I disagree with the last statement that no justification is adequate. That is not true. But it is the follow up question to the "what is it?" question. Once you establish the biological FACT, that the human fetus is in fact a human life, the follow up question is "what is a reasonable and ethical justification to end a human life?" Becuase there are cases in which it is ethical and justifiable to end a life. For example, to save the life of another (this case the mother); or if the fetus is already in a state of dying and doing the abortion will save the life or health of the mother. These types of cases though do not devalue the human life being ended, it is a heart breaking decision that acknowledges that something valuable is being killed. It doesn't attempt to make rationalizations to justify why it is not human or why that human life doesn't matter. Abortion for convenience, or financial reasons, or things like "I am not ready to be a mother" are NOT ethical or moral justifications to end another human's life. And sadly that is reason the vast majority of abortions that take place.
@@tgm2474 that would depend entirely on the circumstance and intent. For example, providing necessary treatment to save the life of a pregnant woman which will result in the death of the fetus. That is acceptable collateral damage as the killing of the fetus is not the intent, saving the life of the mother is. Say in the example of war say you have an insurgent group that is using civilians as human shields. You get the objective to take out the insurgents but as a result the innocents are caught in the cross fire. Acceptable collateral damage since killing the civilians was not the intent, killing the insurgents before they can cause more death and destruction was the intent. Minimize the collateral as much as possible but not killing the insurgents will end up putting more lives at risk. So this would be another example of acceptable collateral damage. Intentionally killing a fetus for no other reason then it is unwanted, or financial reasons or whatever other circumstance that doesn’t involve saving the mother’s life is NOT acceptable collateral damage.
@@patrickthomas2119 "...acceptable collateral damage as the killing of the fetus is not the intent..." That's an interesting take because I have never ever come across a single abortion where the intent was to kill the fetus. If, as I understand and have experienced it, the objective is to terminate the pregnancy, then the death of the fetus is incidental and the result of its inability to survive the end of the pregnancy. It seems to me that unless we can demonstrate the intent of an abortion is to kill the fetus (in which case I might join your objection), your reasoning should not give cause to object to _any_ termination of pregnancy. On a side note, an exception for saving the mother's life seems like a nice concession, but as we've discovered thanks to draconian Texas, there is not enough clarity in the law to give doctors confidence that they are meeting that criteria. So it's meaningless, practically speaking.
just the other day I watched a TV show about a prominent Zoo in the USA. they were excited about a koala bear getting pregnant. they labeled the baby a "joey" and informed me it was very little. at that moment I was sad that people get very excited about a baby joey BUT have no problem aborting a baby human. I then came up with the slogan to "save the joeys" and explain that I am equating the human with a koala and giving the human the same excitement of being born as the zoo gives to a joey/koala. hmmmmm
That’s because the world is over saturated with worthless human beings. The world should be much more excited about the birth of a koala than another human.
@@compassionplease7380 May the Lord display His compassion to you, by removing your heart of stone, and replacing it with a heart of flesh; opening your blind eyes so that you can see; and opening your deaf ears so that you can hear, understand, comprehend, believe upon the Lord Jesus, and repent of your sins, as well as your self-righteousness, and thereby be saved, adopted into the family of God, and grown into a person eager and able to do good works.
@@stegokitty Thank you. But you’re too late. The Lord has already done all the things you mentioned, and I have repented and been saved, am growing as you mentioned--all those things. And I still support a woman’s right to choose.
@@compassionplease7380 Well obviously you haven't repented because you support the murder of children. There is no such thing as a woman's right to murder her baby. I'm afraid the "Jesus" you've trusted in is the figment of your imagination (aka an idol) and not the Lord who is revealed in the Scriptures.
I consider Jesus to be the highest authority in matters of morality (if he claimed to be the great I am, that includes the instruction he gave through the Hebrew prophets of antiquity). Not surprisingly, many of my friends claim to trust him too as the highest authority. Many of those friends believe "the Bible teahes" that life begins at conception. Even if I read the same Bible they do, I don't understand it that way. There is, however, an even bigger question: If I DID take certain Bible passages to mean life begins at conception, would I have any more right to ask the government to prohibit abortions than the worshippers of Mother Earth have a right to use the government to prohibit the use of fossill fuels (or any other prohibitions based on their concept of the universe and the place of humans in it).
Thanks for the question! A scientific, objective case can be made that life begins at conception, and the Bible gives us a reason to value that life: every person is made in the image of God. If the answer to your question is no, we have no right, then you could make an argument that no one has the right to impose any moral law on another, not our governments, not voting citizens, and not even in cases like murder (which, we would argue, includes abortion). Greg talks a bit about the crossover between Christian convictions and politics here: www.str.org/w/should-christians-stay-out-of-politics- www.str.org/w/abortion-is-not-merely-a-political-issue www.str.org/w/politics-is-a-moral-enterprise We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg Koukl. He'd love to hear from you. Or you can submit an #STRask or Open Mic question. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.
The "magisteral" reformers believed government officials (magistrates) should impose civil penalties for moral infractions and for "heresy". The "radical" reformers (in theory at least) disagreed. In the 17th and much of the 18th century, anglicans weren't welcome in New England. Puritans wern't welcome in the southern colonies. And baptists weren't welcome either place. Anyone who was literate, however, was aware of the suffering caused by the religious wars in Europe. The idea developrd - in the middle colonies at first - the idea developed that peace and prosperity were more likely if the civil governmeny were to remain as nuetral as possible with regard to beliefs, practices and prohibitions that pertain to concepts of the universe and humans' place in it. If a person thinks the kingdom of God can be promoted by political means, that person may want to return to the exclusivism of the anglicans and puritians of the early 18th century. I say that's a way to loose both our liberty and our prosperity.
Here's another question. At which point between conception and birth does a foetus become a 'living human soul' rather than just a collection of living cells? There are enormous ramifications relating the justification or otherwise of abortion in that question and no one has a definitive answer.
We are all just a collection of cells if you want to see it that way. You and I just have a lot more cells than a fetus. You can also ask the questions - are the cells alive? are they growing? The only cells we want to kill are cells like cancer. Never do we want to rid of good cells in our bodies. His question is valid in your case as well: What are these collection of living cells?
Ask the question WHY WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL THE SPIDER? Is the spider affecting you in any way? Life threatening ? Life altering ? If you don’t kill the spider will it live with you until it can get a drivers license and gain freedoms ? Lol do you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the life of a spider for couple of decades ?
Use birth control, which is super cheap and super readily available in modern society OR give the baby up for adoption, given that there are FAR more couples wanting to adopt infants than there are available infants to be adopted. Poof, silly concerns resolved.
@Alecia Well you should already know but just in case, Euthanasia is done to prevent suffering Murder is done to augment suffering and is cold blooded.
So, by your logic, if a woman goes under anesthesia for surgery, it’s ok to kill her. After all, it’s done without suffering. And by your logic, if a terrorist blows up people with a bomb, it’s ok, because their brains don’t have time to register the pain. The first victim in any abortion is logic.
By mid pregnancy, the baby DOES feel the pain of being ripped apart. So, by your arbitrary standard, abortion should be banned for mid- and late-term babies.
