What is the Unborn?

By Clinton Wilcox

Before you can even answer the question of whether or not abortion is moral, you must first decide what the unborn is. For as Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason observes, if the unborn is not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. It would be no different from having a mole removed or a tooth pulled. But if the unborn is human, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

Unborn Abortion Life

If it’s true that no one can tell when human life begins, then the benefit of the doubt should go to life. We should not be aborting the unborn because there’s a chance we could be aborting living human entities. If a hunter hears a rustling in the woods, does he shoot right away or does he make sure the rustling wasn’t caused by another human? Unless he’s Dick Cheney, he’s going to make sure it’s a deer he’s aiming at and not a human. Or if you’re driving down a road in the dark and you see the outline of something that may be a child or may simply be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you slow down? Or if you’re about to blow up a condemned building and you’re not sure if someone’s inside, do you blow it up anyway or send someone in to make sure?

However, it’s not true that no one can tell when human life begins. We can actually make the pro-life case in ten seconds or less: The unborn are alive because they grow, they are human because they have human parents, and living humans like you and me are valuable, aren’t they?

The unborn from fertilization are alive because they grow. They also exhibit other forms of life, such as cell division, metabolism, and response to stimuli. In fact, the only thing the unborn need to survive are adequate nutrition, a proper environment, and an absence of fatal threats. That’s all any of us need. There is no point in human development at which the developing entity goes from non-life to living.

The unborn are also human from fertilization. We know that everything reproduces after its own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. They have separate human DNA from, and often a different blood type than, the mother. A white human embryo can be created in a petri dish, implanted into a black mother, and be born white. In fact, if the unborn organism were simply a “part of the mother’s body,” then the pregnant woman would have four arms, four legs, two heads, four eyes, two noses, and roughly half the time male reproductive organs. But this is absurd. At no time during human development does the unborn ever go from “non-human” to human.

Some people think of the unborn entity as being constructed in utero, like a car. In fact, this probably accounts for why many people think pro-life advocates are so ridiculous, because they have a wrong view of what development in utero is. With a car, you have all the parts in front of you. They do not make a car on their own. It requires an outside builder to put all the pieces together into what we understand is a car. A car is not present from the beginning, because the parts that make a car can be used in the construction of something else (such as a boat or a plane).

However, the unborn’s development is different. It directs its own development from within. It does not have an outside builder, it directs its own internal growth and maturation, and this entails continuity of being. Professor Richard Stith illustrates the difference with the following analogy:

“Suppose we are back in the pre-digital photo days, and you have a Polaroid camera and you have taken a picture that you think is unique and valuable — let’s say a picture of a jaguar darting out from a Mexican jungle. The jaguar has now disappeared, so you are never going to get that picture again in your life, and you really care about it. (I am trying to make this example comparable to a human being, for we say that every human being is uniquely valuable.) You pull the tab out and as you are waiting for it to develop, I grab it away from you and rip it open, thus destroying it. When you get really angry at me, I say blithely, ‘You’re crazy. That was just a brown smudge. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about brown smudges.’ Wouldn’t you think that I were the insane one? Your photo was already there. We just couldn’t see it yet.” [1]

As pro-life philosopher Scott Klusendorf notes, “The science of embryology is clear. From the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Therefore, every ‘successful’ abortion ends the life of a living human being.” [2]

Embryologists, who are the experts in the field on human embryos, consistently agree that the unborn are alive and human from fertilization. Consider the following from the most-used textbooks on the issue:

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” [3]

“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” [4]

There are many more examples I could give. In short, you didn’t come from an embryo, you once were an embryo. Sophisticated pro-choice philosophers also know that human life begins at fertilization.

“It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens.’ Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” [5]

“Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, Homo Sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development.” [6]

In fact, Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood, in 1933 (a full forty years before Roe v. Wade was passed), wrote:

“This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge.” [7]

The facts of science are clear: human life begins at fertilization.

Objections

There are certain objections which are raised against the life and humanity of the unborn.

1) Human life doesn’t begin at fertilization, it began tens of thousands of years ago.

This is a rather bizarre objection. I’m including it here because I’ve now heard it twice. It’s simply semantic nonsense. A new, unique, genetically distinct human being is created at fertilization (as is attested by the science of embryology). In fact, the quote by O’Rahilly and Muller even attest to the fact that life is a continuous process. However, fertilization is that critical landmark that establishes the creation of a new, gentically distinct human organism.

2) Skin cells/hair follicles/sperm and eggs are human.

A pro-choice advocate who claims that zygotes/embryos/fetuses don’t have a right to life because we would have to give a right to life to cells, sperm, eggs, etc., because they are also human make the elementary mistake of confusing parts with wholes. The embryo from fertilization is a unique entity that directs its own development from within. Left alone, a skin cell will not develop into a mature human, but that’s exactly what a zygote will do. All of the embryo’s parts work together for the good (survival) of the whole organism.

Once the sperm and egg unite, they cease to exist and a brand new human organism exists. It makes no sense to say you were once a sperm or somatic cell. It makes complete sense to say you were once an embryo. The sperm and egg merely contribute genetic material to the creation of a new human organism.

3) Freezing/Twinning/Recombining

A pro-choice advocate I debated with once claimed that you can’t freeze an adult human, but you can freeze an embryo and it will come back to life, so the embryo cannot be human. This is faulty reasoning. First, embryos can only be frozen up to seven days after fertilization, but the embryonic stage lasts up to three months. After that, it is a fetus. But embryo and fetus are just stages of human development, like infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager, adult, and elderly.

Second, even though a very early embryo can survive the freezing process, it doesn’t follow that they are not human. This just means that early embryos can do one more thing that more mature humans can’t (they can also survive without a heart or a brain).

When it comes to twinning, this also doesn’t follow that just because some embryos twin, that there wasn’t one whole human organism before that. As Patrick Lee points out, “if we cut a flatworm in half, we get two flatworms.” [8] However, can you seriously argue that prior to the split, there wasn’t one distinct flatworm? Also, admittedly, we aren’t entirely sure what happens during twinning. Does the original organism die and give rise to two new organisms, or does the original survive and engage in some sort of asexual reproduction? Either way, it does not call into question the fact that there was one distinct organism prior to the splitting.

By the same token, it doesn’t follow that if one twin re-absorbs the other that there wasn’t one living human organism, then two separate organisms, then one living human organism again.

4) Not all products of conception are human and won’t develop into them, and not all human beings may result from conception.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson distinguishes three types of nonhuman entities that result from a union of sperm and egg: the hydatidiform mole (“an entity which is usually just a degenerated placenta and typically has a random number of chromosomes”), the choriocarcinoma (“a conception-cancer resulting from the sperm-egg union is one of gynecology’s most malignant tumors”), and the “blighted ovum” (“a conception with the forty-six chromosomes but which is only a placenta, lacks an embryonic plate, and is always aborted naturally after implantations”). [9]

Here, Dr. Nathanson confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. The sperm-egg union is a necessary condition for conception of a human, not a sufficient one. Not everything that arises from the sperm-egg union is a human conception, but a sperm-egg union is necessary for conception of a human.

Conversely, human clones arise without the benefit of conception. Just as the sperm-egg union is a necessary condition for conception and not a sufficient condition, conception itself is a sufficient condition for a human being to come into existence, not a necessary one. [10]

5) Miscarriages.

People often point to the high number of miscarriages that occur (many of which are flushed out of the woman’s body). However, how does it follow that just because the woman’s body may miscarry, that the unborn isn’t human? How does it follow that because nature spontaneously aborts unborn humans that we may deliberately kill them? People die of natural causes, but that does not justify murder. Natural disasters (e.g. tornadoes and earthquakes) kill many people at once, but this does not justify bombing cities.

Also, it should be noted that 100% of all humans conceived die. Whether you die as an embryo, a fetus, a teenager, or an adult, why would that affect your status as a human being?

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2lzyh8U

Christian Apologetics Alliance BLOG Banner


[1] Richard Stith, “Does Making Babies Make Sense? Why So Many People Find it Difficult to See Humanity in a Developing Foetus,” Mercatornet, September 2, 2008.
[2] Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life, Crossway Books, 2009, p. 35.
[3] Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd ed., New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p.8
[4] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed., Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003, p.2
[5] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp.85-86.
[6] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003), p. 20.
[7] Alan Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation, New York: Viking Press, 1933, p. 3.
[8] Patrick Lee, Abortion and Unborn Human Life (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press in America, 1996), p. 93.
[9] Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, (New York: Doubleday, 1979), p. 214, as cited in Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p. 74.
[10] Paraphrased from Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, pp. 74-75.


 

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
48 replies
    • Kyle says:

      Devil’s advocate. They generally claim life begins at conception, so most forms of BC prevent the fertilization of the egg. The Hobby Lobby case in the Supreme Court was specifically over the types of BC they refer to as “abortifacients”. These types of drugs will prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall thus “aborting” the fetus.

      Reply
  1. toby says:

    The embryo from fertilization is a unique entity that directs its own development from within. Left alone, a skin cell will not develop into a mature human, but that’s exactly what a zygote will do. All of the embryo’s parts work together for the good (survival) of the whole organism.
    Left alone a zygote would be nothing without a womb. A woman chooses to house a baby in her womb much like you choose to give or not give your kidney to person in renal failure. Do you want to be compelled to give your kidney? Your liver? A lung? If you don’t give these things then the person will die. You’ll be a murderer by your own logic. Therefore the organs of your body are not your own and you will be compelled to give them up when you are compatible with someone that needs one. No choice for you. Your autonomy means nothing.

    Reply
  2. Ed Vaessen says:

    “However, it’s not true that no one can tell when human life begins. We can actually make the pro-life case in ten seconds or less: The unborn are alive because they grow, they are human because they have human parents, and living humans like you and me are valuable, aren’t they?”

    Fallacy of equivocation. The definition is flawed. The impregnated egg cell does not look human at first and will only in growing more and more be perceived as a human being.

    “There is no point in human development at which the developing entity goes from non-life to life.”

    This is a strawman attack. No one in his right mind ever claims that development in the uterus goes from non-life to life.

    “Some people think of the unborn entity as being constructed in utero, like a car. In fact, this probably accounts for why many people think pro-life advocates are so ridiculous, because they have a wrong view of what development in utero is.”

    Once again this is a strawman attack.

    “Embryologists, who are the experts in the field on human embryos, consistently agree that the unborn are alive and human from fertilization.”

    Two fallacies in one sentence. First the appeal to authority. Second, the fallacy of equivocation.

    “Sophisticated pro-choice philosophers also know that human life begins at fertilization.”

    Same fallacies again.

    “The facts of science are clear: human life begins at fertilization.”

    And again…

    “There are certain objections which are raised against the life and humanity of the unborn.
    1) Human life doesn’t begin at fertilization, it began tens of thousands of years ago.
    2) Skin cells/hair follicles/sperm and eggs are human.
    3) Freezing/Twinning/Recombining
    4) Not all products of conception are human and won’t develop into them, and not all human beings may result from conception
    5) Miscarriages.”

    These are all irrelevant. One does not make ones case by inventing/citing silly objections and then attacking them.

    Reply
    • toby says:

      Ed, before the text you want bold put this without any of the quotations marks “” and after the text put this (again leave out the quotations marks): ““.
      Italics would use an i, but i don’t think it works on this site. Underline would be u, but it all depends on what this site is set up to accept. Maybe google html codes to find more. Ive seen some sort of quote block used here before.

      Reply
  3. Andy Ryan says:

    “There is no point in human development at which the developing entity goes from non-life to life”

    Look up ‘the argument of the beard’

    Reply
    • Beck says:

      Looking into that it appears the fallacy simply has alot to do with humans creating categories (I guess it’s the category makers job to defend the reasoning). I’m curious, when does it become unacceptable to kill a fetus or child in your view and what is your reasoning behind it?

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        The fallacy is to ignore that sometimes things are on a spectrum and a defined ‘A becomes B’ point doesn’t exist.

        Reply
        • Beck says:

          Ya I get that, but that doesn’t answer my question.
          It’s a genuine question, I’m curious about your thoughts on the situation. When does it become unacceptable and why do you draw that line there?

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            At nine months it’s really no different to a baby. At a day it’s just a collection of cells. The former would be murder, whereas it’s absurd to call the latter murder. So it’s somewhere in between. I grow more and more uncomfortable with it after around 15 weeks. Someone I knew had an abortion around the (I think) 18 weeks mark and I was pretty disgusted with her, though still chalked it up as being her decision. If it was up to me I’d make it illegal after that point.

            You want me reasoning? Not long after that point babies can survive outside the womb. But ultimately as a man it’s easy for me to say that as I’m never going to get pregnant. It’s easy for ANY more to pronounce on these matters.

  4. Gatis says:

    Thank you people – this is pure treasure in the terms of quality information and the debates. I recently started course “Life Explored” in Scoland – Edinburgh and Robin Turton directed me this way.

    Reply
  5. Beck says:

    Two things on that.
    1: How do you find validation in the “collection of cells” argument when that is what all living things are?
    2: If medical science progresses so far and makes it possible to extract the growing baby after one week and bring it to term would that change your “outside the womb” marker to be 1 week? It seems that you are placing personhood based off survivability so as medical science progresses does it become a person earlier and earlier?

    Reply
    • Ed Vaessen says:

      Beck:
      “Two things on that.
      1: How do you find validation in the “collection of cells” argument when that is what all living things are?”

      That is what it is about. When does a collection cells become that what we perceive as a human being?

      Reply
  6. Andy Ryan says:

    “1: How do you find validation in the “collection of cells” argument when that is what all living things are?”

    You think you’re just a collection of cells? That’s pretty reductive. Google Jimi Hendrix doing a guitar solo or Gene Kelly singing and dancing the title song in Singing in the Rain. If that’s ‘just a collection of cells’ to you then there’s a chasm of worldview between us that I fear cannot be bridged.

    “If medical science progresses so far and makes it possible to extract the growing baby after one week and bring it to term would that change your “outside the womb” marker to be 1 week?”

    Perhaps. Because then if a woman wanted an abortion (though at one week I’m not sure one even uses that term) then it would instead be possible to provide the alternative of keeping the foetus alive and bringing it to term without the mother being used as an incubator against her will. Not sure who would pay for that in your scenario, but presumably pro-lifers would step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are!

    Reply
    • Beck says:

      I don’t believe we are just a collection of cells but scientifically speaking that’s what biological structures are.

      If you cant force some one to be an “incubator against her will” then why is it ok to force them to be a parent against their will? When does personal responsibility play a role in all this?

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        When do we force people to be parents? You can give your kids up for adoption. You get in trouble if you take ON the responsibility and then fail to take care of their health. And even then you have to do a terrible job before you actually get punished for it. Lots of people do a terrible job of being parents and suffer no consequences from the law.

        Reply
        • Beck says:

          Your dog can’t put a child up for adoption, only a PARENT can, so when a child is put up for adoption that person is being forced to put in the effort to make that happen. Men are forced to pay child support and in essence forced to be parents.

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            “Your dog can’t put a child up for adoption”

            I don’t get your point. Yes, a dog can’t put a child up for adoption. It can’t drive a car either – so what?

            Men are forced to pay child support – again, I don’t get what this has to do with my answer to you about abortion. How do you know my position on whether and under what circumstances men should be forced to pay child support?

  7. Val says:

    Personal responsibility starts with the dude keeping his pieces-parts in his pants and the girl her legs closed, when neither is willing to make the continual sacrifice of raising the child.

    Human life (not mankind), but the life of an individual starts at conception. One cell, two cells, 4 cells and so on, is a human life regardless of what stage the child in the womb is at, and that child is precious to God.

    Reply
    • Ed Vaessen says:

      Val says:
      “Human life (not mankind), but the life of an individual starts at conception. One cell, two cells, 4 cells and so on, is a human life regardless of what stage the child in the womb is at, and that child is precious to God.”

      I beg to differ.

      Reply
      • Val says:

        Ed….You Beg to Differ?

        You’re here to differ and ignorantly so, I might add, because of one of several reasons of which I will give two:

        Your mother either wanted to have a child and never confronted that question.
        Or, she considered abortion and chose the correct definition, in God’s eyes, as to what it was she was carrying in her womb…a tiny little person, whom God knew from conception.

        Reply
        • Ed Vaessen says:

          Val says:
          “Ed….You Beg to Differ?”
          Yes I do.

          “You’re here to differ and ignorantly so, I might add, because of one of several reasons of which I will give two:”

          It seems to me that you are the ignorant.

          “Your mother either wanted to have a child and never confronted that question.
          Or, she considered abortion and chose the correct definition, in God’s eyes, as to what it was she was carrying in her womb…a tiny little person, whom God knew from conception.”
          My mother lived in a Roman Catholic society in the fifties, in which women were encouraged to get as many baby’s as possible. Abortion was impossible then, even if she had wanted it. Did she want me? Or did she do what women of those days were forced to do without having any say in the matter?
          Dear Val, if you do not know people (and you certainly never have known my mother), do not try to project your imagination on them.

          Reply
          • Val says:

            So are you saying that your mother had you against her will?

            And yes I am ignorant about a lot of things, but not about the fact that at conception is when a person’s life starts.

        • Ed Vaessen says:

          Val says:
          “So are you saying that your mother had you against her will?”
          No. I did no say that. I was telling in what kind of society she lived, in which so was given no choice other than to have baby’s.

          “And yes I am ignorant about a lot of things, but not about the fact that at conception is when a person’s life starts.”
          That is not a fact. We only know that from the fertilized egg cell eventually a human being grows with consciousness and reasoning abilities. But we cannot call this fertilized egg a ‘person’. It does not have have a brain at all.
          Suppose directly after fertilization it dies. Happens all the time. Does this ‘person’ go to heaven, according to you?

          Reply
    • toby says:

      One cell, two cells, 4 cells and so on, is a human life regardless of what stage the child in the womb is at, and that child is precious to God.

      Not so.
      Numbers 5:20
      “But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

      Hosea 13:16
      The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”

      1 Samuel 15:3
      “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

      Then there’s that whole thing about killing all of Egypt’s firstborn males . . .

      God is filled with rage and hate apparently.

      Reply
      • Val says:

        I don’t see how Numbers 5:20 applies to the question as the context of that passage context is to establish the Law. And deter the behavior.

        It gives the husband of a cheating wife permission to cast her out and even condemn her to death, if he so chooses.

        But did not Joseph who’s betrothed Marry was pregnant with The Christ, choose to send her away quietly so as not to punish her under the Law, in the most compassionate way. This was Josephs mindset before being visited by the angel of the Lord, who brought him up to speed. Then Joseph took her as wife, but did not lay with her until after the birth of Jesus.

        I’ll get back to you on the Samuel and Hosea references later as time permits, and may the Lord open your eyes and bless you with the knowledge of Himself.

        Good try, but I’m not seeing your point as to how Numbers 5:20 applies to the definition of personhood.

        Show me a believer that claims any unborn or baby for that matter deserves to die and I’ll show you a “Make-Believer”

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          “It gives the husband of a cheating wife permission to cast her out and even condemn her to death, if he so chooses.”

          So you think a cheating wife deserves death?

          Reply
        • Ed Vaessen says:

          “Show me a believer that claims any unborn or baby for that matter deserves to die and I’ll show you a “Make-Believer”

          The opinion of the believer is not necessary for that. The Bible itself states very clearly that God, on a regular base, killed the unborn and baby’s or ordered people to do so.
          The Bible text ‘But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ leaves no doubt about that.

          If God is just, then we must assume that these nursing children deserved to die. If they did not deserve to die, why did God order their death?

          Reply
          • Val says:

            Ryan,

            Under the Law given to Moses in the wilderness, it is clear, the Law does give clear permission…..but…..

            Joseph did not carry out the Law and neither should we in a case of cheating.

            I have not picked a position on the matter of whether a cheating wife is deserving of death, I would have to suffer that injustice to see where I stand.

            I was regurgitating what the Law in the Old Testament says and if my wife, God forbid, ever cheated on me, I would pray the Lord lead me to the same compassionate response as Joseph.
            In addition I would recall what Jesus told the stone-armed sinners when they trapped the adulteress…..
            Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, and He being the only One in the crowd without sin and the only One qualified to condemn her, what did He do? “Where are your accusers woman? Neither will I condemn you, go and sin no more.”

            Let me ask you a question Ryan, do you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, Who put on flesh, lived a sinless life and took upon Himself the burden of all our sins, that we may have eternal life in His presence?
            Have you, Ryan, accepted Jesus as your Savior?

          • Ed Vaessen says:

            “If God is just, then we must assume that these nursing children deserved to die. If they did not deserve to die, why did God order their death?”

            Well, Val? What is your opinion?

        • Andy Ryan says:

          “Ryan, Under the Law given to Moses in the wilderness, it is clear, the Law does give clear permission…..but…..”

          Are we calling each other by our surnames now? If you don’t want to tell me yours so I can address you in kind, either call me Andy or if you must ‘Mr Ryan’. But simply ‘Ryan’ is pretty rude.

          “I have not picked a position on the matter of whether a cheating wife is deserving of death”

          Well you just said husbands are given permission to condemn a wife to death for cheating. You’re saying you have no position on whether the punishment you ‘regurgitated’ is deserved or not?

          “I would pray the Lord lead me to the same compassionate response”

          Not condemning someone to death is ‘compassionate’? You’ve got a pretty low threshold for compassion!

          Reply
          • Ed Vaessen says:

            Val:
            “Let me ask you a question Ryan, do you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, Who put on flesh, lived a sinless life and took upon Himself the burden of all our sins, that we may have eternal life in His presence?
            Have you, Ryan, accepted Jesus as your Savior?”

            Is it so difficult for you to stick to the line of a discussion?

          • Val says:

            Andy,

            My mistake on the “Ryan” name calling thing.

            I meant no disrespect.

            I’m not sure how you can place a spectrum of thresholds on when compassion kicks in. Please elaborate.

            I did not say:
            “Well you just said husbands are given permission to condemn a wife to death for cheating. You’re saying you have no position on whether the punishment you ‘regurgitated’ is deserved or not?”

            I’m stating what the Law of the prophets said in the Old Testament. Who cares what I think. The questions should always be what does the Bible say and what was the example set by Jesus?

            And yes, I don’t have a position on whether I would be inclined to invoke the Law to the fullest extend or be compassionate, because I have not been confronted with that decision to make.
            Anyone that tells me they have a position on the matter and has not been in a situation where their spouse cheated on them, then I’m not so sure I would believe they really know what their position is. They, just like myself, might think they know where they stand, but does anyone really know or is it just wishful thinking.

            It’s like reading NTSB reports and telling yourself why didn’t the pilot react this way or that, that’s what I would have done and been able to avoid that fatal mistake. If I was not in the cockpit, flying the aircraft, then how I think I would react is only and estimate, but not reality.

            As I stated before I would like to think that I would follow the Joseph and Jesus example of compassion, but until confronted with the decision I really don’t know.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            If you’re too coy to simply state whether you believe death is a disproportionate punishment for cheating – a pretty easy call to make, I’d have thought – then you’re not in a position to tell us that abortion is wrong. Thanks for the conversation.

        • Bill says:

          That is the “Just Deserts” theory against abortion. If we take away the “just deserts”, women may go and have sex without consequences. Oh the horror!

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *