As you may recall, I am very much opposed to abortion not due to religious conviction, but rather due to a respect for life in general. (not to mention that even from the staunchest evolutionary perspective I cannot see how slaughtering ones own species is remotely a good thing)I agree. I suppose a stanch evolutionist might favor the abortion of those with biological damage (the weak, the handicapped, those with hereditary diseases) and those from rival groups. However, outside of these situations, the abortion of healthy offspring is inconsistent with an evolutionary perspective.
Your page requested feedback and the sharing of thoughts, hence this email.Thank you.
When I looked at each of your examples and arguments I took the approach of temporarily assuming that life did not begin until actual birth and asked myself if the scriptures would remain consistent with that perspective. If inconsistent, then these examples support the perspective that the scriptures prohibit abortion.Interesting approach. That is not a method that would have occurred to me, but it has an elegant logic to it.
I did not find that the first few implicit examples held up to this scrutiny. Specifically with the notion of forming, and foreknowledge. One uses wood and bricks to build a house. A plan or blueprints let the builders know what they will create. But until the house is finished the wood, bricks, and plans are not yet a house. I do not find that these first few examples distinguish between a person being alive while in the womb versus life commencing at birth. For instance, I could see how the statement "From My mother's womb You have been My God" could imply that the Person-God relationship was formed either within the womb OR at the instant the child exited the womb. Could go either way.I can understand that interpretation even though I disagree. If this was the only scripture about abortion in the Scriptures, I would be motivated to discuss this with a scholar of ancient Hebrew. Of course, if this were the only Scriptural reference to the preborn, I would also be much less convinced of my conclusion. A standard practice of understanding the Scriptures is to ensure the same message is consistent throughout. Many people have fooled themselves into thinking one particular Scripture meant what they wanted it to mean. It is difficult to fool yourself with a repeated theme spread throughout various Books. Fortunately (or via Divine inspiration), there are other verses.
In contrast, the statement "You covered me in my mother's womb" is more convincing as it conveys a sense of 'self' while in the womb.Your recollection is correct. Babies can learn in the womb. Here is a brief summary and here is a simple case study. I will also share a personal observation. From the moment our first child was born, he would attempt to look at his mother or I whenever we spoke, no matter how many other adults were in the room and talking. He obviously recognized our voices.I find Luke 1:39-44 to put forth an interesting idea. If I understand this correctly, it indicates a capacity for learning, thought, and recognition. And if I recall my Developmental Psychology correctly, science supports the notion that unborn fetus' are capable of learning. (ie. they have the capacity to recognize the voice of their mothers and those around them; and to be affected by emotions expressed) Perhaps not so obvious to others, but it strikes me that actually being alive is a precondition of sentience.
The explicit argument I find to be clear, and standing alone, to not be disputable.I obviously agree. It takes much effort to deliberate misinterpret that argument.
Part of your introduction on this page led me to question something in a new way. If we assume that an unborn fetus is a person and that all people are sinners, then all unborn people are sinners as well. Given that, can the unborn really be considered innocent? For the statement "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" to be true, then all human beings must not only be capable of sin, but have actually done it without exception. I'll confess, I have a hard time imagining a fetus being capable of sin. (As I understand things if you had no way of knowing any better then a sinful act is not punishable, but it is still a sin)I would agree with this. If you ever hear a Christian discuss the age of accountability, it marks the point in each person's life where he or she is accountable for their actions (in your words, they know right from wrong, but my own belief is that it is deeper than that – my two-year-old knows right from wrong, but I don't think she's reached her age of accountability yet). The Bible never specifies what the age of accountability is and my belief is that it differs with the individual. This is an area where the Bible tells us to trust God.
This would seem to hurt the argument that the Scriptures show unborn children to be human beings. Though demonstrating that unborn children were sinners would add validity to the argument. Arguing that unborn children are both innocent and human beings would seem to equate to arguing that the Scriptures are false. Some thought provoking questions here.Now that is an argument worthy of a Jesuit! Unless I can show you that preborn children are sinners, you either weaken the argument that the preborn are people or find a discrepancy in the Scriptures themselves. Fortunately for my internal consistency, I believe I can do so.
The simple answer is that all people, including the preborn, carry within them the curse God put on Adam and his descendents. However, I doubt you'd be happy with how this jives with "all have sinned." So I'll give you an example that might be true. You'll have to judge the reasonableness yourself, the example is from my experience, not the Bible. Of course, if you just wanted to go by the Bible you would simply accept the verse you quoted to me…
Jesus taught people that evening thinking about committing a sin was sinful. For example, Matthew 5:28 states But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So I can easily imagine a babe in the womb growing outraged at his mother, especially as he grows and womb gets more and more crowded. I know all three of my children would kick and/or hit my wife, from inside the womb, when they didn't like the position she was in. So if at any time in the womb, a baby grew enraged and wished his mother dead, or grew enraged with her mother, or merely thought nasty thoughts about his momma, the babe sinned in the womb. Now the babe may not know any better, but as you pointed out, it would still be a sin.
Now that was one of the most unusual theological questions I have ever been asked. If I have time this week, I'll have to ask a seminary graduate this question and see what he thinks. Thank you for your response.
Thank you.
The age of accountability concept is not an area I have really studied either. Someday I hope to get around to it. My problem with simply defining it as when a person knows right and wrong is that I'm sure all 3 of my kids understood this concept well before the age of 2. Yet, they certainly did not understand the concept of salvation or even God at that age. For the most part, my faith is based on reason. However, this is one area (at least before I make the time to really study it in detail), where I simply trust Jesus to take care of the little ones without knowing both a multitude of specific verses and objective facts to draw upon.
I can understand that interpretation even though I disagree. If this was the only scripture about abortion in the Scriptures, I would be motivated to discuss this with a scholar of ancient Hebrew. Of course, if this were the only Scriptural reference to the preborn, I would also be much less convinced of my conclusion. A standard practice of understanding the Scriptures is to ensure the same message is consistent throughout. Many people have fooled themselves into thinking one particular Scripture meant what they wanted it to mean. It is difficult to fool yourself with a repeated theme spread throughout various Books. Fortunately (or via Divine inspiration), there are other verses.
This is precisely why I took the approach of inverting the hypothesis looking to disprove it rather than looking to prove the original hypothesis. These first few examples may be interpreted either way. They cannot be used to argue that the Scriptures are either consistent or inconsistent. I agree that if you assume the Scriptures are completely true and consistent then these examples can help to add detail to the clearer and stronger argument made elsewhere, but on their own they are neutral to the persuasiveness of the argument.
Your recollection is correct. Babies can learn in the womb. Here is a brief summary and here is a simple case study. I will also share a personal observation. From the moment our first child was born, he would attempt to look at his mother or I whenever we spoke, no matter how many other adults were in the room and talking. He obviously recognized our voices.
I think this would make a nice addition to the argument against abortion. Anybody who accepts that only living things may learn must concede that preborn personhood is shown in the Scriptures, by science, and by the personal experiences of parents.
The simple answer is that all people, including the preborn, carry within them the curse God put on Adam and his descendents. However, I doubt you'd be happy with how this jives with "all have sinned." So I'll give you an example that might be true. You'll have to judge the reasonableness yourself, the example is from my experience, not the Bible.
Citing Biblical sources showing specifically that the preborn carry Adam’s sins would be an excellent addition to your paper. A clear example of this would be enough to include the preborn under the “all have sinned” umbrella. If you (or any other readers) have one then great. If not, I’ll try to find some time to do some research into the concept of original sin this weekend and see what I can come up with. At this time, I’d have to say this argument is unproved.
I have a new question to further illuminate and/or complicate matters: I think we both agree that having sin is required to be a person, but is the reverse also true? Are human beings the only thing that can sin? (IIRC this is so, but confirmation never hurts)
I could see why you’d suspect I wouldn’t be happy with how original sin and the statement that “all have sinned”, but actually I find that the first sin of a human being must be inherited. Otherwise, the biological offspring of human beings would only become a person once they sinned. If, as per my question above, human beings are the only thing that can sin, then logically either human beings cannot exist, the Scriptures are false, or sin must be inherited by the preborn.
Say what you will of the Bible, it certainly provides one with plenty to think about. ;)
So if at any time in the womb, a baby grew enraged and wished his mother dead, or grew enraged with her mother, or merely thought nasty thoughts about his momma, the babe sinned in the womb. Now the babe may not know any better, but as you pointed out, it would still be a sin.
I think this is enough to agree that it is possible for the unborn baby to sin. Not enough to say it definitely happens, but certainly that it’s possible.
Now that was one of the most unusual theological questions I have ever been asked. If I have time this week, I'll have to ask a seminary graduate this question and see what he thinks. Thank you for your response.
You are quite welcome. Anything that can make the case against abortion stronger is a good thing in my mind. Thank you for your response, I’m always eager to learn new things and explore new thoughts. I’d be interested in learning the response from your seminary graduate friend if are able to pose this question.
Great letter and response. Enjoyed reading it this morning.
I think the "age of accountability" is a weak concept because you cannot assign an age to it. It is just something that happens on an individual basis.
If my son does something wrong and has no idea it was the wrong thing to do, then I provide instruction as to why it is wrong. If he does it again, then discipine comes into play. The first time was not wrong, because he did not have knowledge. The second time was.
Adam and Eve were naked in the garden and not ashamed because they did not have knowledge. Once they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they received the understanding which made their purely naked state unpure.
I would say that a newborn is not a born sinner but rather born a pre-sinner. And if you think a 2 month old cannot learn how to manipulate his parents, then you obviously have never had kids.