Here is a difficult question for Theists?

Question

I am a Christian and I have been thinking ALOT!!!
so here is my questions for you:

Do you think women should have the freedom to choose whether they kill their children AFTER they've been born? If you draw a distinction between abortion and the killing of a newborn baby, what exactly is it that makes them different if they both have souls? If you think a fetus has a soul, and you allow the mother to kill it, then why not allow the mothers to kill a newborn, unless there really is a difference?

I directed this question to Theists in order to get answers from Theists, which has the same Faith as I do

No this is for Theists

Answer 1

I certainly wouldnt want to kill something that otherwise would develop into a human life.

I would hope no one else would either. But out of "convenience", or that "it wasnt planned" - Wow!.. thats cold!!

Even Rape is no excuse to turn around and murder an innocent life. Repay an evil with something even more evil?

Sheesh. Tell you what.. If someone is willing to change their mind about having an abortion, Ill personally send them child support.

God Bless You.

Answer 2

Here is a difficult question for Theists?
I am a Christian and I have been thinking ALOT!!!
so here is my questions for you:
Do you think women should have the freedom to choose whether they kill their children AFTER they've been born? If you draw a distinction between abortion and the killing of a newborn baby, what exactly is it that makes them different if they both have souls? If you think a fetus has a soul, and you allow the mother to kill it, then why not allow the mothers to kill a newborn, unless there really is a difference?
Answer: There is no difference in my study and understanding of the Holy Scriptures.


I directed this question to Theists in order to get answers from Theists, which has the same Faith as I do.
Answer: I am a Christian of the Free Will Baptist Faith. Praise God!

Answer 3

>>"If you draw a distinction between abortion and the killing of a newborn baby, what exactly is it that makes them different if they both have souls?"<<

the key here is "if they both have souls" the soul does not inherently attach early in the pregnancy. and its only likely to have that as an option, if its very likely to make it to term.

even if there is the soul present, it is still not a living person until birth. just like a person is not dead until they are actually dead. if a person is shot in a devastating way that absolutely kills them irretreivably, they are not "dead" the second before that injury occurs (after its already in motion, unstoppable) they are not dead. they are only actually dead once it occurs. there has to be a defining point.

>>"If you think a fetus has a soul, and you allow the mother to kill it, then why not allow the mothers to kill a newborn, unless there really is a difference?"<<

the difference is the same as the difference between someone having sex an hour before they turn 18, and an hour after. there IS a deciding point where theres very little ACTUAL difference, but a huge artificial difference.
only in this case, the practical difference IS more real.

mid-way through the pregnancy, the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother and is not a functional being on its own.

once born, and the baby is breathing and functioning independently of the mother, even if its entirely dependent for food and protection, as an organism it is independent.

this is a huge distinction.

I would agree that extremely late term abortion is as much murder as killing a newborn.

but until the fetus has matured to the point that it could in natural circumstances(as in, without heroic measures and modern technology) independently function(as in, breathing and continue/finish developing) outside of the womb, it is completely acceptable to be aborted as it is not at all a person.

Answer 4

Your question presumes all theists believe that the soul and the body are separate entities. You're also presuming that all theists believe that newborns have souls. There are cultures that believe children do not gain souls until many months after birth, when they start developing a personality instead of just functioning on animal instinct.

To me the soul issue is largely moot since you can't scientifically test for such an entity. A young fetus is a growth inside its mother. It is a part of the mother's body and she may do what she likes with her body. Also, to abort a young fetus is simply to remove it from what it needs to survive, like cutting out a tumor.

After the baby is born, it is no longer a growth. It is a separate being. Killing it would be an act of actively damaging it rather than just removing it from sustanance.

The awkward period is the third trimester, when babies are still a part of the mother but may survive outside the womb. I would have no objection to those being banned, so long as it still allowed for the baby to be removed early if it threatened the mother's life.

Answer 5

This question is of interest whether or not you are a theist. We have to start with the origin of a moral code, because that gets mapped into legal codes. Moral codes arise from evolution, which applies to societies as well as to species: a society whicih lives by a sound moral code will survive preferably to one that does not. One thing that any society must do is to conserve its resources; these include both the lives of its members and their physical assets. A baby is initially a net detriment to society; it consumes resources and produces nothing, but once mature, it can contribute much. Thus, a baby should be viewed as a capital investment. The law recognizes this for a living child, and protects it. But the fact that a fetus is in every sense a human being does not give it unlimited rights as against those of the mother, who will have to invest (ingest!) an extra fifty thousand calories to bring it to term. The mother may choose that she is unwilling or unable to make this investment. Since a compromise between the rights of the fetus and those of the mother is clearly necessary, the US Supreme Court defined such a compromise in its Roe v. Wade decision. This compromise was sensible at the time, and still is.

As for soul, the concept is nonsense; there is no such thing.

Answer 6

A fetus can not feel, can not think, can not form memories.

And first of all, you directed this "difficult question" to Theists, I hope you know. Meaning you directed it to the opposite audience you intended to.

And it is "here are my questions for you". Please get some sort of education. Maybe pick up a book that isn't the Bible for once, although I doubt you have even read it.

And here's a question for you, if you consider abortion murder, do you consider a miscarriage suicide? Because obviously the fetus has a soul, a will, a life and is the same as a human being, so ending its life would be suicide right?

Answer 7

Christians for the first 1894 years followed Aristotle's delayed ensoulment theory. (ensoulment at conception is a relatively new concept in Christianity). Abortion after the quickening (movement, viable life) has always been considered murder. Same as infantcide. So yes, there really was/is a difference depending on the timeline.

Not a difficult question at all.

Why did you ask this question of Theists (who believe in a deity)? Did you mean Atheists?

Edit: Okay, then being a Theist my answer stands.

Answer 8

Comedian W.C. Fields once siad "I believe in abortion...up till the age of 7."

I think that since many fetuses are viable outside the womb, from about six months on, then they already qualify as persons even before being born, and have the same rights.

Fetuses younger than five months most often develop into viable fetuses and are born, unless their development is interrupted through abortion. Therefore, I see abortion as intentional ending of a viable life.

Fetuses extracted into the birth canal, in order to suck out their brains during partial-birth abortion, cry, scream, and suffer the same as an infant in intense pain.

My mother used to say "All mothers should be drowned at birth." Mother knows best, right?

I think that any person who cannot see that fetuses are independent living organisms with a life and a soul of their own are either mentally deficient or willfully evil.

But that is just me.

Answer 9

A newborn baby can survive without the mother. Albeit it needs love and attention and food, it can get this from any available and willing adult.

A fetus, needs the mother (as a host) until it can survive without the umbilical cord attached.

Big difference. But it is also why I am against late term abortions, because many times that fetus can and will survive without the mother.

Something the size of my fingernail (ie. before 2nd trimester of pregnancy) could not survive without the mother acting as host...

Answer 10

The only difference is location and means of feeding; neither gives someone else the right to take their life.

If by your question you are implying that abortion is permissible. Then you are right in implying that nothing fundamental has changed that should prevent women murdering their children after they are born, if they can do so before they are born. If we continue this line of thought into adulthood, we see that nothing fundamental has changed anywhere along his/her life line from conception to death. So if abortion is permissible, so is infanticide, then so is the killing of innocent adult humans. Every thing that is of an adult, (physically, intellectually, spiritually) existed from conception; the only thing that has changed is level of development, and that is never a valid reason to kill anyone.

Answer 11

First, a new born cannot sustain itself, it is still completely dependent on its parents for survival... (mother or father or both)

It has everything to do with the violation of the "principle of life." Killing a life is killing a life, no matter if it is unborn or born...

However, there are many issues tied up in the issue of abortion... crime against women, lack of sexual education, lack of moral education, lack of moral strength, etc.

Try to understand, do not judge them...
Making them feel guilty will foster resentment...
Yes, abortion is a vile thing, so is rape, child abandonment, poverty, the list can go on... but none of which condones abortion...

Who are you to judge? Personally I am not in a position to judge them, are you?

Anyway, I hate abortion... but that does not give me the right to judge others...

Education is the only way to abolish abortion.

It is a good question anyway, I have to say it...
Journey Well...