believe that life starts upon conception because those cells will for certain grow up into a fully formed human body. The soul is there, but the body is still growing and adding to the human experience for that indiviaual.
Most conceptions will be lost naturally and will not result in successful births. Do you IDIOTICALLY believe that most people will die before being born???
I wish pro life conversations included discussing participation in war and things like care for the elderly and the disabled, along with care for mothers and children, etc.
To answer your question..,Women in El Salvador are in prison for abortions they could not prove were miscarriages, where the Catholic Church worked to prohibit abortion. El Salvador is 1of 7 nations where it is illegal with no exceptions. It is a criminal act.
Ethnics can be complicated. I am more of a pragmatist about this issue. I do think where a viable pregnancy exist we should encourage bringing it to term. Of course you have things like tubal pregnancies , baby dying in the womb, hemorrhaging and so forth where abortion is the lesser of the evil. I think the state has an interest in encouraging woman to have children , by encourage I mean help with the raising of the child. Not mandate. But if we allow abortion I think the state should not have the say , the woman and her doctor should make the decision. As far as when you become an actual human being , lets be humble enough to realize we do not actually know.
It seems to me, that y'all missed the underlying issue of "Free Will." Pro Lifers are in essence saying that God made a mistake by giving us Free Will, so we will be the God we want and Legislate our View of what's right and what's wrong. Remember, between the Mtns of Blessing and Curses, God expressed His choice of the right decision, when He said, "I place before you, Life and Death, and ended with, CHOOSE Life. He did not say that they could not chose opposite of what He indicated was the path to blessing! As believers, we can only strive to convince another of what we believe is right, but politically we have chosen to coerce by removing the option of Free Will and correcting what is God's obvious mistake in His creation scenario.
I totally agree with you. God does not force morality on anyone because He allows you to choose (due to free-will) and honors your choice independent of whether your choice is right or wrong. In other words, terminating a pregnancy is ultimately between the woman and God and not up to the government. However, the topic here is "When does life begin?" and how does addressing this question support/oppose your view of pro-life or pro-choice. That's why we are missing the more important issue of "Free Will". Also, some here believe that abortion is an issue that overrides all other issues including free will. In other words, the sanctity of life overrides the sanctity of free-will (choice).
Again, you’ve skipped the idea of free will even in consideration of the question of when does life begin. The Scriptures are very clear. Man chooses different vehicles but it says in Genesis and God breathed in him the breath of life. Yes choice is when it can breathe. Man has chosen different vehicles and argues over them and they have the free will to make decisions on those choices, but God tells us clearly, It’s when we’re able to take a breath.
This is a very bad argument. Yes, humans have free will. Does this mean that no authority can place any limits on this free will? Have you actually thought about the implications of what you're saying here? Basically if we apply this to other issues that involve taking human life, your argument is that we should allow criminals to murder people, because how dare we place any sort of limit on their free will. Allowing humans to operate entirely on their own free will with no restrictions is pure chaos. We do not serve a God of chaos, but of order. The Word also says God is the one who puts authorities in place. Also, Jeremiah 1:5 clearly shows God knowing us before we take the first breath. Does this mean we have a soul already? 100%, yes.
@@japanese2811 ONLY in the delusional minds of the anti-abortion control freaks is abortion murder SINCE over a million lawful abortions performed last year in America and no one has been convicted of murder!
Why is legislating morality when it comes to abortion the only acceptable option for Christians to support, but legislating morality when it comes to caring for the poor "socialism" and something that Christians must oppose? If we were to actually take care of the poor, abortion would largely take care of itself as well.
I remember in seminary we had a long discussion of the Exodus passage. My Hebrew proff (Dr. John Currid) argued that in the Hebrew version of it, the term for "harm" would have applied equally to both the mother and the child in the example. He argued that the distinction between harm or not harm would have dealt with whether she was caused to give birth prematurely, and no punishment is needed, or to miscarry, in which case it would be life for life because the child was murdered. The passage can't be taken to refer only to harming the wife, as otherwise the fact that she is pregnant would not be relevant.
Abortion seems to be the symptom, not the disease. That being said, I am a Catholic. I hope the Church develops its doctrine to say whether she really wants 9 year-old rape victims to be forced to carry to term? If so, will her baby be taken away from her (once she has been forced to bond with him/her) because she is so obviously unable to raise the child at her age? Can a young unmarried woman who is not sexually active use contraception while focusing on her studies because rape is so common on college and university campuses?
Whose doing the forcing? Nature? Forcing? Such a misleading use of language. Is it intentional? Like do you force someone to have a leg when you stop them from dismembering themselves? Can you 'stop' pregnancy without ending innocent human life?
Yes, let's use rare circumstances as the rule for 99% of abortions instead of addressing the fact that women are having their unborn children slaughtered for the sake of convenience because they couldn't keep their legs together.
I listened to the podcast yesterday and I have to say the way that Skye talked about the aftermath of RvW being turned over as a way of people wrestling with the nuance of this, it made my stomach sick. Women are dying. Women are being forced to carry pregnancies they can’t handle whether it’s physically or mentally, women are being forced to endanger their life through pregnancy. I get there’s nuance. I have appreciated how, in these conversations, you use Europe’s model of abortion laws as a good standard. But in this interview, it came across as women being expendable. That it’s OK a women suffer because we’re gonna figure it out in the long run.
An egg or sperm have living cells. The question is for after fertilization - when does an embryo becomes llhuman? The Catholic Church is the main organization that pushes that a human is human at conception. Historically, abortion were performed in Colonial America before 22 weeks. Modern science states about the same. The fetus is not viable outside the womb before this time. So, it is a subjective religious issue and not an objective science/factual issue. Law should be objective and we allow judges to use some subjectivity in their application of punishment.
- Kaitlyn, seems to be very knowledgeable as towards the reading ; and also, very eloquent, as with her presentation ,emphasis ,and punctuation for the most part
The Catholic Church/Early Church has held that abortion is murder if the fetus has already received a rational soul. The period or state in which this occurs has been debated but this is an interpretation of the above teaching. An interpretation of the law is different than the law, itself. As for the interpretation of the law, some Christian theologians believed in Aristotle's theory while others believed in Pythagorean's theory which is that the soul enters the embryo at conception. In either case, a woman committing an abortion or someone procuring abortion drugs was harshly condemned for general sexual immorality. Since either interpretation was not infallible, it's not overly necessary to dwell on them as something absolute. No one seriously takes Aristotle's theory seriously scientifically or otherwise. Instead, some people have a quasi-Aristotle belief that abortion is murder only after viability. But what we know now today is that Pythagorean was correct scientifically and theologically and that many in the Church agreed with him in the early centuries. And since this seems to be the most obviously correct interpretation, critics regularly use "science was wrong before" fallacy against certain time periods and denominations as well as additional fallacies of appeal to motivation. Simply because the Catholic Church and other denominations have an inconsistent or incorrect record on this issue in the past does not mean they are wrong today.
Thank you for that detailed explanation. However, the problem I have with the Pythagorean's theory is that it doesn't account for identical twins, triplets, and quadruplets. Does the soul split as the cells divide? How does that work? Since 30% to 70% of all fertilized eggs don't reach the birth stage what form will they take when their souls are resurrected with their bodies?
@@seekaloft First, only one out of every 250 births are twins. So, we must avoid converse accident fallacies from influencing the rule. The exception to the rule is not the rule. Second, there are even rarer, stranger cases where you have twins only for the two embryos to merge back into a single embryo. It is something to be wrestled with, but the safe position is that all twins or sets of twins have souls at the point of embryo division. And, in the case of recombination, the soul was implanted after, not before, the split since God knows what is about to happen. Of course, it's also possible the twin that was reabsorbed simply died and we have numerous examples of dead twins inside regular human beings. Third, practically speaking, it's not very relevant to the law since abortion virtually always takes place after the twins have been established. Even if that weren't the case, we can still definitively say at least one life was extinguished. There's no scenario where twins cause the life to be less than zero, if anything, more than one. Fourth, it may be possible that God, knowing ahead of time, does not implant souls into bodies He knows will not survive either naturally or via abortion. It may also be possible there is an army of souls in heaven of those who were not born. But Aristotle's theory is ridiculously ignorant science and Aristotle is not God.
@@steveempire4625 I agree the Aristotle view is not feasible. I like how you used the foreknowledge of God to address the issues. Thank-you for your time in researching the issues and your detail explanations.
In full disclosure I left the church a long time ago as well as being a recovering almost Catholic so my views are going to probably be much different than many here. I left because I feel the church has become some kind of country club that only certain people can be a member of and I don't believe politics and religion should mix, ever. I really dislike the politicizing of personal matters. I don't want politics in my bedroom or in my doctor's office. I also feel that the state of our society (at any given time) has created the situation that we are debating. Someone will claim it's because Christianity has been removed from society(schools, life style, what have you) while my experience has been that Christianity has been removed from the church. If we hadn't caused these societal situations that created unwanted pregnancies we wouldn't have anything to debate about. Conservatives use it as a way to force their will onto people and liberals use it as a bargaining chip to get their next hand picked candidate elected. As far as I'm concerned it's something that should be decided in private. This whole idea that my personal medical decisions should be decided by governments and someone else's religions disgusts me to no end. I will always be on the side of you keeping your nose out of my personal and medical business as long as people feel compelled to save babies just to not care about them after they are born. They are the group that should have the least to say about when life begins. For them it begins at conception and it's not their responsibility after it is born. I call BS!
Thanks for being a fresh voice in this repetitive dialogue. You made many excellent points that need to be in most discussions of reproductive health care.
No. Silly. Do you have the right to dismember yourself? Can you cut off a healthy leg? No? These are politics getting in your doctor's office. What medicines you have access to? Regulated. The standards by which your doctor is educated? Approved of by the state. Your conjecture does not align with reality.
Another thoughtful discussion. I walk away not dissuaded from the conclusion that the time of “ensoulment” is not going to be determined by us mortals in the near future or forever. That is theology subject to zillions of interpretations. Public health matters mostly are very much determined by the people directly involved. Guess which should have priority.
So, when we look at what the Septuagint says vs the Hebrew, we should keep in mind that the modern accepted version of the latter is from the Masoretic text... which was written centuries after the former, and scholars are not at all sure the latter is closer to the original text (Though no one disputes the original was written in Hebrews, just that there were changes made in the text). Ultimately as one considers the question, the Catholic position makes sense as almost any line we draw, after conception is de facto arbitrary... This doesn't mean we should make it murder... or even illegal, but the Anti-Abortion movement in this country has for a long time been willing to embrace folks who were not pro-life per say being they supported Capital punishment and opposed helping the poor.
I appreciate all the nuance with your nuanced discussion on the nuance of ending the life of a child in the womb. It was enlightening and helpful. I’m excited to see what kind of nuanced fruit that will be birthed for generations to come.
@@hgservices5572 You and the OP are invoking the slippery slope fallacy. Nuance, especially for the God-fearing, is not a path to an “all bets are off” conclusion. Recognizing nuance is a characteristic of the humble and curious, and protects us from assuming a God-like knowledge. We can hold opinions and feel reasonably confident in them, but always with an understanding that there are limits to what we can know (all of 1 Corinthians 13, verse 12 in particular).
Different organs in our body moves, muscles etc. a baby moving in the womb does not mean it has life on it own…. if the mother dies that baby cannot survive, if it’s fully developed it has to be taken out of the womb and given oxygen or breath on its own.
Old Hebrew, Greek and stoic philosophies helped shape the discussion around life and personhood for centuries. It never started with “conception” as they knew it, but mostly around the “quickening”. That’s when the baby starts moving around the uterus. Dan Mcllelan has talked at length about the chapter that the pregnant lady gets harmed and explains that the Hebrew scripture treats the fetus more as property, hence the fine. This pairs well with how people treat slaves in the OT, more like property than as people. The way you guys are discussing this is very important, and I commend you for doing it. I think that one thing that never comes to question is the pregnancy . . . why is that? No two pregnancies are the same, and women who have medical conditions or even cancer, pregnancy can be harmful to the mother and child. If there are complications during a woman's pregnancy that requires an incredibly hard decision to be made by the mother, that is her decision to make either with the help of the father, her pastor, her doctor, her therapist etc. etc. BUT should not be FORCED by anyone into a situation despite her wishes. If you can convince someone who is going through the abortion decision to not do it, then GREAT!!! But if you can't convince them, then it is THEM that has to suffer with that consequence, and NOT you. Because I can guarantee you, it is THEIR suffering that is much greater than yours. THEY have to live with it and not YOU.
Concerning Hebrew translation. It depends on which one we're using. If you are referring to the Masorertic text, that was made several hundred years after the Greek. We don't have early Hebrew text save the Qumran scrolls. Some would argue as to which is more reliable. The Greek because it was translated from some earlier form of Hebrew that we no longer have or the Hebrew because it's, well, Hebrew even though it's relatively late as far as translations go. But interesting thought.
Here's another ethical question to throw in the mix: Should a society compel everyone by force of law, to use their own bodies as a means to keep another person alive? Which is in effect what happens when laws are made that force women to carry pregnancies to term.
I have heard Numbers 5:16-28 coming up in the abortion debate with a lot more frequency recently, as it very much does appear to be instructions for the priesthood on how to create an abortifacient that would be administered to women against their will, because their husband had “feelings of jealousy come over him” especially relevant when you understand that the Hebrew for thigh was used either euphemistically or believed to be part of the procreation process. I think this is relevant to what Kaitlyn was saying about men wanting to have access to abortion for their mistresses.
@@RobertG3567 the “withering of the thigh” line is essentially what we would now call the womb becoming barren; as the thigh was thought to be part of the reproductive process and where the baby was initially believed to come from.
Good discussion. If you want to open up an even bigger can of worms, discuss birth control (hormonal). Does it prevent conception or implantation? My understanding is both (especially with modern dosages). Also, I can see this historical stuff turning into a book.
We have laws that make it illegal to go to the beach and dig up a turtle nest where a sea turtle just laid eggs in, because while those eggs are not a turtle yet, they will develop into turtles if left alone and allowed to fully develop. That same logic should be applied to the fertilized human egg. if left to fully develop it will develop into a baby human.
Like many topics, we begin with an issue of definitions. What do we even mean, when does life begin? Doesn’t life exist before conception? Isn’t the egg and sperm alive? I think we mean, when is there a new soul present but that is not how it is ever phrased. The Bible gives us some unique examples and analogies but does it ever clearly state a point in time?
King David of Israel, a thousand years before Christ, wrote in Psalms 139:13--"For you created my inmost being---you knit me together in my mother's womb". So the ridiculous notion that Christians haven't always believed that life begins at conception simply falls apart
Except read that in context. He isn’t saying that that happens then, there’s a quotation of it in Jeremiah 1 and like Psalm 139 the context is God knowing his plans for us (and Jeremiah). God knew what we would be long before we were conceived. There is nothing there about abortion in context.
@@impalaman9707 regardless, the claim that started this thread is a manipulative and dishonest abuse of scripture. Believe what you want, but don’t twist the words of scripture to make it say what you want to hear.
@@Justanotherconsumer There is no worse "abuse" than hands that shed innocent blood, which is one of the things God hates according to scripture, and the real "dishonesty" is when people claim there is no life in the womb
Is the pro-life position based upon the 6th commandment : Though shall not kill? If so,why is the 6th commandment more important than the other 9 to legally enforce, like adultery? Why aren’t Evangelical Christians fighting for to outlaw the other 9 commandments? Also, God has given us free will to choose to keep or not to keep all the commandments as well other behaviors and practices that God instructs us not to engage in? Don’t we have the right to choose “ sin over righteous”?
Why do we never discuss the glaring sin of all the men throughout the ages who have tried to control women - including their bodies? All the men who have tried - again and again - to take away the basic human rights of women, and deny them equality and dignity before God? Why do so many men try to force women to carry the burden of their sin? Why are men so rarely held accountable? Can you imagine a world where men stopped raping, coercing, abusing, and controlling women - as if they have a right to? In a perfect world, no person would ever be faced with the prospect of needing an abortion. We do not live in that world.
On a lighter note, am I the only one who thinks Sixtus the Fifth sounds like a great idea for a Veggie Tales episode? And Sixtus the Fifth’s Bull? Priceless.
I think Kaitlyn's perspective here is really good. I actually think we should view this topic much in the frame of how race-based chattel slavery was thought of pre-emancipation. The entire conversation was based around personhood and citizenship. Who was worth being considered a person who's rights were to be protected? "The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them." - Dred Scott Ruling I see some massive similarities between our current abortion debate and the debate that was being had about black Americans. From theological, to philosophical, to governmental, to economical. The debate was around personhood, who was a person, and what implications that would have on our society. This is why Kaitlyn's bigger question is so good. If we are a society that does not place value on the most vulnerable in our midst, and discards them at will, why do we find it surprising when we propagate a deathworks culture there after?
@@michaelward7051 1. no. 2. individual choices have collective consequences (that's why we have laws against murder and assault) 3. Because personhood en utero and out of utero is a collective moral concern because people have inherent value. 4. Yes, we are responsible for our own choices, but we are also responsible for justice for all people. We must not stand by while people are murdered. 5. It matters because of answers 3 and 4. 6. All discussions are spiritual discussions because God isn't somehow separated from any aspect of our lives; He would no longer be God if there was any aspect out of His purview. Right and wrong are especially spiritual issues, as it is God and not humanity who determine morality. 7. Yes. 8. Yes. 9. No, there are absolute moral truths and we should live by them and enforce them; especially in regard to the sanctity of human life. People are not a game to be played with. 10. If atrocities are legal, that does not change God's absolute moral truth. (Our laws don't change what is right and wrong). However, as we live in a democratic society, WE are the rulers. WE make the decisions. And that makes us morally responsible for the way that we run our country.
@@michaelward7051 Aren't we all responsible for our choices? If the Union does not want to allow for race-based chattel slavery, but the confederacy does, does it matter? Are these spiritual discussions? Are we believing in souls, and spirits? Doesn’t the faith suppose a relationship with our creator? And therefore is it all this discussion essential a game? A fun what if? Because no matter the reasons, the methods, the law, God measures hearts. Right?
@@michaelward7051 While I hear your point, the Roman Empire was not a representative democracy at that time. Do you think that Christians in the US have any level of stewardship responsibility with regards to our current form of governance, and legislation?
No one is ever inconsistent when it come to their actual ideals and goals. They will say whatever they think they need to say to achieve those. If they have an inconsistent stance on abortion, it is because they don't actually care about abortion.
Have you read the Didache chapter 2 wherein it says: "Now, the second commandment of the teaching is 2 Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt children, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not use magic arts, thou shalt not use sorcery, thou shalt not destroy a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay * him that is born." While this is not canonized scripture it does speak to the mindset of how the first century Jewish-Christian followers (teachers) of Jesus would have thought of an unborn child... and more importantly how they would've taught others too! Maybe the question is this... is the fertilized egg "potential" life or is it simply "life"... human life? If we start putting qualifiers on what is a "human" or at what stage do they begin to be human or for that matter... how about when they stop being a human? Assigning value to life that is determined by "man" either by consensus vote or majority opinion based in science as the primary determining factor... we're back to your previous video about Genesis and the age of the earth... it's not about the "what and the how" but the "Who and the why" that makess this a moral issue and not a nuts and bolts science project!
A more interesting and more important question is when does the unborn has a soul ( if one believes the concept of ensoulment). There is no hard line but it is probably safe to say sometimes during the pregnancy where the closer you are to birth, the higher the chance that the body has been ensouled.
My concern with downplaying the life or death element is sort of like saying we should have downplayed slavery because other political issues existed at the time. Or the Holocaust for that matter. On those issues it was a black and white, life and death issue. People who didnt do anything back then look bad now. Kaytlyn has been doing a good jobs lately.
@@DeJay14 it's not a game, it's the US. As once said, 'you can always count on America to do the right thing after they tried everything else's. You still can see that's true. America doesn't care who or how many die till they are confronted with a situation they can't ignore it any longer.
Excellent discussion. I recently answered the question posed "Is a frozen embryo a child?" with "I believe it has the potential to become a child," and then had to defend my Christianity with my education and career in science and healthcare. They are not mutually exclusive. And as an aside, it took me a few second to recognize Kaitlyn. Love the March Madness get-up . (Go Irish!)
Every biology textbook agrees that a human zygote is a distinct living human organism. This is observed scientific fact. And all humans (no matter their size or level of development) are made in the Image of God. To have this entire conversation but never bring up the Image of God is grossly irresponsible.
For a long time, I was anti-abortion. That one issue determined how I would vote. Over the past few years, I have changed my mind. The U.S. constitution says the government shall not favor one religion over another. The matter of when life begins is a theological issue and there is no consensus found in the major religions of the world. Abortion from conception to the time of viability should be available without restriction. Those who oppose abortion have the first amendment right to try to persuade women to carry to term. Having proper supports in place for those women who don't believe they can afford a child (or perhaps an additional child since some already have children), whether through private or public means, could reinforce those efforts of persuasion. Having legislation based on religious belief imposed on those who do not share the same belief leads to anger and division and contributes to the uncivility we find in our society. It's been a long road for me to come to this conclusion. I have decided to leave the judging to Jesus and to live in peace with as many people as I can. The conflict this and other cultural issues creates is exhausting.
So elegantly written. Bless you for the deep thought and soul searching that went into changing your position. I admire you, and thank you for sharing it with us. ruclips.net/video/lKSF1huXOuw/видео.html
3:30 - Really?? What early Christians believed doesn't even matter, what does God state in his word??? Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” What did God mean here? Was He also just waiting for science to validate this?
I guess my defense of the unborn babies using the Catachism of the Catholic Church, the writing of the church fathers, and the tradition since 155 AD. Was too much for this site.
When does life begin is a question meant to distract people. One thing I never hear in evangelical spaces is a discussion of how abortion was a tool and its link to an effort to keep schools segregated. Anti-abortion outside darholics wasn't a big debate until the IRS started threatening to revoke tax-exempt status on white evangelical schools that did not integrate. Abortion was the issue that was decided had the best chance to unite evangelicals into a voting block behind those wanting to maintain segregation. The Christians avoid talking of these links as if they never existed. Like on this snippet, they talk as if it was just another shift in Christian thought. That shift was directed, organized, and had a purpose. it wasn't to save babies. The idea was to get control of as many states as possible and the federal government to put people in place to over turn the civil rights laws and if they got control of enough states change the constitution to protect discrimination. They used abortion to get evangelicals to join segrigationist in order to have the voting blocks to do it. Yes, we got people in place to over turn Roe, and they did. What other laws are they talking about and challenges they are overturning laws and precedence over? Civil rights laws. Even talking of overturning protections to mixed marriages. Anti-abortion has never been the goal. Just the medium. Life has never meant anything. It's never been about life. We know how to reduce abortion. We know how to reduce unwanted pregnancies. We know how to do these things well, supporting women and families. The christian right has fought any and all attempts to create a nation that supports mothers and families. The question isn't when life begins. That's a dustraction. The question is, do you see them for what they are, and can you still stand with them. Can you justify the racism and hatred for anti-abortion, anti-health, and anti-family legislation? See, when does life begin? 3.7 billion years ago. There has been nothing but stages of lufe since then. A life existing doesn't matter. Preventable death happens every day, and we do nothing. It's been that way for 3.7 billion years. Preventable murder happens every day, and we do nothing. It was that way since laws distinguished between justified killing and unjustified. Killing the innocent doesn't matter. We as a species have been murdering the innocent since we learned how to kill. When life begins doesnt matter. The question we should ask is when will we start valuing life? It isn't today, and yesterday's gone without addressing this question. The right doesn't want to answer this question. If they did, they would have to value all life or make public some lives only have 3/5ths a value to them. If they declared a value to life, they would have to tax the wealthy and institute regulation and law to support and protect life. The right does not and has never valued life. That won't change. If you are true to the idea that abortion is wrong because all life should have a chance, then stop thinking of abortion as an evil and start thinking of harm. Some cases abortion is mercy, and forcing births does great harm. We should start asking what we, our churches, our states, our country can do to mitigate harm. If life was truly the issue, then harm, not life's beginning, is the metric we should use. I am pro-choice because i am anti-harm. The New Testament is full of stories and anecdotes that teach us how to be in relationships with each other that reduce harm. There is no condemnation of abortion in the bible. We decided this was evil. We used our knowledge of good and evil to desern the inherent evil in it. We are not wise enough to also see the good in it. Perhaps that's why itisn'tt in the bible. There are ways to reduce harm so that abortion becomes the last choice rather than a prime consideration. I the end they mention Weyrich who is reported as stating the use of abortion was to form a voting coalition to fight intigration.
@JohnThomas-ut3go. What on earth does “anti-harm” mean to you? For a lot of young, single women, their living children are a major obstacle to economic progress. Are you advocating for infanticide? Because it sure sounds like you are. And, without the reproductive rights of the past 50 years, blacks would be a far larger minority with far more clout. What’s to say that YOUR position isn’t racist? I don’t buy the whole “Evangelicals are only pro-life because of political expediencies.” Rank-and-file Evangelicals have been pro-life almost for forever. Both of my parents, born in the twenties, were both pro-life and anti-contraception from the word “go.” Neither was Catholic. They were culturally rural and agricultural. Limiting family size never entered their minds. The growth of abortion advocacy required an urban, educated, upper-class mentality.
@@Wren_FarthingYes, I remember that episode now that you flag my attention to it. I rewatched it so that it is fresh in my mind as I contemplate your reply. Do you think this video justifies not including it here? In my opinion it makes it worse. There are no good links to the Bible, religious, or cultural ideologies to justify an anti-abortion belief. It's foundation is racism. They know this. This video they spend a great portion if their podcast time directly contradicting the video you referenced in trying to link the anti-abortion movement to history, religion, and culture. They never acknowledge its roots in racism. As is said a a bad tree can not bear good fruit. Look at the results of the racism based anti-abortion movement. Harm to families, women, children, bounties, removal of rights persecution. Intentional or not all of that is justified in this video by creating a false link between the anti-abortion movement and the past. The Bible says that lying lips are an abomination before God. They created a lie of ommision with this episode. They knew that racism was the roots of this movement and they pointed to health roots of another tree and said see all is good. There should be no discussion about the anti-abortion movement without pointing out that the whole movement is a cover for racism and its goal to undermine and dismantle the progress we have made in equality, equity, & integration. The same people who tore down abortion access are already doing the work that the anti-abotion distraction was cover for and are talking about what's up next. Abortion is just the test to see how the right reacts to taking rights away. They got rid of affirmative action. They have said they are coming for equal rights and interracial marriage. The fact the video showing ghe link between anti-abortion and racist is there makes this apologetics video 100 times worse.
I don’t quite follow……my African American pastor, about a year ago during ministry outside of a child sacrifice center, was once called the “N word” by a vile white individual who was in support of the abortion of the unborn, and he was the racist one?
Did you not hear that the justices whom Trump appointed took the football and abolished roe v wade? Sure it’s punted to the states but knowing that movement actually happened in the Supreme Court should prove out that voting pro life can actually produce fruit . There are a few pro life democrats but not many and agreed there are many so called pro life RINOS so the sentiment still has some effect
@@hgservices5572 I wouldn't call that a touchdown. Maybe a safety. A touchdown would've been outlawing abortion. Winning the game would be getting a vast majority of people to realize that abortion is child sacrifice and have them support putting child slaughterhouses out of business.
On quickening: "And you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses & sins." It does seem at least to me that "quickening" in the Bible is the opposite of being dead, the exact point at which a person is considered suddenly alive. Spiritually, we have no life apart from Christ, and God has to first quicken us with even the faith we need to believe in Him. It seems like He does this with those He foreknew would choose Him if He did.
I’m not going to read all the comments to see if anyone’s made this point, but as most big O Orthodox Christians will tell you, the Septuagint is closer in date to the original documents then the Masoretic text, which is what most Evangelicals understand as the “Hebrew” Bible.
If you really practice consistent theology and go all the way back to Genesis life begins the moment you take your first breath. " God breathed life into Adam and he became a living soul) being".
I'm with you on the idea that either of the extreme views, conception or birth, are lazy and too easy and don't take into account any nuance. It's really not popular to be moderate about these issues though is it?
The reason it tends to need to be a black and white is because in a real, physical world we must end up with a law (or the choice not to have a law so it's a personal decision) that can be used to decide if and when someone has broken the law and should be prosecuted. That has to be black and white if we don't want to leave it open to special privilege and group membership. While it is great that all of the shades and nuances and side issues be explored, the way to do that is to leave the issue up to personal choice and then engage in trying to win the hearts and minds that will ensure the outcome each of us considers right. "Isn't the overturning of Roe vs Wade a good thing because" it necessitates this conversation? No. Tell that to the women who have been prosecuted for miscarriages, the girls forced to carry a fetus to birth, or despite medical conditions making the fetus nonviable or the pregnancy dangerous to the mother. Lots of conversation preceded Roe vs Wade, and conversation could easily have continued while it was in effect, with the intent of persuasion and increasing the number of women who, health permitting, might decide to carry their pregnancy to birth. Overturning it just forces the will of some on others and it's pretty clear the preferred outcome in terms of conversation would be to put an end to it: Shut the door and turn out the lights it's done.
I find it interesting that Mary was not FORCED to become a mother against her will. She was asked, and she agreed to the arrangement - including all the risks that would obviously come with it, the life altering consequences of it, etc. Pregnancy is long, risky, and inherently life changing. It is no small thing. Ultimately, I believe that the person who is pregnant, has the human right of God-given free will to say yes or no. At all points of pregnancy. There are far too many variables to ever write a “law” to govern every possibility. They alone will have to live with their decision. It should not be a decision that anyone takes lightly, or that anyone ELSE forces upon them.
There are some complications as her ability to consent or not was somewhat limited. I mean, if the almighty tells me I’ve got a job to do, I’m not going to say “no.”
That was a very VERY poor example to try to advocate for abortion. I mean , what if she aborted Jesus ? Like literally reading your comment we have to ask ourselves per your example , oh, so you’re saying that Mary had the choice so she simply could have aborted Jesus the messiah and all is cool between her and God , I mean WHAT???
Glory to whom? This also dodges the question raised by this biblical example. You’re telling me that God would be good with her choosing to abort Jesus??? Those are the choices in context here , carry to term, or abort which begs the question either or and we can imagine the repercussions if Mary had “chosen” to abort and would not be out of line to call it just plane evil, Am I right? That is why o don’t think this example strengthens the argument she thinks she’s making here. In fact it weakens it.
Life at conception is actually somewhat arbitrary, although it may be a reasonable point. It probably make more sense that life starts at implantation. Now in terms of when did the process of human development starts, one could take a different way and say it starts as early as the sperms enter the vaginally cannel as that is the beginning of the process.
Science/biology destroys the belief that the fertilized egg is already a human being Since 2 or more human beings can come from the same fertilized egg. Educate yourself! 😃
Life is what The Most High says it is. The Most High has already define life. For is it written: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul ( Gen. 2:7 ) . The Most High is the author, creator and sustainer of Life. It takes the Ruach ( Wind of God ) to create life. This is when ensoulment occurs, when the first breath is taken. There is no wind in the womb. Christ said Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God ( John 3:3 ), implying that birth is required to create life. These scripture are relevant to the discussion: Gen 2:7 Lev 27:1-8 Exo 21:22-25 Num 5:11-22 Eze: 37:1-14 John 3:3-7 Furthermore, If life begins at conception, why are there stillborns? If a woman has a stillborn, should the woman be prosecuted? Let GOD be GOD!!!!
Abortion is a moral issue that has been made political. Since it has been made political, the law should reflect this. In the end, the individual's decisions would be judged before the Creator and true determiner of all life. We should not impose our morality upon others, instead as our laws should reflect, the consented moral limits society has agreed to place on itself.
A rabbi, a priest, and a minister discuss the beginning of life.
The Rabbi says it is first breath.
The Priest says it is conception.
The Minister says it is when the kids move out and the dog dies.
In my mind, US religions fell off the rails when they traded religion for political power and decided to became a voting block.
same mistake was made 2000 years ago by some
Given that that’s what we rejected in 1776 (George III, head of church and state) it’s a bit sad.
Nothing new in terms of history though.
I grew up Evangelical. Am still Evangelical and couldn't agree with you more ❤❤❤
Ugh there was literally a Trump ad right before your video
@@Justanotherconsumeryet those that proudly call themselves Patriots' ignore this fact.
It is so unbelievably refreshing to hear nuance instead of extremism
To say that abortion isn't ideal is an understatement, particularly when it comes to late term abortion.
The thing about late term abortion is that nobody waits that long unless they were planning on keeping the pregnancy and giving birth (unless they were prevented from getting an abortion earlier due to lack of access, which wouldn't be their fault).
They probably already had a baby shower. Already had a name picked out. Already had a space set up in their home. Already made plans with their family and friends for the future.
Also, pregnancy isn't exactly an enjoyable experience in some ways. It comes with health risks. It comes with unpleasant side effects.
If late term abortion is even being considered, it's probably for a very good reason. I trust that those who are pregnant and their doctors can make a better decision than politicians who likely know little to nothing about the impact the laws that they pass would have.
In any case, the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent them at their source: unwanted pregnancies.
@averageuser4367 I encourage you to go read a May 2023 Atlantic article about an abortionist (Hern) in Boulder, CO titled, "The Abortion Absolutist". It may make you think twice about your optimistic position here.
Here are a few tidbits from the article:
"Abortions that come after devastating medical diagnoses can be easier for some people to understand. But Hern estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic do not have these diagnoses...
The reason doesn’t really matter to Hern. Medical viability for a fetus-or its ability to survive outside the uterus-is generally considered to be somewhere from 24 to 28 weeks. Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it...
Hern and his staff carry out up to a dozen such [2nd and 3rd trimester] terminations every week...
Hern sent me a copy of his poetry collection and his new book on global ecology. In the latter, titled Homo Ecophagus, he compares mankind to a cancer on the planet, writing that our unrelenting population growth will ultimately lead to the demise of every species on Earth. To view human beings as a scourge seems a rather ominous perspective for a man who ends pregnancies for a living."
My thoughts on this matter can't really move past the lived experiences I and others I know have experienced. I knew a woman who was forced to Cary her dead baby for 2 and a half weeks until her body finally went into labor because she couldn't afford to travel several states away. She didn't develop sepsis which was nearly a miracle but the agony what she went through, Noone should suffer that.
@@rebeccaholcombe9043 My understanding of situations like you have described here are that many are based on lack of clarity or confusion in transitioning to these new laws and not necessarily the new laws themselves. There is not a single state which has implemented law which are not protective of the life of the mother, or that restrict D&C's if the baby has already died.
If the baby was determined to be dead, can you tell me exactly why the doctors did not perform a D&C? Was it because of the plain letter of the law, or lack of clarity and interpretation of the law?
@@StumblingThroughItAll they didn't deliver because abortion was defined as termination of a pregnancy. She wasn't septic so her life wasn't in danger immediately, and the fact that the baby was dead didn't mean she wasn't pregnant.
Trust the women, her family and the medical professionals to make the decision. Wise words ...
Amen Kaitlyn. At the approximately 26 minute mark. These have been my arguments for a long time. Even if we make abortion totally illegal everywhere and always in the United States, it will never completely go away. So we are not talking about eliminating abortion. We are talking about improving life so fewer abortions happen. That is what I focus on, and that is why I got away from conservative right wing politics
No law has ever eliminated any crime. There is not a single crime; misdemeanor or felony, which has been eradicated because a law against it has been passed into law.
Biblically speaking, one of the very, very few expectations and roles of government is the restrain & punish evil & to protect it citizenry. And this would include abolishing abortion, as otherwise is denying specific people equal protection under the law.
By this reasoning. Nothing should be outlawed because laws do not stop crime 😐
Thank God you guys exist. I am a conservative leaning christian who struggles with how to deal with this topic. I am not convinced by either side but I do believe that life is a blessing and we should aim for promoting life. As for the specific details of whether life begins at conception, i cannot answer. I love how you guys try to apply wisdom in these discussions and your honesty in stating that the boundaries are blurry.
Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
Fear is always about the unknown, and if we are honest fear is an admission that we do not know.
We cannot learn if we think we already know.
Only biblical wisdom is right, and to say life doesn’t begin at conception is unbiblical and goes completely against Yahweh.
Hi Noah. There's no one solution that'll make everyone a whole lot happy, so how about one that makes everyone a little bit unhappy? If Life ends when the heart stops beating, then life starts when the heart starts beating, at about six weeks into gestation. It's not a perfect solution, but at least it's democratic. Cheers, P.R.
@@philliprobinson7724 I'm not against that but some would argue it starts when the baby becomes conscious since life ends when consciousness ceases
@@noahfletcher3019 Hi Noah. That's an interesting thought, but the problem is that consciousness cannot be scientifically defined or measured. Is a person in a coma dead? How can we tell when the baby becomes conscious? Plants are alive but not conscious. I think if we're discussing physical life we must use physical definitions. Cheers, P.R.
Yay longer format videos!!! I missed this …
The crew left out an important piece of the story. Yes Catholics had been absolutists on abortion since 1869. But Protestants hadn't, and the two had never been friendly. Why did conservative evangelicals agree to join forces with Catholics? What was in it for them? Could it be that Weyrich offered them a way to gain power so as to protect the tax exempt status of their segregated universities? I think so. And when the Moral Majority helped Reagan get elected and his IRS backed off, did that support pay off. I think so.
As someone raised Catholic I'm pretty disgusted by what transpired. My tribe threw the dignity of non whites under the bus to 'protect' the unborn, while doing nothing else to promote a culture of life, and also failing to recognize that racism harms a culture of life. Is it any wonder that my faith died. No, not really.
They didn’t bring that up here, but they have discussed it in past episodes.
Evangelicals care only about “life” in the womb. After that, baby, you’re on your own. Good
Luck! Pastors will always be able to take their mistresses in for an abortion. Catholics just want all the like papists they can get. Thus, no family planning of any kind.
@@Wren_Farthing Could you please share which one(s)? I would very much like to hear more about this.
As one who lived through that era, I believe there was not widespread concern, but a minority of powerful ministers who approached the RCC. I myself studied in seminary and learned that the souls of miscarriages and aborted babies go to Heaven-saved by God’s grace because the could not make a decision or exercise faith at that undeveloped stage. Protestants reject the Catholic prohibition on all forms of birth control.
@dans - EXACTLY!!
I'm pretty sure the ancients knew about conception. They knew it happened when the seed was deposited. They had livestock. They had their own babies. They didn't know about how it happened microscopically or genetically and they might have been fuzzy about eggs. But they for sure knew conception happened.
The concept that the mother is “fertile ground” where the father “plants a seed” (the word “semen” and “et semini eius” from the Magnificat) imply that the father is doing all of the work of conception and that the mother is just a caretaker.
This is completely and totally false - the sperm barely contributes anything beyond some redundant DNA that isn’t even, strictly speaking, needed. It’s just a starting gun.
They may have had ideas about it, but they were so bizarre that they weren’t even coherent enough to be called wrong.
"They might have been fuzzy about the eggs" is the key to the whole discussion.
@@Justanotherconsumerit's amazing how you built a strawman for the ancients while getting the modern science wrong. 0/2 ignorant on all counts
Thank you for wrestling with this issue and expounding on the passage in Exodus that is almost never discussed!
Where is the conversation about men? What role do they have in this issue? Will they be criminalized? As I read somewhere, Zero pregnancies occur without a man.
🎯 No baby is ever conceived without male participation at some stage of things, even in IVF. If they drove and/or paid for their wife, mistress, girlfriend, daughter, etc to get the abortion, aren't they complicit? 😒 If we're going to label this as murder, then that makes that man an accessory to murder at least.
If we are going to criminalize adultery and fornication, then we're just a step closer to religious totalitarianism.
I’m glad this is being talked about more and more.
Criminalized for what ? If they kick a girl in the stomach with child they should be ! Otherwise, charge a man because he impregnated a woman who then went and killed the baby?? Not unless he aided and abetted in the murder , how else toe the man in the death unless he had something to do with it just for being part in its creation?
@@daneesledge1626let's also talk about those who divorce for no reason.
”For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
Psalm 139:13-16
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
Psalm 51
The community that authored and reveres this scripture believes that life begins at first breath.
@@curtismartin2866 That is as close to demonic as it gets.
@@ChristoverMarxfortheWin so Jewish People are "demonic" Got it.
So... was there an answer to the question somewhere in that discussion? It is telling that after a 35 minute conversation, there was still no answer.
Thanks for saving my time. Though it does seem Ol' Philly is on the side of "life does not begin at conception." The funny thing is, most scientists think/believe that life begins at conception, according to those surveyed by UCLA. So, are we talking about a different life, from a qualitative standpoint, Mr. Visscher? It's so sad that people justify k*lling a human being by changing the rules regarding a technicality. Turtle eggs have more rights than a human embryo.
I think the answer was something along the lines of “we’re too smart and smug to think that or be held back by it politically.”
Life begins at "hold on... is supporting or opposing this going to help me be on the winning team?"
Ah-ha! 🧏♀️ There it is!
Well, christians are moving away from talking about it when it comes to running for office, but if they get in you can bet they will enforce whatever they can get away with by any means necessary. Christianity contains no morality, just a desire for power. Don't trust them. They may not be saying anything while running for office, but they intend to outlaw abortion in ALL cases, outlaw contraception in most cases (if not all) and force EVERYONE to obey their religion. They don't run on it, but it is what they intend to do. The Heritage Foundation has released their Project 2025 document making it all VERY clear.
If you think this is about winning you are in the wrong space.
I am so fed up with the mentality that the world 🌎 is divided between winners and losers. I can't think of a less Christ like concept.
If everyone on this planet thinks that I am a " loser" because I refuse to trample on others to get ahead yet I hear the words " Well done good and faithful servant"when I actually stand before the only and only true King 👑 because I took the ACTUAL Words of Jesus to heart " love your neighbor as yourself" I will be a "/Winner ' in God's eyes and God is the only omniscient being . So his " vision " alone matters.
Thanks for making a longer video. Keep it up, please.
Good conversation. Problems these days: The people making the laws have no medical knowledge about pregnancies and are going strictly on personal conscience. In many cases, they didn't even consult with medical professionals in the field before writing and introducing these laws. The absolute abortion ban and possible punishment of women doesn't take into account things like ectopic pregnancies (which are a matter of life or death for the expectant mother) and must be surgically removed. Potential life may begin at conception but will not develop unless the embryo is attached to the uterus. A woman can have a fertilized egg slip on through and never be "pregnant" in the common thought of what a pregnancy is. IVF cells are not attached to the uterus until implanted, and then some of them may not implant. (a friend had 3 introduced at one time and only one was successful. This was on her second try. The first time they placed 2 and neither successfully implanted. Should we say that she "killed" 4 children while finally giving birth to 1?)
Jewish thought has been that full personhood status begins with the first breath after at least the baby's head passes out of the mother, as G-D formed Adam (as a complete form) and breathed life into him. The soul of a person, however, is pre-destined and the combining of the particular soul with the particular body it enters results in a breathing human at birth and leaves the body at death, when life ends and breathing stops. Also, Jewish belief is that the life of the mother must be the priority is cases where carrying the child to full term would result in her harm. There are, unfortunately, many in evangelical circles who would insist that a woman die trying rather than save her life.
Well said. We live in a fallen world, Such that not every combination of sperm and eggs will result in healthy children. As noted here unless successfully attached to the uterus, the development of the fertilized egg, will not become a child. Because of variability a single, all encompassing definition of life's beginning is beyond us. When is killing murder or self-defense. How should we weigh the life of the mother against that of the developing fetus? It is way too easy to take an unyielding stance and miss the nuanced wisdom God has shown us in his Word.
The reason they don't consult doctors and have vilified professionals, especially highly educated is they know their ideas go against evidence.
"The people making the laws have no medical knowledge about pregnancies."
THIS. And it's evident that they don't have knowledge about basic female anatomy and reproductive system to begin with. I frequently complain that TV and movie scriptwriters should consult actual professionals about pregnancy and birth stuff, but that's trivial. When it comes to making laws about our lives, it's crucial that not just one but multiple professionals for whom this is their life's work should have input. You know, actually licensed and practicing OB/GYNs, Midwives, Maternal Fetal Medicine specialists, etc. (I'm a professional Birth Educator and, even not being a healthcare provider, some of the completely erroneous info in the legal stuff that's come up in recent years has been baffling.)
To believe that the zygote is already a human being
Is to adopt the warped untenable belief that most people will be killed off before being born!
@@expectingnewlifemurder ogmf innocents is an unjustifiable evil
Adam "became a living soul," not when he was formed, but when he breathed. The people raised from the grave in Ezekiel's prophecy of the Valley for Dry Bones were said to be alive, not when their bones came together and they stood on their feet, but when they breathed. "But from conception there is a total blueprint for the person!" Well, yes, but if I snatched a blueprint for a house from an architect's hands and threw it into a fire, I am not guilty of arson, because I didn't burn down a house.
Tell that to mothers who miscarry. What a weird statement.
not a contradiction
@thomasgruseck7971. So, then, is it your contention that the dry bones had become fully alive, but weren’t “living souls” until they breathed? Similarly, with Adam, did he just lie there on the ground, fully alive…but didn’t become a “living soul” until he breathed? Exactly how long do you figure he lay there in that condition?
Unborn babies start sharing oxygenated blood with their mother very early on in the pregnancy. So they have respiration in that sense.
In abortion, you not only burn the blueprint and all its copies but also any chance of recreating the design. In essence, you kill the architect. But I guess you’re ok with that.
@@HannahClapham Adam was not alive when he was formed from the dust. No such thing as "Unborn babies". Unborn is a pre-birth term and babies is a post-birth term. Doesn't respiration require functioning lungs? How can the architect be killed? Isn't God the one who designed the DNA for potentially building a human in the womb or in a test tube (as in IVF)? Sorry, maybe I am not getting your point.
Adam also wasn't 'in the womb'. So what's your point?
- Phil, opens and modulates within the context towards an exemplary :could DJ both music and conversation forums with a natural leading and easing -in my humble opinion
Luke 1:41 “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,”
Luke 1:44 “For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.”
Verse 15 implies but doesn't state that John was unique in being filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb.
Luke 1 - 13But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall name him John. 14You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice over his birth. 15For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb.
Luke 1:30. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33. and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end. After the angel told Mary she would conceive, Luke 1:39 "At that time Mary got ready and "hurried" to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40. where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth." Nazareth and Judea are about 90 miles apart. Mary would have to walk this between Sabbaths, about 15 miles a day. When she arrived at Elizabeth's home, she would be about 2 weeks from conception. 41. "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42. In a loud voice she exclaimed: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43. But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44. As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” At 2 weeks from conception, Elizabeth recognized Mary was pregnant with "her Lord", Jesus our Savior. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And the baby in her womb (John the Baptist) 6 month from conception "leaped for joy." To me, I see this saying an unborn baby, 6 months from conception, recognized an unborn baby, 2 weeks from conception as Jesus.
I see the same dilemma as Adam and Eve where God told them something specific. Then, in walks the satan with a rationale reason to question and cause doubt in what God had actually told them initially. And since then, that type of process has trickled on and through to this topic today. For me, Psalm 139:13, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb." We know what a mother's womb is. And the language in this verse does not declare anything about a baby, or anything we want to categorize or rationalize our positions today. It simply says, "You created my inmost being, you knit me together..." Again, what does that mean? That is the minimalist of tiniest form stationed in the mother's womb declares us to be a living being put there by God. Now, if you wish to debate all the rationed reasons the satan has entered into the arena today. By all means, do so. But, by mindful of this one thing. God put that "inmost being" in the mother's womb. And at the end of the day, if He decides to take it away. That is completely up to Him. We do not have the right to step into that role. We are not God. And usurping His authority was what got us kicked out of the garden in the first place. When will we ever learn?!
The Bible also says Adam did not become a living soul until he took his first breath. In the womb the mom is breathing for the baby. Maybe that’s the reason the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament written by Moses, only had a penalty for assault when the mother died (story told by host). Greece was a pagan society. No body has late term abortions. Churches should not put a scarlet letter on a woman if she gets pregnant out of wedlock. Catholic Church fired a teacher who became pregnant. That’s scares other women even if it was a mistake. No forgiveness.
This was a wonderful conversation.
Gotta love the context note. "Ends a pregnancy." What else ends, Google? _What else ends?_
When are you going to start posting complete episodes on RUclips again?
I wonder that too, but I think they are keeping them on Patreon to drive people there to subscribe to HP+. I'm disappointed in this move.
@@maryhamricit's available without subscribing to it. They're using shorter videos to make them easier to share.
@@batmanop9254 Well, sharing a long form video is just as easy as sharing a RUclips short. No difference. No other podcast I follow which has video and streams on a podcasting app does this. They post both video and audio. Typically, you want your pod to be available to as many people as possible on as many formats as possible. I can't access Patreon on my VPN...so no. I can't see it nor share it the podcast. So, they have limited themselves. The only reason I can deduce from this is to drive people to become HP+ subscribers. I think they offer great content for fees, I just can't afford it. So I'm left with the bits they share in short form to share instead of the whole podcast. And the special guests don't seem to be getting much of the short play visibility on YT either.
Such a great, thoughtful discussion. Like many bioethics topics, abortion is complex.
As a nation, the question becomes , when does a developing child in the womb become a person who is entitled to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I like Kaitlyn’s thought process of realizing without making this life or death, it is morally significant. We all realize that and it is a good place to engage, to deepen care about creating new human beings and those in the process of creating new human beings.
I think that my position has the highest levels of nuance and thought and is the only right position: y'all need to start putting the whole podcast up on RUclips again.
Many decisions that we make in life are ultimately between ourselves and God - and we alone will answer for the choices we have made. This is far too personal, life-altering, and complicated of a decision to legislate by law. Women are human beings with God-given free will. They should not be forced, coerced, or compelled to carry any pregnancy to term.
hey, love the Calvin U. shirt Kaitlyn... we missed that when you discussed the pink Duke hat. Great combination! 👏
SOMEHOW it always comes back to News of The Butt. 🤣
A little late to the game, but ... Politics is so rancid (in part thanks to the Jerry Falwell, Robertsons and such), I turned to a "When Does Life Begin" video ...
I liked and would tend to agree with most of what Caitlyn said. There should be incredible respect and appreciation for life and what it really is. But, the pro-life movement in my lifetime (68 yrs old) has really, honestly, been only pro-birth. As a Catholic (clergy), my position has developed/morphed over the years, but, I really believe more firmly than ever that, pro-lifers (in general) are willing to sacrifice all rights of the woman to save an even non-viable fetus. But once it's born, no quality health care; no developmental childcare; "illegals" are sent back to places where they will suffer and die probably; blah, blah, blah, the list goes on. And then, there's the death penalty, the ultimate post-birth abortion, which most pro-lifers applaud or at least tolerate, even when the "victim" of that penalty has a glimmer of innocence.
Pro-life adherents tend to be single-issue voters: abortion. They've sold their souls and our countries democratic ideals to enshrine abortion as the ultimate evil in all cases. No discussion is allowed; no compromises; no nuanced understanding of the issue; no room for Jewish or Muslim or Hindi or atheist thought, just a totally patriarchal, non-Scriptural, dare I say white "Christian" simple demand that life begins at conception and that must be enshrined, as brutally as possible, in law.
It was a good, pretty thoughtful video imho. The young guy got a little carried away with the whole Sixtus V thing (take a Christian History class ) and he did sort of represent the male understanding of abortion pretty well ... sadly. But, good talk. Thanks for the video and the insights. Wish there was more of this around ...
Joe
What about Psalm 139 - "you knit me together in my Mother's womb" or the LORD's message to Rebeccah - "two nations are at war within you"
I knitted a scarf once. The thread wasn't the scarf, and it wasn't a scarf until I finished knitting it. And the message to Rebekah was a prophecy. But you make an excellent point. If the common belief by the Hebrews was that ensoulment begins at first breath, how did they interpret these verses that seem to imply pre-natal ensoulment?
Yes but why throw away the potential warmth a scarf could bring to a cold soul ? Encourage them to keep knitting that beautiful scarf
@@hgservices5572 sometimes it's not the right season for a scarf, or the scarf you're making is too big for the intended recipient.
Btw, I'm very curious how long we can keep this metaphor going.
True , perhaps the season isn’t cold enough for a scarf, but why discard its future potential , perhaps someone else needs a scarf in colder climate or perhaps one is freezing to death and don’t know it until they felt the warmth of the scarf they initially intended to destroy ?
@@hgservices5572 but why burden a person to make a scarf if they are not up to the task?
This is the first Christian channel I subscribed to, some time in the past year. Phil mentioning Paul Weyrich in the last minute encapsulates why I like it, someone with very little discussion but huge influence. He also founded the Moral Majority.
If the developing human gets a soul at quickening, this video got its soul at squirming. [24:30]‚ 😂
Phil: "A human life begins developing at conception" [25:00]
To Kaitlyn's point about, "This is life and death", [25:45], perhaps that is a decoy. On the political side, it is about power, following the Jerry Falwell/Paul Weyrich mindset. On the legal side, this is about a property crime, going back to the verse in Exodus Phil quoted: "He shall be fined as her husband shall assess" [9:00].
The "tweet":
Abortion is not a political issue, it has been used for political power.
Abortion is not a legal issue, that occurred when the baby was the husband's property.
Abortion is a reproduction and personal issue. Offer counsel and leave the decision to the pregnant person, because she is being used for the development of the new life.
The "bumper sticker":
Abortion: not politics, not legal, only personal.
This 40/80 days timeframe for ensoulment is interesting because in Leviticus a new mother is ritually unclean for 40 days after having a son and for 80 days after having a daughter. I wonder if that informed this weird hypothesis of Aristoteles?
1st time here, so glad to have found this!
I believe that life starts upon conception because those cells will for certain grow up into a fully formed human body. The soul is there, but the body is still growing and adding to the human experience for that indiviaual.
Most conceptions will be lost naturally and will not result in successful births.
Do you IDIOTICALLY believe that most people will die before being born???
I wish pro life conversations included discussing participation in war and things like care for the elderly and the disabled, along with care for mothers and children, etc.
Yea it all starts with the RIGHT to life
Let's. What would you like to say on the matter?
Are those issues at all akin to slaughtering helpless unborn children after deeming them "inconvenient?"
To answer your question..,Women in El Salvador are in prison for abortions they could not prove were miscarriages, where the Catholic Church worked to prohibit abortion. El Salvador is 1of 7 nations where it is illegal with no exceptions. It is a criminal act.
Ethnics can be complicated. I am more of a pragmatist about this issue. I do think where a viable pregnancy exist we should encourage bringing it to term. Of course you have things like tubal pregnancies , baby dying in the womb, hemorrhaging and so forth where abortion is the lesser of the evil. I think the state has an interest in encouraging woman to have children , by encourage I mean help with the raising of the child. Not mandate. But if we allow abortion I think the state should not have the say , the woman and her doctor should make the decision. As far as when you become an actual human being , lets be humble enough to realize we do not actually know.
babies are conceived.
@20:25 I had a vasectomy so my mistress can't get pregnant. Folks be responsible with your mistresses.
It seems to me, that y'all missed the underlying issue of "Free Will." Pro Lifers are in essence saying that God made a mistake by giving us Free Will, so we will be the God we want and Legislate our View of what's right and what's wrong. Remember, between the Mtns of Blessing and Curses, God expressed His choice of the right decision, when He said, "I place before you, Life and Death, and ended with, CHOOSE Life. He did not say that they could not chose opposite of what He indicated was the path to blessing! As believers, we can only strive to convince another of what we believe is right, but politically we have chosen to coerce by removing the option of Free Will and correcting what is God's obvious mistake in His creation scenario.
I totally agree with you. God does not force morality on anyone because He allows you to choose (due to free-will) and honors your choice independent of whether your choice is right or wrong. In other words, terminating a pregnancy is ultimately between the woman and God and not up to the government. However, the topic here is "When does life begin?" and how does addressing this question support/oppose your view of pro-life or pro-choice. That's why we are missing the more important issue of "Free Will". Also, some here believe that abortion is an issue that overrides all other issues including free will. In other words, the sanctity of life overrides the sanctity of free-will (choice).
Again, you’ve skipped the idea of free will even in consideration of the question of when does life begin. The Scriptures are very clear. Man chooses different vehicles but it says in Genesis and God breathed in him the breath of life. Yes choice is when it can breathe. Man has chosen different vehicles and argues over them and they have the free will to make decisions on those choices, but God tells us clearly, It’s when we’re able to take a breath.
This is a very bad argument. Yes, humans have free will. Does this mean that no authority can place any limits on this free will? Have you actually thought about the implications of what you're saying here?
Basically if we apply this to other issues that involve taking human life, your argument is that we should allow criminals to murder people, because how dare we place any sort of limit on their free will. Allowing humans to operate entirely on their own free will with no restrictions is pure chaos. We do not serve a God of chaos, but of order. The Word also says God is the one who puts authorities in place.
Also, Jeremiah 1:5 clearly shows God knowing us before we take the first breath. Does this mean we have a soul already? 100%, yes.
@@japanese2811
ONLY in the delusional minds of the anti-abortion control freaks is abortion murder
SINCE over a million lawful abortions performed last year in America and no one has been convicted of murder!
Why is legislating morality when it comes to abortion the only acceptable option for Christians to support, but legislating morality when it comes to caring for the poor "socialism" and something that Christians must oppose?
If we were to actually take care of the poor, abortion would largely take care of itself as well.
Legislating “ don’t kill people” can come with the caveat “ give money to poor people” if you like , or they can stand alone
I remember in seminary we had a long discussion of the Exodus passage. My Hebrew proff (Dr. John Currid) argued that in the Hebrew version of it, the term for "harm" would have applied equally to both the mother and the child in the example. He argued that the distinction between harm or not harm would have dealt with whether she was caused to give birth prematurely, and no punishment is needed, or to miscarry, in which case it would be life for life because the child was murdered. The passage can't be taken to refer only to harming the wife, as otherwise the fact that she is pregnant would not be relevant.
Abortion seems to be the symptom, not the disease. That being said, I am a Catholic. I hope the Church develops its doctrine to say whether she really wants 9 year-old rape victims to be forced to carry to term? If so, will her baby be taken away from her (once she has been forced to bond with him/her) because she is so obviously unable to raise the child at her age? Can a young unmarried woman who is not sexually active use contraception while focusing on her studies because rape is so common on college and university campuses?
Ouch. But spot-on. There are so many elements to this, and the consequences for females are so serious.
Whose doing the forcing? Nature? Forcing? Such a misleading use of language. Is it intentional? Like do you force someone to have a leg when you stop them from dismembering themselves? Can you 'stop' pregnancy without ending innocent human life?
Yes, let's use rare circumstances as the rule for 99% of abortions instead of addressing the fact that women are having their unborn children slaughtered for the sake of convenience because they couldn't keep their legs together.
I listened to the podcast yesterday and I have to say the way that Skye talked about the aftermath of RvW being turned over as a way of people wrestling with the nuance of this, it made my stomach sick. Women are dying. Women are being forced to carry pregnancies they can’t handle whether it’s physically or mentally, women are being forced to endanger their life through pregnancy. I get there’s nuance. I have appreciated how, in these conversations, you use Europe’s model of abortion laws as a good standard. But in this interview, it came across as women being expendable. That it’s OK a women suffer because we’re gonna figure it out in the long run.
An egg or sperm have living cells. The question is for after fertilization - when does an embryo becomes llhuman? The Catholic Church is the main organization that pushes that a human is human at conception. Historically, abortion were performed in Colonial America before 22 weeks. Modern science states about the same. The fetus is not viable outside the womb before this time. So, it is a subjective religious issue and not an objective science/factual issue. Law should be objective and we allow judges to use some subjectivity in their application of punishment.
- Kaitlyn, seems to be very knowledgeable as towards the reading ; and also, very eloquent, as with her presentation ,emphasis ,and punctuation for the most part
The Catholic Church/Early Church has held that abortion is murder if the fetus has already received a rational soul. The period or state in which this occurs has been debated but this is an interpretation of the above teaching. An interpretation of the law is different than the law, itself. As for the interpretation of the law, some Christian theologians believed in Aristotle's theory while others believed in Pythagorean's theory which is that the soul enters the embryo at conception. In either case, a woman committing an abortion or someone procuring abortion drugs was harshly condemned for general sexual immorality. Since either interpretation was not infallible, it's not overly necessary to dwell on them as something absolute. No one seriously takes Aristotle's theory seriously scientifically or otherwise. Instead, some people have a quasi-Aristotle belief that abortion is murder only after viability. But what we know now today is that Pythagorean was correct scientifically and theologically and that many in the Church agreed with him in the early centuries. And since this seems to be the most obviously correct interpretation, critics regularly use "science was wrong before" fallacy against certain time periods and denominations as well as additional fallacies of appeal to motivation. Simply because the Catholic Church and other denominations have an inconsistent or incorrect record on this issue in the past does not mean they are wrong today.
Thank you for that detailed explanation. However, the problem I have with the Pythagorean's theory is that it doesn't account for identical twins, triplets, and quadruplets. Does the soul split as the cells divide? How does that work? Since 30% to 70% of all fertilized eggs don't reach the birth stage what form will they take when their souls are resurrected with their bodies?
@@seekaloft First, only one out of every 250 births are twins. So, we must avoid converse accident fallacies from influencing the rule. The exception to the rule is not the rule.
Second, there are even rarer, stranger cases where you have twins only for the two embryos to merge back into a single embryo. It is something to be wrestled with, but the safe position is that all twins or sets of twins have souls at the point of embryo division. And, in the case of recombination, the soul was implanted after, not before, the split since God knows what is about to happen. Of course, it's also possible the twin that was reabsorbed simply died and we have numerous examples of dead twins inside regular human beings.
Third, practically speaking, it's not very relevant to the law since abortion virtually always takes place after the twins have been established. Even if that weren't the case, we can still definitively say at least one life was extinguished. There's no scenario where twins cause the life to be less than zero, if anything, more than one.
Fourth, it may be possible that God, knowing ahead of time, does not implant souls into bodies He knows will not survive either naturally or via abortion. It may also be possible there is an army of souls in heaven of those who were not born. But Aristotle's theory is ridiculously ignorant science and Aristotle is not God.
@@steveempire4625 I agree the Aristotle view is not feasible. I like how you used the foreknowledge of God to address the issues. Thank-you for your time in researching the issues and your detail explanations.
In full disclosure I left the church a long time ago as well as being a recovering almost Catholic so my views are going to probably be much different than many here. I left because I feel the church has become some kind of country club that only certain people can be a member of and I don't believe politics and religion should mix, ever.
I really dislike the politicizing of personal matters. I don't want politics in my bedroom or in my doctor's office. I also feel that the state of our society (at any given time) has created the situation that we are debating.
Someone will claim it's because Christianity has been removed from society(schools, life style, what have you) while my experience has been that Christianity has been removed from the church.
If we hadn't caused these societal situations that created unwanted pregnancies we wouldn't have anything to debate about. Conservatives use it as a way to force their will onto people and liberals use it as a bargaining chip to get their next hand picked candidate elected.
As far as I'm concerned it's something that should be decided in private. This whole idea that my personal medical decisions should be decided by governments and someone else's religions disgusts me to no end. I will always be on the side of you keeping your nose out of my personal and medical business as long as people feel compelled to save babies just to not care about them after they are born. They are the group that should have the least to say about when life begins. For them it begins at conception and it's not their responsibility after it is born. I call BS!
Thanks for being a fresh voice in this repetitive dialogue. You made many excellent points that need to be in most discussions of reproductive health care.
No. Silly. Do you have the right to dismember yourself? Can you cut off a healthy leg? No? These are politics getting in your doctor's office. What medicines you have access to? Regulated. The standards by which your doctor is educated? Approved of by the state. Your conjecture does not align with reality.
Another thoughtful discussion. I walk away not dissuaded from the conclusion that the time of “ensoulment” is not going to be determined by us mortals in the near future or forever. That is theology subject to zillions of interpretations. Public health matters mostly are very much determined by the people directly involved. Guess which should have priority.
What is the umbilical cord? What does it do?😂😂
I think they're talking about the " *un-biblical* cord."
So, when we look at what the Septuagint says vs the Hebrew, we should keep in mind that the modern accepted version of the latter is from the Masoretic text... which was written centuries after the former, and scholars are not at all sure the latter is closer to the original text (Though no one disputes the original was written in Hebrews, just that there were changes made in the text). Ultimately as one considers the question, the Catholic position makes sense as almost any line we draw, after conception is de facto arbitrary... This doesn't mean we should make it murder... or even illegal, but the Anti-Abortion movement in this country has for a long time been willing to embrace folks who were not pro-life per say being they supported Capital punishment and opposed helping the poor.
I appreciate all the nuance with your nuanced discussion on the nuance of ending the life of a child in the womb. It was enlightening and helpful. I’m excited to see what kind of nuanced fruit that will be birthed for generations to come.
Cynical about the nuance, are we?
@@Wren_Farthing I said I appreciated the nuance. Maybe my nuanced response was not clear for you.
@@jamesthomas12 It was not, thanks.
There is so much nuance when nuanced discussions evolve into hyper nuanced elaborations in their distinctions .
@@hgservices5572 You and the OP are invoking the slippery slope fallacy. Nuance, especially for the God-fearing, is not a path to an “all bets are off” conclusion. Recognizing nuance is a characteristic of the humble and curious, and protects us from assuming a God-like knowledge. We can hold opinions and feel reasonably confident in them, but always with an understanding that there are limits to what we can know (all of 1 Corinthians 13, verse 12 in particular).
Different organs in our body moves, muscles etc. a baby moving in the womb does not mean it has life on it own…. if the mother dies that baby cannot survive, if it’s fully developed it has to be taken out of the womb and given oxygen or breath on its own.
Leviticus 17:11, For the life of the flesh is in the blood. Blood occurs around the 16th day.
Old Hebrew, Greek and stoic philosophies helped shape the discussion around life and personhood for centuries. It never started with “conception” as they knew it, but mostly around the “quickening”. That’s when the baby starts moving around the uterus. Dan Mcllelan has talked at length about the chapter that the pregnant lady gets harmed and explains that the Hebrew scripture treats the fetus more as property, hence the fine. This pairs well with how people treat slaves in the OT, more like property than as people. The way you guys are discussing this is very important, and I commend you for doing it. I think that one thing that never comes to question is the pregnancy . . . why is that? No two pregnancies are the same, and women who have medical conditions or even cancer, pregnancy can be harmful to the mother and child. If there are complications during a woman's pregnancy that requires an incredibly hard decision to be made by the mother, that is her decision to make either with the help of the father, her pastor, her doctor, her therapist etc. etc. BUT should not be FORCED by anyone into a situation despite her wishes. If you can convince someone who is going through the abortion decision to not do it, then GREAT!!! But if you can't convince them, then it is THEM that has to suffer with that consequence, and NOT you. Because I can guarantee you, it is THEIR suffering that is much greater than yours. THEY have to live with it and not YOU.
Concerning Hebrew translation. It depends on which one we're using. If you are referring to the Masorertic text, that was made several hundred years after the Greek. We don't have early Hebrew text save the Qumran scrolls. Some would argue as to which is more reliable. The Greek because it was translated from some earlier form of Hebrew that we no longer have or the Hebrew because it's, well, Hebrew even though it's relatively late as far as translations go. But interesting thought.
Here's another ethical question to throw in the mix: Should a society compel everyone by force of law, to use their own bodies as a means to keep another person alive? Which is in effect what happens when laws are made that force women to carry pregnancies to term.
If people want to be irresponsible how about gov funded tube tying etc in place of hacking up babies for birth control
I have heard Numbers 5:16-28 coming up in the abortion debate with a lot more frequency recently, as it very much does appear to be instructions for the priesthood on how to create an abortifacient that would be administered to women against their will, because their husband had “feelings of jealousy come over him” especially relevant when you understand that the Hebrew for thigh was used either euphemistically or believed to be part of the procreation process.
I think this is relevant to what Kaitlyn was saying about men wanting to have access to abortion for their mistresses.
That is a stretch, since pregnancy is not even mentioned in that passage.
@@RobertG3567 the “withering of the thigh” line is essentially what we would now call the womb becoming barren; as the thigh was thought to be part of the reproductive process and where the baby was initially believed to come from.
“…the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” Proverbs 12:10
It’s pathetic that you all try to find every reason to justify the murder of a child.
Good discussion. If you want to open up an even bigger can of worms, discuss birth control (hormonal). Does it prevent conception or implantation? My understanding is both (especially with modern dosages).
Also, I can see this historical stuff turning into a book.
: the balances should be weighed fairly and evenly with as all so cases no matter what they attend to be
We have laws that make it illegal to go to the beach and dig up a turtle nest where a sea turtle just laid eggs in, because while those eggs are not a turtle yet, they will develop into turtles if left alone and allowed to fully develop. That same logic should be applied to the fertilized human egg. if left to fully develop it will develop into a baby human.
- the definition of being formed from conception :as thus: in stages :though to a definition of woven : but formed nonetheless as with in conceptuate
Like many topics, we begin with an issue of definitions. What do we even mean, when does life begin? Doesn’t life exist before conception? Isn’t the egg and sperm alive? I think we mean, when is there a new soul present but that is not how it is ever phrased. The Bible gives us some unique examples and analogies but does it ever clearly state a point in time?
King David of Israel, a thousand years before Christ, wrote in Psalms 139:13--"For you created my inmost being---you knit me together in my mother's womb".
So the ridiculous notion that Christians haven't always believed that life begins at conception simply falls apart
Except read that in context. He isn’t saying that that happens then, there’s a quotation of it in Jeremiah 1 and like Psalm 139 the context is God knowing his plans for us (and Jeremiah).
God knew what we would be long before we were conceived. There is nothing there about abortion in context.
@@Justanotherconsumer You're not going to change my mind from wanting to protect the most innocent among us
@@impalaman9707 regardless, the claim that started this thread is a manipulative and dishonest abuse of scripture.
Believe what you want, but don’t twist the words of scripture to make it say what you want to hear.
@@Justanotherconsumerthank you for this thought. I’ve never heard it before and it is something to consider.
@@Justanotherconsumer There is no worse "abuse" than hands that shed innocent blood, which is one of the things God hates according to scripture, and the real "dishonesty" is when people claim there is no life in the womb
This is good information .
Is the pro-life position based upon the 6th commandment : Though shall not kill? If so,why is the 6th commandment more important than the other 9 to legally enforce, like adultery? Why aren’t Evangelical Christians fighting for to outlaw the other 9 commandments?
Also, God has given us free will to choose to keep or not to keep all the commandments as well other behaviors and practices that God instructs us not to engage in? Don’t we have the right to choose “ sin over righteous”?
Why do we never discuss the glaring sin of all the men throughout the ages who have tried to control women - including their bodies? All the men who have tried - again and again - to take away the basic human rights of women, and deny them equality and dignity before God? Why do so many men try to force women to carry the burden of their sin? Why are men so rarely held accountable? Can you imagine a world where men stopped raping, coercing, abusing, and controlling women - as if they have a right to? In a perfect world, no person would ever be faced with the prospect of needing an abortion. We do not live in that world.
On a lighter note, am I the only one who thinks Sixtus the Fifth sounds like a great idea for a Veggie Tales episode? And Sixtus the Fifth’s Bull? Priceless.
I think Kaitlyn's perspective here is really good.
I actually think we should view this topic much in the frame of how race-based chattel slavery was thought of pre-emancipation. The entire conversation was based around personhood and citizenship. Who was worth being considered a person who's rights were to be protected?
"The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them." - Dred Scott Ruling
I see some massive similarities between our current abortion debate and the debate that was being had about black Americans. From theological, to philosophical, to governmental, to economical. The debate was around personhood, who was a person, and what implications that would have on our society.
This is why Kaitlyn's bigger question is so good. If we are a society that does not place value on the most vulnerable in our midst, and discards them at will, why do we find it surprising when we propagate a deathworks culture there after?
@@michaelward7051 1. no.
2. individual choices have collective consequences (that's why we have laws against murder and assault)
3. Because personhood en utero and out of utero is a collective moral concern because people have inherent value.
4. Yes, we are responsible for our own choices, but we are also responsible for justice for all people. We must not stand by while people are murdered.
5. It matters because of answers 3 and 4.
6. All discussions are spiritual discussions because God isn't somehow separated from any aspect of our lives; He would no longer be God if there was any aspect out of His purview. Right and wrong are especially spiritual issues, as it is God and not humanity who determine morality.
7. Yes.
8. Yes.
9. No, there are absolute moral truths and we should live by them and enforce them; especially in regard to the sanctity of human life. People are not a game to be played with.
10. If atrocities are legal, that does not change God's absolute moral truth. (Our laws don't change what is right and wrong). However, as we live in a democratic society, WE are the rulers. WE make the decisions. And that makes us morally responsible for the way that we run our country.
@@michaelward7051 Aren't we all responsible for our choices?
If the Union does not want to allow for race-based chattel slavery, but the confederacy does, does it matter?
Are these spiritual discussions?
Are we believing in souls, and spirits?
Doesn’t the faith suppose a relationship with our creator?
And therefore is it all this discussion essential a game? A fun what if?
Because no matter the reasons, the methods, the law, God measures hearts.
Right?
@@michaelward7051 While I hear your point, the Roman Empire was not a representative democracy at that time.
Do you think that Christians in the US have any level of stewardship responsibility with regards to our current form of governance, and legislation?
No one is ever inconsistent when it come to their actual ideals and goals. They will say whatever they think they need to say to achieve those. If they have an inconsistent stance on abortion, it is because they don't actually care about abortion.
Have you read the Didache chapter 2 wherein it says: "Now, the second commandment of the teaching is 2 Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt children, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not use magic arts, thou shalt not use sorcery, thou shalt not destroy a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay * him that is born."
While this is not canonized scripture it does speak to the mindset of how the first century Jewish-Christian followers (teachers) of Jesus would have thought of an unborn child... and more importantly how they would've taught others too! Maybe the question is this... is the fertilized egg "potential" life or is it simply "life"... human life? If we start putting qualifiers on what is a "human" or at what stage do they begin to be human or for that matter... how about when they stop being a human? Assigning value to life that is determined by "man" either by consensus vote or majority opinion based in science as the primary determining factor... we're back to your previous video about Genesis and the age of the earth... it's not about the "what and the how" but the "Who and the why" that makess this a moral issue and not a nuts and bolts science project!
A more interesting and more important question is when does the unborn has a soul ( if one believes the concept of ensoulment). There is no hard line but it is probably safe to say sometimes during the pregnancy where the closer you are to birth, the higher the chance that the body has been ensouled.
My concern with downplaying the life or death element is sort of like saying we should have downplayed slavery because other political issues existed at the time. Or the Holocaust for that matter. On those issues it was a black and white, life and death issue. People who didnt do anything back then look bad now. Kaytlyn has been doing a good jobs lately.
You know the US tried to downplay all those issue because of other political concerns?
@@JohnThomas-ut3go It's a dangerous game.
@@DeJay14 it's not a game, it's the US. As once said, 'you can always count on America to do the right thing after they tried everything else's.
You still can see that's true. America doesn't care who or how many die till they are confronted with a situation they can't ignore it any longer.
Excellent discussion. I recently answered the question posed "Is a frozen embryo a child?" with "I believe it has the potential to become a child," and then had to defend my Christianity with my education and career in science and healthcare. They are not mutually exclusive. And as an aside, it took me a few second to recognize Kaitlyn. Love the March Madness get-up . (Go Irish!)
GK Chesterton also lamented the loss of critical thought and reflection to slogans.
Every biology textbook agrees that a human zygote is a distinct living human organism.
This is observed scientific fact.
And all humans (no matter their size or level of development) are made in the Image of God.
To have this entire conversation but never bring up the Image of God is grossly irresponsible.
For a long time, I was anti-abortion. That one issue determined how I would vote. Over the past few years, I have changed my mind. The U.S. constitution says the government shall not favor one religion over another. The matter of when life begins is a theological issue and there is no consensus found in the major religions of the world. Abortion from conception to the time of viability should be available without restriction. Those who oppose abortion have the first amendment right to try to persuade women to carry to term. Having proper supports in place for those women who don't believe they can afford a child (or perhaps an additional child since some already have children), whether through private or public means, could reinforce those efforts of persuasion. Having legislation based on religious belief imposed on those who do not share the same belief leads to anger and division and contributes to the uncivility we find in our society. It's been a long road for me to come to this conclusion. I have decided to leave the judging to Jesus and to live in peace with as many people as I can. The conflict this and other cultural issues creates is exhausting.
So elegantly written. Bless you for the deep thought and soul searching that went into changing your position. I admire you, and thank you for sharing it with us. ruclips.net/video/lKSF1huXOuw/видео.html
3:30 - Really?? What early Christians believed doesn't even matter, what does God state in his word???
Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
What did God mean here? Was He also just waiting for science to validate this?
I guess my defense of the unborn babies using the Catachism of the Catholic Church, the writing of the church fathers, and the tradition since 155 AD. Was too much for this site.
When does life begin is a question meant to distract people. One thing I never hear in evangelical spaces is a discussion of how abortion was a tool and its link to an effort to keep schools segregated.
Anti-abortion outside darholics wasn't a big debate until the IRS started threatening to revoke tax-exempt status on white evangelical schools that did not integrate. Abortion was the issue that was decided had the best chance to unite evangelicals into a voting block behind those wanting to maintain segregation.
The Christians avoid talking of these links as if they never existed. Like on this snippet, they talk as if it was just another shift in Christian thought. That shift was directed, organized, and had a purpose. it wasn't to save babies. The idea was to get control of as many states as possible and the federal government to put people in place to over turn the civil rights laws and if they got control of enough states change the constitution to protect discrimination. They used abortion to get evangelicals to join segrigationist in order to have the voting blocks to do it.
Yes, we got people in place to over turn Roe, and they did. What other laws are they talking about and challenges they are overturning laws and precedence over? Civil rights laws. Even talking of overturning protections to mixed marriages.
Anti-abortion has never been the goal. Just the medium. Life has never meant anything. It's never been about life. We know how to reduce abortion. We know how to reduce unwanted pregnancies. We know how to do these things well, supporting women and families. The christian right has fought any and all attempts to create a nation that supports mothers and families.
The question isn't when life begins. That's a dustraction. The question is, do you see them for what they are, and can you still stand with them. Can you justify the racism and hatred for anti-abortion, anti-health, and anti-family legislation?
See, when does life begin? 3.7 billion years ago. There has been nothing but stages of lufe since then. A life existing doesn't matter. Preventable death happens every day, and we do nothing. It's been that way for 3.7 billion years. Preventable murder happens every day, and we do nothing. It was that way since laws distinguished between justified killing and unjustified. Killing the innocent doesn't matter. We as a species have been murdering the innocent since we learned how to kill. When life begins doesnt matter.
The question we should ask is when will we start valuing life? It isn't today, and yesterday's gone without addressing this question. The right doesn't want to answer this question. If they did, they would have to value all life or make public some lives only have 3/5ths a value to them. If they declared a value to life, they would have to tax the wealthy and institute regulation and law to support and protect life. The right does not and has never valued life. That won't change.
If you are true to the idea that abortion is wrong because all life should have a chance, then stop thinking of abortion as an evil and start thinking of harm. Some cases abortion is mercy, and forcing births does great harm. We should start asking what we, our churches, our states, our country can do to mitigate harm. If life was truly the issue, then harm, not life's beginning, is the metric we should use.
I am pro-choice because i am anti-harm. The New Testament is full of stories and anecdotes that teach us how to be in relationships with each other that reduce harm. There is no condemnation of abortion in the bible. We decided this was evil. We used our knowledge of good and evil to desern the inherent evil in it. We are not wise enough to also see the good in it. Perhaps that's why itisn'tt in the bible. There are ways to reduce harm so that abortion becomes the last choice rather than a prime consideration.
I the end they mention Weyrich who is reported as stating the use of abortion was to form a voting coalition to fight intigration.
@JohnThomas-ut3go. What on earth does “anti-harm” mean to you? For a lot of young, single women, their living children are a major obstacle to economic progress. Are you advocating for infanticide? Because it sure sounds like you are. And, without the reproductive rights of the past 50 years, blacks would be a far larger minority with far more clout. What’s to say that YOUR position isn’t racist?
I don’t buy the whole “Evangelicals are only pro-life because of political expediencies.” Rank-and-file Evangelicals have been pro-life almost for forever. Both of my parents, born in the twenties, were both pro-life and anti-contraception from the word “go.” Neither was Catholic. They were culturally rural and agricultural. Limiting family size never entered their minds.
The growth of abortion advocacy required an urban, educated, upper-class mentality.
Damn, straight spitting fire there mate!
That’s been covered on the Holy Post. See episode 480, interview with Randall Balmer.
@@Wren_FarthingYes, I remember that episode now that you flag my attention to it. I rewatched it so that it is fresh in my mind as I contemplate your reply.
Do you think this video justifies not including it here? In my opinion it makes it worse. There are no good links to the Bible, religious, or cultural ideologies to justify an anti-abortion belief. It's foundation is racism. They know this. This video they spend a great portion if their podcast time directly contradicting the video you referenced in trying to link the anti-abortion movement to history, religion, and culture. They never acknowledge its roots in racism. As is said a a bad tree can not bear good fruit. Look at the results of the racism based anti-abortion movement. Harm to families, women, children, bounties, removal of rights persecution. Intentional or not all of that is justified in this video by creating a false link between the anti-abortion movement and the past.
The Bible says that lying lips are an abomination before God. They created a lie of ommision with this episode. They knew that racism was the roots of this movement and they pointed to health roots of another tree and said see all is good.
There should be no discussion about the anti-abortion movement without pointing out that the whole movement is a cover for racism and its goal to undermine and dismantle the progress we have made in equality, equity, & integration. The same people who tore down abortion access are already doing the work that the anti-abotion distraction was cover for and are talking about what's up next. Abortion is just the test to see how the right reacts to taking rights away. They got rid of affirmative action. They have said they are coming for equal rights and interracial marriage.
The fact the video showing ghe link between anti-abortion and racist is there makes this apologetics video 100 times worse.
I don’t quite follow……my African American pastor, about a year ago during ministry outside of a child sacrifice center, was once called the “N word” by a vile white individual who was in support of the abortion of the unborn, and he was the racist one?
Is it me ?, But I happen to notice that everyone who is for abortion has already been born ….
Everyone who is against abortion has already been born too! 😊
@@denniswakabayashi9000 good response. Got ‘em.
😂 didn’t get nobody ,😂
@@hgservices5572
You haven't noticed that everyone who is against abortion has already been born too? 😎
Ontologically , those who would have opposed abortion haven’t a say in the matter as they had been aborted 🙄
Abortion isn't even a political trump card; it's a political football. I stopped voting straight Republican when I realized that.
Did you not hear that the justices whom Trump appointed took the football and abolished roe v wade?
Sure it’s punted to the states but knowing that movement actually happened in the Supreme Court should prove out that voting pro life can actually produce fruit . There are a few pro life democrats but not many and agreed there are many so called pro life RINOS so the sentiment still has some effect
The Supreme Court caught the football recently and scored a touchdown. Where you been ?
@@hgservices5572 I wouldn't call that a touchdown. Maybe a safety. A touchdown would've been outlawing abortion. Winning the game would be getting a vast majority of people to realize that abortion is child sacrifice and have them support putting child slaughterhouses out of business.
On quickening: "And you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses & sins." It does seem at least to me that "quickening" in the Bible is the opposite of being dead, the exact point at which a person is considered suddenly alive. Spiritually, we have no life apart from Christ, and God has to first quicken us with even the faith we need to believe in Him. It seems like He does this with those He foreknew would choose Him if He did.
I’m not going to read all the comments to see if anyone’s made this point, but as most big O Orthodox Christians will tell you, the Septuagint is closer in date to the original documents then the Masoretic text, which is what most Evangelicals understand as the “Hebrew” Bible.
If you really practice consistent theology and go all the way back to Genesis life begins the moment you take your first breath. " God breathed life into Adam and he became a living soul) being".
Fish are alive
So... People say life begins at fifty...
The Catholic Church also has a different version of the 10 commandments then the Hebrew Bible.
Is an apple seed an apple tree?
Is a kangaroo fetus a kangaroo? Maybe we should check its DNA?
Give it time and care and it will be. What else would it be?
I'm with you on the idea that either of the extreme views, conception or birth, are lazy and too easy and don't take into account any nuance. It's really not popular to be moderate about these issues though is it?
Slippery slopes for secular hopes
The holy post is at it again
The reason it tends to need to be a black and white is because in a real, physical world we must end up with a law (or the choice not to have a law so it's a personal decision) that can be used to decide if and when someone has broken the law and should be prosecuted. That has to be black and white if we don't want to leave it open to special privilege and group membership. While it is great that all of the shades and nuances and side issues be explored, the way to do that is to leave the issue up to personal choice and then engage in trying to win the hearts and minds that will ensure the outcome each of us considers right.
"Isn't the overturning of Roe vs Wade a good thing because" it necessitates this conversation? No. Tell that to the women who have been prosecuted for miscarriages, the girls forced to carry a fetus to birth, or despite medical conditions making the fetus nonviable or the pregnancy dangerous to the mother. Lots of conversation preceded Roe vs Wade, and conversation could easily have continued while it was in effect, with the intent of persuasion and increasing the number of women who, health permitting, might decide to carry their pregnancy to birth. Overturning it just forces the will of some on others and it's pretty clear the preferred outcome in terms of conversation would be to put an end to it: Shut the door and turn out the lights it's done.
First Breath.
I find it interesting that Mary was not FORCED to become a mother against her will. She was asked, and she agreed to the arrangement - including all the risks that would obviously come with it, the life altering consequences of it, etc. Pregnancy is long, risky, and inherently life changing. It is no small thing. Ultimately, I believe that the person who is pregnant, has the human right of God-given free will to say yes or no. At all points of pregnancy. There are far too many variables to ever write a “law” to govern every possibility. They alone will have to live with their decision. It should not be a decision that anyone takes lightly, or that anyone ELSE forces upon them.
There are some complications as her ability to consent or not was somewhat limited.
I mean, if the almighty tells me I’ve got a job to do, I’m not going to say “no.”
@@Justanotherconsumer
The point is that abortion is a God -given choice.
That was a very VERY poor example to try to advocate for abortion. I mean , what if she aborted Jesus ? Like literally reading your comment we have to ask ourselves per your example , oh, so you’re saying that Mary had the choice so she simply could have aborted Jesus the messiah and all is cool between her and God , I mean WHAT???
@@hgservices5572
Of course God wanted Mary to choose!
There's no glory without being allowed to choose!
Glory to whom?
This also dodges the question raised by this biblical example. You’re telling me that God would be good with her choosing to abort Jesus??? Those are the choices in context here , carry to term, or abort which begs the question either or and we can imagine the repercussions if Mary had “chosen” to abort and would not be out of line to call it just plane evil, Am I right? That is why o don’t think this example
strengthens the argument she thinks she’s making here. In fact it weakens it.
The Bible speaks of abortion in the 5th chapter of Numbers also.
I have a real problem with Phil going along with the plant until a certain point. Very flawed thinking.
Life at conception is actually somewhat arbitrary, although it may be a reasonable point. It probably make more sense that life starts at implantation. Now in terms of when did the process of human development starts, one could take a different way and say it starts as early as the sperms enter the vaginally cannel as that is the beginning of the process.
When an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm cell.
It’s really as simple as that.
@@ChanningChea
Yep. Amen.
Science/biology destroys the belief that the fertilized egg is already a human being
Since 2 or more human beings can come from the same fertilized egg.
Educate yourself! 😃
Life is what The Most High says it is. The Most High has already define life. For is it written: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul ( Gen. 2:7 ) . The Most High is the author, creator and sustainer of Life. It takes the Ruach ( Wind of God ) to create life. This is when ensoulment occurs, when the first breath is taken. There is no wind in the womb. Christ said Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God ( John 3:3 ), implying that birth is required to create life.
These scripture are relevant to the discussion:
Gen 2:7
Lev 27:1-8
Exo 21:22-25
Num 5:11-22
Eze: 37:1-14
John 3:3-7
Furthermore, If life begins at conception, why are there stillborns? If a woman has a stillborn, should the woman be prosecuted? Let GOD be GOD!!!!
Abortion is a moral issue that has been made political. Since it has been made political, the law should reflect this. In the end, the individual's decisions would be judged before the Creator and true determiner of all life. We should not impose our morality upon others, instead as our laws should reflect, the consented moral limits society has agreed to place on itself.
If our laws don’t protect babies why have any laws.
@@bobbobberson5627laws do protect babies. It's illegal to kill them.
Ultimately laws with any sort of gravitas whatsoever are seated deeply within values and morality .
so tired of identity politics, there are no black or white in the church, we are all one in Christ