Contraceptives and sin

Science cannot tell us at what point an animal ends, and a human begins, only philosophy can tell us that. I am of course using the terms in the classical sense of "human life" and "animal life" being separate things. Obviously, from a purely taxonomic perspective, humans are literally animals, not distinct things. Replace animal with any word you would prefer that means "living, but not human".

Is a human DNA? Surely not, DNA is just an acid, a molecule, an instruction manual for how to build a lego block.

Is a human a cell with human DNA then? Surely not. As Stalwart says, a corpse is not human, nor is my hair, nor is my skin, nor is my blood, nor is my sperm. So a cell cannot be human in of itself.

So then is a human a living cell with human DNA? Again, surely not, I am not a legion of billions of humans, and many cells in my body will continue to live for days after my brain dies, including cells inside my brain. They might still be living if I'm cremated. They might still be living when I'm buried. They are not human, otherwise my family would be committing murder by burying me whilst those cells are still alive. A human is surely more than just a living cell possessing human DNA.

So at what arbitrary point does something become human? That is something science can't decide. Science can merely make observations, it's a philosopher that must decide at what specific observation point a cell or a group of cells transitions from non-human life (animal life) to human life. There is no scientific observation that we can make that says "yes human", or "no human" with an objective, falsifiable method.

 

From a secular standpoint, it should (and does) matter "when life (or personhood) begins".

While individuals should be maximally sovereign over their own bodies, from a biological standpoint the fertilized egg is distinct from the mother. By the second day, that egg begins to divide and becomes an embryo. As I've pointed out, only 1/2 of that embryo's genetic makeup comes from the mother and the other 1/2 comes from the father, which makes the embryo biologically different from every cell of the mother's body (which contain only her genetic makeup). People who say the embryo is merely a part of the woman's own body are contradicting modern science.

Since that embryo has its own distinctive genes, and those genes have a chromosome pair that designate it either as XY (male) or XX (female), it behooves us to correctly refer to the embryo as "him" or "her" rather than "it." These genes are human genes, so he or she is not some animal or parasite within the woman's body. The woman has become a mother of another human son or daughter, and the mother (in secular, legal terms) should owe the same fiduciary-level duty to act in the best interests of him or her as she would owe to any other human offspring. Just as it is neither legal nor moral (according to secular norms of morality) for a mother to slash the throat of her 2-year-old son or daughter, it is likewise not moral and should not be legal for a mother to have a 2-month old, or even a 2-week old, son or daughter sucked out of the womb to end his or her life and existence.

As for the issue of "underlying causes" why some mothers seek abortions, this is totally beside the point and should not be regarded as having any bearing upon the morality or legality of the act. To illustrate, there are underlying causes why some people rob banks, but we do not excuse their robberies just because they "had a reason" for doing it.

Childbearing is an act of selflessness, of giving one's body to be a vessel for another human life and a giving of one's time and liberty to the care and nurturing of that new life. Broadly speaking (rape excepted, of course), a "woman's right to choose" whether to bear a child ends at the point when she chooses to open herself up to insemination. If she chooses to take the chance and becomes impregnated, her choice-making is done: she has accepted the potential responsibility, she is now with child, and she owes that child a duty of care. Aborting that child violates the duty of care in the worst way. It is a completely selfish act, with zero consideration for either the offspring or for her duties owed to him or her.

As one can see, even apart from matters of faith and religion, abortion cannot be conscientiously supported in light of existing scientific facts, legal principles, and enlightened secular mores. Abortion is an act of selfishness and relative ignorance.

 

That's because it doesn't meet the definition of "human life"! We're talking about a human life growing and developing inside a caretaker-mother. Those embryos are not corpses.

 

Here's the key:

The point at which a human comes into being is most definitely not arbitrary! It occurs at a definite point in time. God knows exactly when it occurs, too! Just because we humans are too stupid to yet figure out the precise time does nothing to change the hard fact that a human life has come into being at a particular time!

Now the question becomes, do we want to 'roll the dice' and pick a time that is later than the reality known by God? And thereby, in our ignorance, possibly enable multiple homicides? Or do we want to be conservative in our estimate and take no chances that we may be enabling the killing of human beings? This is what I mean when I talk about "erring on the side of caution."

 

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

God forms us in the womb. But He knows us even prior to then. (Is it possible that God creates our human spirits before physical conception occurs? Maybe.) God sees the child growing in the womb as a human life. In one sense, each child whom God forms in the womb is rightfully His property. The unborn child is not the property of the woman, the child belongs to God.

It says in Mal. 3:8, Will a man rob God? Abortion robs God of a precious human life. Although that passage in Malachi was more specifically targeted at those who robbed God by withholding their tithes (required by O.T. law) and offerings, how much more will the penalty stated in verse 9, Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, apply to those who rob God of human lives? All the more reason why we should 'err on the side of caution'!

 

(Is it possible that God creates our human spirits before physical conception occurs? Maybe.).......... I think Origin was condemned for a teaching like this so I would say no. He taught the preexistence of souls.

 

I agree. It doesn’t matter when the God gives the soul or not, it is still the ending of a potential human life and therefore is murder. I would caution anyone against arguing for what Jews believed, as we know the rabbis and their teachings severely strayed from the truth of God. This isn’t a question of Roman Catholic adherence to Greek philosophy, but about the sanctity of life. And scripture everywhere affirms this.
In lamenting his existence, Job curses both, his birth and conception: “May the day perish on which I was born, And the night in which it was said, ‘A male child is conceived’” (Job 3:3).

David regards his conception and formation in his mother’s womb not as a chemical act, but an intimate formation of human life together with God: “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them (139:13-16).”

He views himself as sinful from conception and ties together his birth and conception : “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5).


We know John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived pregnant with Christ.
All these things point to the sanctity of human life, whether it be potential life or not. And scripture does not make a distinction between potential life or not. Conception and birth are equally regarded as moments of a persons life. That Jews were too blind to see this doesn’t make it any less true. David says God saw his substance before it was even formed. He has fashioned our days before they even happened. If it is in the plan of God for a life to flourish in the womb, how are we humans going to attempt to thwart his divine plans? The fact is abortion is playing God. It decides when human life begins and it decides circumstances when it’s ok to end the life.
Autonomy has nothing to do with it. Your autonomy ends where the child’s begins.
again, I would ask any Christian that says abortion isn’t murder: If Mary was pregnant with Christ and she decided to abort him, let’s say, 5 minutes after the annunciation, would that not have been an attack on the life of Christ?
Moreover, what did the Holy Spirit do? Did it not overshadow Mary to conceive Christ? Was Christ not formed and knit in her womb the moment she submitted to the will of God?
The story of the life of Christ begins the moment he was conceived. After that very moment, Mary knew she was pregnant, not with some animal like fetus, but with God incarnate. After the conception, the story of the life Christ begins rolling. It doesn’t start at his first heartbeat, or first movement, or upon birth as some Talmudic Jews believe. Christ became incarnate at the moment of his conception by the power of the Spirit.
“14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
The Word was made flesh at his very conception in the womb of Mary. We Christians know this. Let’s not regress back to the days of the Jews.
I don’t encourage praying to Saints, but another poster here said they like to say the angelus prayer. This prayer is about the conception of Christ after the annunciation.

“
The Angel of the Lord declared to Mary:
And she conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of
our death. Amen.

Behold the handmaid of the Lord: Be it done unto me according to Thy word.

Hail Mary...

And the Word was made Flesh: And dwelt among us.”

He was made flesh at his conception. Is the word made flesh at his conception deserving of any less but the title of human life? Should we not treat each other as the Father treated his only begotten Son?

 

Um, I think Origin's main heresy was a form of universalism (“apokatastasis”). And his preexistence belief was very different from anything I would ever suggest; Origen thought that all of us existed prior to the fall of Adam & Eve, but I'm only suggesting that Jer. 1:5 could support the proposition that God creates our spirits some (relatively short) time before physical conception occurs. Of course the verse could also be interpreted to mean that God had foreknowledge of us via our impending creation (by Him) and existence. I am in no way dogmatic about how to interpret this.

 

I agree for the most part, but I can appreciate the point (which Invictus attempted to make) that Jesus is a "special case" in that He exists eternally even before the creation and therefore the Presence of His life in the womb immediately (when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary) is not necessarily conclusive to prove what results from normal male-female interactions.

 

The key point is self-ownership. In a free society, one person cannot be used as a means for another’s ends without his or her (implied) consent according to the law. It doesn’t matter for such purposes whether the foetus is a person or not. What matters is who has the superior claim to the use of the mother’s body: the mother, or the foetus?

The presumption in favor of the mother doesn’t mean that society cannot impose certain restrictions via the democratic process, but it does mean that such restrictions have to be justified. It is perfectly consistent to hold that a person has (and ought to have) the legal right to do something that society may consider to be immoral in some, many, most, or even all cases. And morally, there really isn’t a solid religious basis for treating abortion as murder, as I demonstrated earlier, so that can’t by itself serve as justification for a limitation of the right.

I suggest reading John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty.

 

I would disagree and say that what matters is who has the superior claim to the fetus: the mother or the fetus? Besides, the woman gave implied consent when she agreed to the sexual procedure which so often and so readily leads to pregnancy.

The 'self-ownership' concept, taken to its logical extension, would render the fetus as property right up until birth. I could never accept such a position.

 

Yes that’s true. We don’t know when other human beings are “ensouled,” and Christ is eternal. But I’d take the incarnation at conception, coupled with the sayings of Job and David to mean that at our conception God knows us intimately and has a plan for us.

 

I’d say neither have a superior claim. To save the mothers life when at danger through abortion isn’t to say she has superior claim to her body or the child’s, but merely to choose which life is more viable (hers of course). We shouldn’t see it as “I have more right to my body than my unborn child does.” You really don’t. You chose to have sex and take the risk, you gave up any right to your body. The only right a pregnant woman has is the right to protect her unborn child.

 

A quick search of the book reveals that Mill never mentions pregnancy, fetus, abort, etc. Are you sure he said anything that bears directly upon this topic?

 

You and I both know this is tragically often not the case.

Why not? That’s precisely the way the biblical passages we’ve cited that bear on the subject treat it.

I think you’ve argued yourself into a corner at this point. A secular approach doesn’t end up in some sort of free-for-all. It terminates in a regime of rights and respect for individuals’ control over their bodies within sensible limits. A secular approach that proceeds in this manner and is allowed to adequately address the underlying causes will have minimal abortions as the goal.

 

Positive. I’ve read it many times. He elaborated the principles that control the parameters of this debate, among many others. You will find it a stimulating read. That’s why it’s never been out of print. Seriously, it’s worth taking the time to work through and absorb. You’ll be amazed how much political debate today (on both sides) owes to his ideas.

 

Bear in mind that I did allow for the rape exception in my previous comments. When intercourse is consensual, both parties (not just the woman, but the man also) assume the risk of any resulting parenthood. Heck, just look at how the courts treat any deadbeat father; he's given a paternity test and, if he's the dad, he pays for 18 years! Why should the woman be let off the hook more lightly than the man??

Well, to be precise, that's your interpretation of a couple of passages, taken in isolation while rejecting other pertinent passages which bear on the subject. I think if one views all of scripture as a whole, the context doesn't really support your proposition.

 

You are welcome to try to prove that. I wouldn’t have made a claim like that without having done my homework. I’ll be delighted to discuss whatever source you come across. (To be clear, I personally don’t actually agree with the way Exodus treats minors and the unborn - as the property of the father - I’m simply saying that’s what it says. Arguments on this subject that proceed on a purely scriptural basis don’t get nearly as close to the desired conclusions as many seem to think. The Bible just isn’t all that helpful a resource on the subject. My own framework is rooted solidly in the Enlightenment notions of rights and consent. I am agnostic about things like “personhood” and “souls” - as is the Bible, incidentally.)

 

The Christian Human Person is body and soul together. A body without soul is not a Human Person; a soul without body is not a Human Person. Only God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and angels are Persons of Spirit only; Jesus (the Son) and Human beings are embodied, with both body and soul together. The Son existed as Spirit before the Incarnation, but became embodied. Human beings have never been anything other than body plus spirit (soul).

This is why Christ and the Apostles teach over again that Christian resurrection is of the body. On the Day of the Lord, all of the world's dead will be raised in perfected bodies to receive judgment. Those still living will be transformed into their glorified bodies. The righteous will enter the Kingdom under the eternal Kingship of Christ; the guilty will be cast into the lake of fire. But all of this will involve our bodies as well as our spirit -- the two are inseparable from a salvific standpoint.

As to what happens to the soul when the earthly body corrupts in the grave, no one knows for sure. Some think that there is a thing called "soul sleep" whereby the spirits of the deceased go into a kind of hibernation until the Day of Judgment; others think that the souls go into the "presence of Christ" where they abide until the last day. I don't think the Anglicans have a standard teaching on this topic.

 

Others have already posted the pertinent verses in this thread.