I would add:
Should we pursue laws to make abortion illegal? Yes, by all means.

Ted – are you suggesting that women whose lives are in jeopardy or who are the victims of rape or incest, should be denied the choice of abortion?

I believe in the sanctity of Life and value of children as precious gifts from God. I also agree with everything Scot has said about the discernment of scripture. I would even say that there should be some sort of law dealing with the issue, but I don’t even venture to say what that law should look like. Writing that law would not be an easy task, as I believe so much more needs to go into it than simply banning abortion or reversing Supreme Court decisions.
What does sadden me though is the intensity with which we as Christians pursue the legal path (represented by time, effort, and money spent on the issue) vs the path of reaching out to and LOVING people – and convincing them through love and mercy to change their minds about killing babies. We seem so quick to take hard lines and become judgemental. But God doesn’t desire judgement. He would rahter see mercy.
I saw the same thing happen in the 2004 elections when it came to the homosexual issue, gay marriage, and the marriage constitutional amendment. So much fervor and ferocity was poured into the legal stance of homosexuality. So much money was spent on adds and campaigns for defining marriage. I wonder how much more effective it would have been if we had spent the same amount of time, effort, and money, and with the same fervor we had embraced our neighbors the homosexuals and showed them the direct and relational love of God. Or better yet, spent the same energy preventing divorce within the church, something in my opinion that causes more harm to marriage than gay marriages do. If the church doesn’t value marriage as it claims why should the world?
I know there are many people out there doing a lot of service on both of those issues – abortion and homosexuality. And I’m not for gay marriages any more than I am for abortions. But I wonder if the rest of us, who are not necessarily serving in those ministries, wouldn’t be better off being more zealous about the ministries and less about the law.
In pursuing the Scriptures’ commands about various issues, let us not forget that there were very direct and concrete commands about stoning adulterers that we no longer follow today – even though it is an express command of Scripture. Therefore I say if we pursue a Law, and base that law on Scripture, to deal with some of these issues, PLEASE, let us do so with fear and trepidation. Lest by judging others we also judge ourselves.
Jesus said, “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye but do not see the plank in your own eye? First take out the plank in your eye, and then you can see to [help] take out the speck from your brother’s eye.” I just have to pose the question for us: What plank are we not seeing in our eyes, what plank should we be taking out of our eyes, before we try to take the speck out of the eyes of those feel that abortion is an option? He who has no sin, let throw the first stone.

Surely though legalisation of abortion isn’t as black an white a discernment issue though
especially for instance if you think that legalisation seems to have very little effect on actual abortion rates (how ever it does seem to have more effect on the mortality of the mothers), and I think the abortion laws issue for the church has more to do with pride, domination and control than a real God motivated desire to protect the image of God in human life. And really submitting ourselves to the authority of God in scripture would result in stopping chasing the wild goose of getting abortion made illegal and actually try and compel people through love.
I think we think that by changing the law we will change the culture
unfortuantly i just don’t think thats true (think about gangsta or urban culture and theft, violence and murder. or youth culture and copywrite law or drug use) I think as christians we should worry more about effecting culture than effecting legislation.
I think that laws simply reflect the cutlure of a community and that if we could effect our cultures more with a respect for life, change in values and abundance of love we would see the law change eventually. In reality i think we would rather change the Law because we have such a poverty of the those values ourself an to actually change ourselves and become humble and honest costs more than just campaigning for laws to change.

Ted #1
Will making abortion illegal reduce abortions, though? The evidence is against it. Legality or illegality of abortions appear to have very little to do with the rate of abortion – it has a great deal to do with the health of women, however.
Abortion rates do not appear to be dependent on how restrictive abortion laws are. Some of the highest abortion rates are in countries where abortions are highly restriction or illegal and the lowest rates are in countries where abortion is readily available and paid for by state-funded health care. They are also not necessarily dependent on whether countries are rich or poor, religious or secular.
The factors which seems to account for abortion rates is the availability of birth control and information about it and access to health care. The more birth control is encouraged and provided, and the more women and children’s health is protected, the fewer abortions there are.
The lowest abortion rates, by far, are in Western Europe, where there is universal health care and often free access to birth control. Canada’s abortion rate, while dropping, is about 2/3 that of the US but still double that of some countries in Europe. In Canada birth control is not covered by the health care system, but abortion is. So why is the abortion rate in the US so much higher than other rich countries – countries which also have unfettered access to abortion? If we really want to reduce abortion rates it seems to me we should be looking at those countries where abortions rates are 1/2 – 1/3 that of the US. Imagine if you could half the abortion rate. Wouldn’t that be more desirable than making it illegal, but not making any real difference in the rate of abortion?

Aj and matybigfro,
Thank you for your comments, both of which speak my mind. Abortion is a wrong but I believe we ought to counter it with love, not law. I think this has a connecton to the post above on sandbagging students — we need to get our childrearing house in order as a culture or women will continue to abort, whether or not it’s legal to do so. I believe “a my child only and at all costs and everyone else’s kid can go to heck” society breeds an environment in which a woman in a vulnerable situation can decide it’s too rough having a baby.
Scot, I agree there’s also grace for women who abort and that reading the Bible is about discernment, which is another way of saying it’s about engagement and using all our gifts to understand it and take it seriously.

#6 Diane,
Thank you for your encouragement. I’m not against the law being part of the solution, I just haven’t seen any approach to it that has captured my heart and mind. Once a law is written it is easy to abuse as a completely black and white issue, and that is why I say we need to approach the legal aspect with great wisdom, grace, and mercy on our minds.
I agree with you and with #4 matybigfro, that we need to change our culture from within the basic units of our society, individuals and families. A grassroots movement if you will. I don’t believe that a top-down approach of changing our culture through legistlation will work in the long run, and in fact it may backfire on us; because we can only influence the laws so long as we are a majority. We must remember that aspect of democracy as well. That is why Love is such a key ingridient in all of this. Maybe that’s why the overarching theme of Scriptures is Love.

Should the law reflect a moral standard? Do we not have laws against murder? Rape? Theft?
What we permit, we tacitly endorse. In not saying as a society through our legal rulings that abortion ends the life of a living human being, or worse saying that it is permissible to end the life of a third trimester infant through partial birth abortion or live birth abortion, we as a society wink at evil.
I do know that when abortion was legalized, child abuse went up something like 400%.
Should we through teenage girls in jail? Perhaps not. Should doctors who deliver children alive and dump them in linen closets be prosecuted. I say absolutely yes.

Ted,
If you make abortions illegal, what is the penalty and on whom is it exercised?
Some months ago during a conversation with a very Christian
relative I opined that while I abhorred abortion, I would not want my young adult daughter, were she faced with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy for any reason, to have her decision complicated by criminal sanctions passed by politicians influenced or controlled by fundamentalists or other sectarians who were more convinced than I was of what God’s specific will is. His response was that every woman who had an abortion should be shot, and he would provide the gun. (What responsibility a male would have in the situation appeared nowhere in his moral calculus.)

Dan #8,
Throwing around a statistic like this is irresponsible.

I do know that when abortion was legalized, child abuse went up something like 400%.

First, it is almost certainly false (unless you class abortion as child abuse and then it underestimates).
Second, you need to cite a source or evidence. I doubt if there is any reputable evidence to this effect.
Third, we lived in a changed time. Things that were routine and unnoticed or dismissed in my childhood would now be classed as child abuse. Thus a rise in abuse could actually relate to a greater moral concern for the welfare of children today.

Scot, your letter captures the essence of “what was often thought but rarely if ever so well expressed”.
My only personal edit would be to clarify what is meant by “jeopardizing the mother’s own health”. Sounds good until you ask what exactly is “health”. Are we talking about physical well-being, physical survival, emotional comfort, convenience, etc. It is not healthy to be stressed out, but stress because of the pregnancy is an inadequate definition of the mother’s health when contemplating whether abortion is justifiable.

Rick in Tx,
I meant “life”.

Scot, Thanks for an excellent process! We need more presentations like this on the issues. I don’t think people are willing to think through the issues enough to really get the big idea that scripture provides. I can’t wait to get my hands on BP.

Excellent response Scot. A question and an observation:
You say, “That means we don???t have ???certainty??? in this case but instead we have ???discernment??? anchored in faith and in the good guidance of God???s Spirit, always in the context of the community of faith. I???m nervous about doing this all alone, and the history of the Church clearly teaches us that discernment works best when we work with other Christians who share our general orientations. Discernment works in community.”
So how does tradition play a part in this? Church tradition comes from the community of faith…doesn’t it? The Orthodox and RCs give lots of credence to tradtion, more so perhaps then some of us like or do. So should Tradition play a bigger part here?
Observation/opinion: You say, “And if the government won???t help, may the Church pick up the slack.” I am not sure the Church should be in the position of picking up slack. We’ve done this too much. Maybe the Church should just be the Church. “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”

Scot,
This is a very thoughtful, gracious, loving, and biblically oriented post. But it still fails to answer one question. Applying your “parakeet process,” would you come to the conclusion that abortion on demand (life of the mother noted as an exception) should be made illegal?

You argue from Scripture and wisely acknowledge that there is much that science can teach us, that is not in Scripture. I agree. In addressing the issue of reproduction, I do not believe that this was the purpose for marriage. Before God commanded reproduction, he made Eve for communion/companionship with Adam. The marriage covenant is first and foremost about the relationship between the two married partners. It is in modern terms, a social contranct, with each agreeing to terms of contract. In “biblical” times, marriage was not a choice, but arranged by families (fathers). The question should be, since our culture does not approve of arranged marriages, is modern society wrong, and should it return to the ‘ancient practice”, or has our culture “progressed’, not as in better, necessarily, but just differently? As it concerns reproduction, any animal can reproduce and does so, as much as possible. So, since man is created in God’s image, should there be a difference from “doing what comes naturally”? Extreme conservatives such as the RC would argue for a natural position when it comes to procreation, but argue against what comes natural when it comes to sexual expression outside of the marriage covenant (doing what ocmes naturally). So, it seems to me, that how one understands and decides what is right depends on how one udnerstands what is according to proper order and structure and what is not. And then, one must ascertain what is by nature God sanctioned and what is by nature “fallen”….and on what basis does one make this judgemnt? There are many complexities that are challenging a “simple faith based on Scripture alone”, such as scientific understandings, and advances..We must not negate the positives of technological advances unless, that is, one wants to become a sectarian, like the Amish.

Ron, your anecdote aside, I think very few pro-life people are for the execution of women who have abortions or doctors who provide them.
I’m also unconvinced by the idea that making abortion illegal will not reduce abortion. Apply the same logic to any other illegal activity–do we really believe that making rape legal will reduce the instance of rape?
I also think its logically and morally suspect to be “against abortion personally” but not want to put any legal restrictions on abortion. Apply the same logic to capital punishment: should the government sanctioned executions be outlawed or should we just try to “address the circumstances that lead to capital punishment” and leave victims and courts the “freedom to choose” to execute a criminal or not.

Bill (#14),
You said:
Observation/opinion: You say, ???And if the government won???t help, may the Church pick up the slack.??? I am not sure the Church should be in the position of picking up slack. We???ve done this too much. Maybe the Church should just be the Church. ???Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!???
What in the world do you mean by this? “The Church should just be the Church”? I’m not sure I get it.

Hi Scot,
I agree with you completely here, but perhaps you’ll allow me to be pedantic and make a slight correction. It’s not so much a case that abortion wasn’t an issue at all in those times, as much as it wasn’t an issue needing addressing in Paul’s letters or the Mosaic law. In the case of the Didache and the Apocalypse of Peter, abortion is strictly and specifically condemned. So it was an issue back then in the larger gentile world that was condemned by the Christians of the time, even though it didn’t happen to be mentioned it Paul’s letters.

What are you saying, Scott (#18)? That the Church has no business showing compassion to unwed mothers, rape victims, married women whose financial status is such that they just can’t afford to have another child in the household? If the Church turns these women away, what does that say about our humanity, to not care for ones so vulnerable, so stuck that they might feel that abortion is their only option?
I am in full agreement with Bill: the Church needs to step up and be the Church in this issue. It needs to (depending on congregation size and resources) provide supportive housing, access to education and job networks, free or low-cost day care for single mothers, and solid, Biblical teaching on the nature and purpose of human sexuality. If the Church doesn’t, and the government doesn’t, who will?

Scot,
I really appreciate your comments on Scripture. Your comment, “We ???apply??? the Bible by discernment and not by treating the Bible as law,” strikes me as being extremely important when dealing with these sorts of questions from a Biblical/Christian point of view.
However, having said that, I feel like you haven’t really responded to many of the concerns that were raised in the original email. Saying that abortion is wrong because humans are Eikons makes sense, but you still haven’t addressed how we know when a fetus becomes an Eikon.
You wrote, “Humans are Eikons once they are conceived.” I don’t necessarily disagree with that statement, but I would also like to know why you think that is the case. Couldn’t it be argued that some characteristic like free will or the ability to have relationships is what makes us Eikons? And if that is the case, then is it not possible that a fetus has not yet developed that (or those) characteristic(s)?
What if one person decides (through discernment) that a fetus is not an Eikon until it can think rationally? Then it’s probably safe to say that a day old fetus can be aborted without violating the sacredness of an Eikon.
I’m not trying to be controversial, I’m genuinely perplexed.
Dan

Bill (#14) — By “picking up the slack”, Scot is referring to helping mothers who find themselves with an unintended baby. Why would you oppose the church being instrumental in that? Why would you prefer that the government do this (with probably nothing more than a check) instead of the church (with time and investment in the mother and baby, and very possibly financial assistance as well)?
We have an 18-year old high school dropout at my church who elected to keep her baby. Many people in the church are helping out with this, providing childcare so the mom can go get her GED, providing providing food, clothing, furniture, etc. Taking this young mother and her son under its wings, the church is really displaying the love of Christ, it seems to me.
Are we doing the wrong thing? Has the church really picked up people who are in bad circumstances too many times?

Great post Scot. What everyone is missing in the “should it be made illegal” follow-up is another step of discernment: when, in what manner, and to what extent, should a moral principle that we discern as a community of faith be encoded into civil law? This is not at all an easy question to answer, particularly in a pluralistic constitutional democracy. We can and do “legisltate morality” — all law reflects a “moral” choice — but not all moral principles are directly encoded into law in exactly the same way. In fact, our highest moral calling — the Jesus Creed — cannot be enacted into postive law directly (imagine it being a crime not to love God or your neighbor as Jesus instructed us?) The love principle can only be legislated indirectly, for example, through laws the require respect for the life and property of others.
In my opinion, abortion jurisprudence in the U.S. is terribly wrong. Roe v. Wade encodes a radical notion of individual autonomy and ingnores the imperative to care for the most vulnerable. I think abortion should be unlawful in all but the most extreme cases of maternal health. But, I don’t think this settles the question of what “unlawful” should mean in this context. It seems extreme to me to suggest that all cases should be treated equally as “murder.”

….. After reading Allie’s post (#20) perhaps I misunderstood Bill (#14) in my post (#21) ….
Bill, are you saying that the church should just step in and do this sort of thing rather than hoping the government will do something? If so, I completely agree with you.

Dan (#8) — I’ve heard somewhat contrary statistics, particularly in the book “Freakonomics.” The authors there show that the legalization of abortion correlates with a decrease in crime and other social ills. Their hypothesis is that unwanted babies are more likely to grow up to become criminals. The very scary thing here, though, is that most abortions occur in poor African-American communities. At the end of the day, an argument like this is basically an argument in favor of euthanasia — let poor blacks cull their own population through abortion.

Scot, thanks for sharing your thought process. It’s a good example for other issues too.
I’m also glad you changed “health” to life.
mariam said: Imagine if you could half the abortion rate. Wouldn???t that be more desirable than making it illegal, but not making any real difference in the rate of abortion?
Why can’t we do both?

This post expands on my previous post (#21).
The original letter that you were discussing says: “This is
first and foremost about when the fetus becomes a ‘person’.”
Your response says that abortion is wrong because a fetus is an Eikon (in other words, a person?). However, the original letter wasn’t trying to claim that it’s alright to kill a person (or an Eikon), but, rather, that we need to better define “person.” You explained why all the verses quoted in the original letter can’t be used and then you recast the question using “Eikon” instead of “person.” In my mind, you haven’t gotten anywhere.
Help me out, am I missing something?

Chris, #25
You asked why can’t we do both? It would be great if you could, but no plan has been put forth so far that does both. When it comes to the statistics that mariam was refering to in #5, they favor NOT banning abortion. There are no statistics that show that both have been done as far as I have ever seen. Correct me if I’m wrong.
About legislating morality: Yes it is true that we have laws against rape, murder, and theft. But it does not mean that every moral issue should be, or even could be legislated. Would we want laws on gluteny, gossip, lying, divorce? This is why any attempt at legislating morality needs to be done in humility, wisdom, grace, and mercy. We should not take these things lightly.
Love is patient and love is kind. It’s one thing to tell someone that something is wrong and try to help them choose a better path, and it is hard to do; but it’s another thing to pass a law that blindly makes judgement and puts punishments in place, even though this is the easiest way to go. In looking at this through eyes of love and in consideration of the other, we must remember that this choice, for any woman, under any circumstance, is an emotional, and possibly traumatic choice. And we men should not be the ones to so easily dismiss this, when we don’t understand that choice.

The legal status of abortion on demand is a problem because by it abortion is promoted as a solution to unwanted pregnancy. Unfortunately abortion is a choice that undermines all others because it “eliminates” (kills) the problem at its “source” (unwanted fetal humans). If we legalized euthanasia for the poor, where would be the incentive to alleviate poverty? If human lives are only worth protecting if someone “wants” them, we are in serious moral decay. Not long ago I saw a teenage mother on the TV news being sentenced to 10 years in prison for shaking and severely injuring her 7 week old daughter. Why such a severe punishment when a few months earlier she could have aborted the girl with no questions asked? The question of where we draw the line here is a serious one because it is a line between life and death. While legal means are not the whole answer, or even the primary one–we must primarily provide support for life choices–the legality of killing the unborn severely undermines other choices. It also undermines child support (if the abortion decision is completely up to the woman, the pregnancy is completely her responsibility), parental involvement (because daughters don’t require parental knowledge or consent to get an abortion), and protection from sexual abuse (because abortion is the easiest way to hide the unwanted consequences of such problems). The list goes on… abortion accommodates and creates more serious problems than it solves. More and more women are starting to realize this. Read The Cost of Choice: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion (edited by Erika Bachiochi) for a sampling.

AJ, where is abortion illegal? Generally nearly third-world (is there a 2nd world?) countries — think Middle East and South America.
There the situation is get an illegal abortion or starve to death. A nation with modern access to healthcare and birth control as well as a social safety net would not be the same situation.
It kills me that people who say we don’t always legislate our morality point to things like adultery and gluttony. WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT GLUTTONY BUT KILLING HUMAN BEINGS.
Let’s tell Americans abortion is not birth control. People need to take responsibility for their actions.
Let’s tell people right and wrong are not dependent on what sex you are. No one would dare say “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one.” Abortion is no different.
The Bible never pretends the right thing is easy to do. Instead “narrow is the way, and few find it.” The high road is almost always the hard one, but that is what our Master expects from us.

Scot,
Thank you so much for being the breath of fresh air in the evangelical world that you are. After reading your response, I can’t wait to get my hands on BP!
Thank you, too, for pointing out that there are certain things in Scripture that we can’t explicitly extrapolate. We do use discernment in interpreting Scripture far more than most of us would care to admit… especially concerning emotionally-laden issues like abortion.
While, yes, it would be an ideal world where abortion is seen as an extreme procedure only to be used when a woman’s life is in jeopardy, culture just isn’t there yet. And we can’t simply change/create culture from the top. As the church we need to more broadly define what it means to be pro-life (beyond just abortion) and begin to infiltrate and change culture from the roots. We waste so much time shouting, lobbying and carrying placards that we shot ourselves in the foot and shut ourselves out from the very places that we need to be influencing.
I visited a farm with our family this past weekend that employs a watering system that is buried under the crops so that water gets straight to the roots. This is a better system and save water because more traditional systems that water from above ground lose much of the water to condensation before making it to the roots. I see much of Christian activism the same way… pouring a lot of well-intentioned energy on the top of issues and losing most of its effectiveness to poor tactics that get blasted by much smarter people from the other side of the fence. We should be building bridges with people through love and influencing people from the bottom up.

ChrisB #29
If we work off the premise that all sin is equal in the sight of God – as many evangelical Christians would say, then that begs the question why are we as Christians so quick to legislate only some sins but not others. That is why you always hear the adultery and gluttony question raised. We are also very quick to do so when it’s an issue that affects us the least personally.
I have yet to hear people who have been through these difficult and traumatic experiences be as zealous about legislating these types of issues as those who have never faced faced those demons.
I never said I’m against the legislation, if you read everything I’ve written so far. I’m just calling for patience, grace, and mercy, even in the discussion of this issue. I’m also trying to make the point that writing such laws should not be taken so lightly. We are WAY over simplifying the issue. Especially when discussed within the framework of the election.

AJ: If we work off the premise that all sin is equal in the sight of God…
I don’t, cf Matthew 11:22-24
I never hear anyone suggest that stealing, murder, or arson should be legal. Why is gluttony legal if arson isn’t. We all know lying is equal to muder, right? Please!
If you can’t see a substantial difference between murder and gluttony, I’m not sure you should be walking around in public.
To suggest that God sees no difference between lying and murder demeans God and/or makes us look like idiots. All sin is, at its core, rebellion, so in that sense all sin is the same, but nowhere does it suggest that God will treat lying like murder. Again, saying that any sin makes us impure before God does not suggest that all sin deserves the same penalty. Look in the Torah, in the Proverbs, in the Gospels, and in the epistles and you see this.
If abortion is the ending of a human life there is a substantial difference between that and gluttony or adultery or any other sin that doesn’t do drastic harm to another human being.
The anti-Roe crowd certainly contains many women who’ve had abortions. That more women who’ve had abortions don’t think it should be illegal tells you nothing about the morality of the issue but lots about them.

First in regards to statistics- #5, #38, etc
There are some statistics which show that making abortion illegal can have an impact. See
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#How%20many%20women%20died?
As mentioned above, it’s hard to do straight up comparisons, but when you examine Poland, a country that’s at least somewhat comparable, they did go from abortion on demand to extreme restrictions, and the abortion rate dropped dramatically. Also, the statistics at this site show that the so called “coat hanger” abortions are completely out of whack with reality. The number of deaths due to abortion actually changed very little right before and after legalization. Why, because most abortions even before legalization were being performed by doctors. The factor that made the most difference in deaths of mothers was actually modern antibiotic use.
So to say that we need to keep it legal because it won’t actually change the number of abortions or to say that it will only cause large numbers of new deaths is not factually accurate.
Let me echo #29. Let’s quit comparing legislating morality on issues like gluttony or even adultery (which is obviously serious enough) with abortion. If you believe abortion is wrong, then you believe it is murder. We’re talking about a pretty stark difference here.
I agree that we need to reach out on a grass roots level. I agree that we need to understand that most women choosing abortion are in vulnerable or scared places in life, but giving them unfettered access to a choice which will haunt many of them the rest of their lives is ridiculous. That does not sound like kindness to me.
I mourn for the mothers and the babies, certainly. If anyone is reading this, I pray they will go to some group like Rachel’s Vineyard (www.rachelsvineyard.org). There is hope. There can be healing and forgiveness. But part of that process will likely involve moving through the pain of recognizing their own sin as they move toward that full and complete grace of God.

AJ(#28) said: Would we want laws on gluteny, gossip, lying, divorce?
I respond: yes — we have laws that prohibit fraud and defamation, which relate to gossip and lying; we have laws that relate to usurious interest, taxation, residential leaseholds, and so on, which concern gluttony; and we have extensive laws relating to divorce. I would argue that all of the classical and Biblical virtues and vices are reflected extensively throughout Western law. Of course, most contemporary legal theorists discount virtue ethics and take a more consequentialist / instrumental view of the law. But I’d suggest the question isn’t whether the traditional virtues and vices are reflected in the law, but what that means in particular contexts. We don’t outlaw lying per se, for example, but we regulate it through the complex web of defamation law.
Dan B. said: If you believe abortion is wrong, then you believe it is murder.
I respond: not necessarily. “Murder” requires a specific mens rea that involves the premeditated taking of a human life without justification. Given the complexities of the ethical debate over the status of a fetus, it’s difficult (IMHO) to conclude that most women in crisis pregnancies have such a mens rea. This doesn’t mean (IMHO) that the act is a morally neutral choice, but it does mean that the “murder” rhetoric should be set aside in most cases.

Good discussion here,
In this case, Scot’s discernment with Scripture seems to me less concerned about our country’s laws and more concerned with the behavior of Christians. I think the issue of how to legislate bioethical issues in a large country with diverse values, that may or may not align with those of Christians, is a seperate and more complex issue.
While I would encourage civil laws more likely to safeguard emerging human life, I also feel like (#31 Henry) that as Christians our energy is sapped by wrapping ourselves more around jurisprudence than around community. I won’t go so far as to say its a distraction, but is the Christian way to deal with this problem the way of lawyers and lobbyists or a community equipped and ready to address women and families in need?
On the issue of Govt or Church assistance, I think its a both/and thing. Sure the Church offers a better stopgap than Govt on these matters, but I don’t feel those who need financial support should be forced to wait for us to get our act together. And ultimately we can’t force others to feed from our hand, thats not the way of Christ. I’m not arguing for massive govt spending so much as the Church stepping up its game.

Allie (#20),
I think you misread my comment. I absolutely think the church should be involved in the things you mention. Yes, yes, yes!
I was responding to Bill (#14) who seemed to be saying that the church should not be involved. He said the church has done too much already to pick up the slack. Maybe you can go back and re-read his post and then mine. I think you’ve misread Bill and me. You and I seem to agree and you and Bill don’t.

#35- You do a good job of bringing us into the complexities surrounding this issue. We can argue about whether abortion fits within the category of murder precisely. I agree that given the fact that many of these women are in crisis mode and given the fact that society views the status of the unborn as gray territory, it might not fit precisely.
At the same time maybe the term murder is helpful, and not simply rhetoric. Many people kill and are called murderers even when it’s done in crisis mode. Clearly abortion is a premeditated act. So while I agree we don’t want to pump up rhetoric and we need to recognize that this act comes with some complex baggage, we also need to recognize that if the act is unjustified, if it is taking another human life, and if it’s premeditated, we may need to call a thing what it is to help people understand the gravity of the situation.
By purposely avoiding terms like “murder”, we do a disservice to those millions of souls who’ve lost their lives and who’ve already been dehumanized far too much. Let’s bring some measure of respect back to these souls or eikons by at least admitting that what has been done to them isn’t just a tragedy (which it is), but that it’s also a crime. We need to own up to our past in order to move forward. I know confession isn’t as popular as it once was (I’m not being facetious here, simply stating the truth), but God’s grace can feel so much richer when we move through it. That’s been my humble experience.
(Hey Scot, maybe you want to do a post on confession, public and private, sin language, etc).

I need to answer my critics.
Abortion rights groups long ago suggested that legalized abortion would reduce the number of child abuse cases because “every child would be a wanted child”. The results from 1973 to 1980 proved quite the opposite. The increase was 470%. Better reporting may have contributed to the total, but the claim, at least was proven horribly wrong. Those who think of children as a burden or punishment (Obama’s word), just might be more likely to harm children after they are born.
The statistics for child abuse are…
1973 167,000
1980 785,100
1987 2,025,200
2000 1,726,000
The source: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, National Center of Child Abuse & Neglect; National Analysis of Official Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting
My suspicion is that the decrease from 1987 to 2000 may be because overbearing HHS enforcement of anything that might look like abuse has led to under reporting in recent years. But that is only an opinion.
As for punishment if abortion is illegal, as others have pointed out, it would not necessarily be true that “pre-meditated murder” would be the best description of a scared teenager seeking a way out from the local Planned Parenthood clinic. I again say, it is the doctors and the abortion industry that need to be held accountable. They know exactly what they are doing, they are disposing of the body parts. For them it is pre-meditated. Manslaughter at the very least.
On another track: Those who say we don’t know when “ensoulment” occurs or when the “eikon” is somehow attached to the developing fetus are, in my opinion, not facing the facts of prenatal development and are arguing from the opposite of facts and data. They are saying that since we don’t yet know if a child is a “person” or “eikon” or might have intrinsic value, we should throw caution to the wind and permit its destruction.
I say we do know enough to say with conviction the unborn deserve the same protection of the law you or I enjoy. The child is human, having a different genetic code from the mother, usually a different blood type. It’s heart has been beating since three weeks after conception. It’s brain activity can be measured at about 48 days. Left alone to develop on its own, it will grow and develop from conception to death. There is no rational, factual reason to suggest it is anything less than both living and human. “Personhood”, as used by Roe, is an arbitray legal term that gets in the way of the medical facts.
Political facts are as follows: Barack Obama has vowed to sign the Freedom of Choice Act that would effectively end ALL restrictions on Abortion. He has repeatedly voted against restrictions on partial birth abortions of late-term infants. He three times voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and is the only senator I am aware of to actually speak against that act, (unanimously passed in the US Senate). With a congress controlled by the Democrats, the numbers of abortions performed in this country will go up, just as the rate of child abuse went up after Roe v Wade.

I would add that there is a long legal and theological history that Americans have discarded. The Hippocratic Oath once said:
“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”
The Didache: “You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child”
Tertullian: “The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion”
Chrysostom: “Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit????where there are many efforts at abortion????where there is murder before the birth?”
Christians need not reinvent the wheel on this issue.

Soon…Very Soon « “The Way of the Wolf” – as told by Norm MacDonald

[...] Note: In the upcoming years there will indeed be another discussion of Roe V Wade. Now, not from a judicial side, rather from an ethical side, Christians will be faced with discussing the issue of abortion again. There is a good discussion of the topic here? that was helpful for me in seeing the biblical context of the issue, or lack thereof. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Surrendering The Culture Because Of Milquetoast ChristianityHow Old Are Most Southern Baptist Pastors?Ed Stetzer – Why is cultural relevance a big deal?Women As Pastors. Not OK? Published in: [...]

Dear All,
Might I suggest that citing statistics (about how criminalizing abortion would not effect the abortion rate) is not the best way to adjudicate the question of abortion. If abortion is what Scot says it is (“an act of irretrievable violence against the sacredness of Eikons whom God has made”), then a just society will make laws that protect the lives of unborn innocents, regardless of how it effects the abortion rate.
Thanks,
Denny

I think I struggle with the issue of abortion more then most of you. Not that I don???t agree that choosing life is not the moral decision, I can discern that. I am just not always sure that abortion is the worst decision in a crappy world. I remember one night in particular after interviewing a ???victim of crime??? my partner turned to me later and asked (knowing of my issues with abortion) if it would have been better for the mother of this child to abort her fetus, or was it better to torture her with a life of drug addiction, sexual, physical and emotional abuse.
In this world it seems that the choices I make might be a moral choice, but the decisions we make (as a society) are about picking the lesser of two evils. And quite frankly that I don???t??? find so easy to discern.

Scot in #12,
“I meant ‘life’.”
I all but knew that for certain Scot. I had not one ounce of reason to think otherwise. It is just an illustration of how we have to parse our words so that we achieve clarity. Thanks for this illuminating post and for the great discussion. I have to run home now – I am expecting a blue parakeet in the mail.

I definitely hear what Greg was saying in 43. People of faith talk about abortion being black and white, but many people have never met anyone who has had an abortion. Or, we have scared women into ever saying that they had one.
Yes, all humanity is an eikon of God, and this includes unborn children. Yes. But, I will say this again, we do not have systems in place to take care of women who need help. There are some systems, yes, but not enough. The church scares women into ever telling the truth about abortion. I know a single young woman who was so afraid her church would shun her because she was pregnant that she had an abortion…I think this is despicable.
Yes, abortion is wrong. But the church should watch its rhetoric a bit and remember to love others.
In regards to the video posted at #29, I do not believe Obama was saying abortion is birth control. That is a bit of an unfair statement based on some of the facts, not all of them.

Oops, I was referencing the video in comment 30 when I spoke in comment 45. Sorry.

Greg,
The simple truth is it is not our prerogative to say someone was better of not being born. If we say that about an unborn child, what’s to stop us from saying it about a 2-year-old?
That decision belongs to God alone.
Alaina,
I don’t know what kind of help you’re planning on giving women. We’ve already got AFDC, WIC, Medicaid, CPCs, and most churches have their own assistance.
Perhaps you want to include unborn children in sCHIP? Obama opposes that. Feel free to vote accordingly.

Chris,
I am talking about the church helping women. Maybe where you are from churches are helping women, and kudos to them if that is the truth. I sincerely hope that in your experience, women are being helped and loved by their churches.
In my own experience, that is not true. Women in the church are treated horribly if they get abortions, but also if they are single and have the baby. What, then, is their choice? Yes, we can say they made a wrong decision from the start, but that doesn’t help when they are in the moment of decision now does it?
You are right that there are places to help women, but again, in my experience, women do not know about these places. Women do know about abortion clinics. I think education is key to changing the system. But, as a pro-life woman, I have to be honest and say that making abortion illegal does not appear to be the solution in my estimation. Education could make a difference.
And, for the record, I was not in any way condoning Obama’s views on abortion. I was merely saying that he was not making the claim you said he was. You can disagree if you wish.

Chris #47,
I hear you, but i wasn’t trying to say that it was my perogative, I was just trying to say that emotionally i have had moments in my life where i have believed it would have been kinder of God to allow someone to be unborn then to be subjected to the things I have heard in their stories.

I’d second this comments by Dan H and others as very key to the overall discussion….This is the substance of the original question and I’d hate to see it lost as the discussion moves on:
“However, having said that, I feel like you haven???t really responded to many of the concerns that were raised in the original email. Saying that abortion is wrong because humans are Eikons makes sense, but you still haven???t addressed how we know when a fetus becomes an Eikon.
You wrote, ???Humans are Eikons once they are conceived.??? I don???t necessarily disagree with that statement, but I would also like to know why you think that is the case.”

We’re doing an awful lot of finger pointing and talking about what needs to be done here.
I have been intensely wrestling with this issue during this election. Scott, I agree with you that the Bible in unclear about the actual point at which we become Eikons, but that we have to use Biblical principles to approach this issue.
What I hear people saying is that because Eikons are sacred and should be defended, although we don’t know the “point” at which personhood begins, we should play it safe and push back and make illegal anything that causes an abortion post-conception.
Ok. Well, for one thing, this means the government should ban the pill and the patch, which the majority of my pro-life friends use. I have never heard this addressed outside of the classroom, and if we’re going to be consistent in our pro-life views, then we better address it.
Secondly – why does “playing it safe” only push back to conception? Why do we discount the RCC view? It seems just as valid as the conception view.
This is not meant to attack, I am honestly wrestling with this, asking these questions, and the answers that I am getting mostly say… well abortion is wrong. Fine. But what is an abortion? And why aren’t we being consistent in our own actions if we truly believe that life begins at conception? Do we really want the government to legislate against the pill and the patch?
Those are my honest questions.

I’m more of a Hebrew Bible guy. There are some important text that I think are instructive here, if only by showing the murkiness of the issue.
Exod 21:22 is a key text. If a woman has a miscarriage the offending party pays a fine, but if there’s damage to the mother, then lex talionis laws apply (n.b. the NIV translation is only correct in the footnote for this verse).
Similarly, there’s a lot to the question in Num 5 concerning the woman accused of adultery. Is she suspected because she’s pregnant? If so, what does it means to have a woman’s “thigh fall out” in v.27? Do we have a case of an abortive procedure in the Tabernacle?
Granted, I know that these text are take quite differently in Evangelical circles, but they’re still important text to wrestle with in this discussion

The statistics for child abuse are…
1973 167,000
1980 785,100
1987 2,025,200
2000 1,726,000
Dan #39, I’m not sure these numbers are very helpful. As a population grows–assuming the percentage of abuse stays the same; say, for example, if 10% of all children are abused–then the number of children abused will grow as well, because there are more total children.
So what are these numbers as a percentage of the total population of children? That would be much more helpful information.

Dan (#39),
The statistics are interesting – but likely defy comparison. Abuse statistics depend on reporting laws, on enforcement, and on the definition of abuse. Reporting laws that came into effect over this time frame made it a crime not to report abuse for many classes of people. The irony is that the same societal pressure that resulted in Roe v. Wade resulted in a greater value for individuals including women and children. Laws have changed accordingly affording greater protection. Our society has moved from a mindset where accidents happen, corporal punishment is normal, and parents are not often challenged to one where there is a much higher level of societal interference in family life and style in this regard.
Saying this does not mean that I support abortion (“choice”) or agree with Roe v. Wade – just that there are many complicated forces at work.

Kacie, the contraception question has been discussed here before. There is a growing number of evangelicals deciding to forgo the pill because they think it prevents implantation of an embryo. Others say the science is unclear here.
Jim, here’s a piece that argues (to me) convincingly that the Exodus passage is referring to premature birth/miscarriage not miscarriage/harm to mother.
On the Numbers one, I think if you look again it’s fairly clear that we’re talking about the loss of the ability to conceive, not necessarily the loss of a child. Additionally, the actor there is God, not a human (the priest gives the same thing to every woman).

Kacie (#51) says, “why does ???playing it safe??? only push back to conception? Why do we discount the RCC view? It seems just as valid as the conception view.”
I think the answer to this one is simple. It’s only after conception (and one might argue implanting in the uterine wall) that, left to itself, a unique, individual human being develops. Sperm and egg do not become humans on their own. The word “conception” itself implies the coming into being of something (in this case someone) that is more than the sum of its parts. I think the RCC view against birth control has more to do with their seeing “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28) as a command, instead of an opportunity, that applies as much to us today as it did to the first humans in Eden.

Jim, I don’t think you properly understand Ex 21:22. Raymond Westbrook has a very fine treatment of this passage in which he states that it has nothing to do with lex talionis but everything to do with whether or not a the responsible individual can be identified or not. If he cannot then the community pays restitution which is a fine equivalent to that which was lost. Therefore, this passage gives the same amount for restitution twice but two different sources that pay it. See Westbrook, “Lex Talionis and Ex 21:22-25″ Revue Biblique 93 (1986): 52-69.

Andrew, are you saying that the population grew between 400 and 500 percent between 1973 and 1980? That would seem pretty easy to verify. Or, RJS, does it make sense that reporting increased by 400% in that time? The point is that pro-abortion forces promised child abuse would go down and it went completely and radically in the other direction. The bland dismissals of the apparent connection are very unconvincing.
Those who refuse to give full weight to human life argue from what we don’t know and ignore what we do. No one here has yet disputed that the unborn child is alive, nor human. Instead we quibble about nebulous things like when the “eikon” comes to the little being, or when “personhood” can be granted, matters that conveniently cannot be settled because they are beyond the reach of any rational means to quantify.
It is the spirit of this age to reject reason in favor of mere sentiment, to not engage with the facts in favor of mysterious possibilities of what might be.
Here’s my challenge. Prove to me that the unborn child is neither alive, nor human and I’ll change my position! But show me something beyond metaphysical speculation and wishful thinking. I sincerely hope when I’m a patient in postmodern medical facilities, my case is determined by a pulse and measureable brain activity and not by someone’s theoretical speculation about whether I am a “person”.
Until then, I will strenuously argue that, at minimum, genetically human creatures with beating hearts and active brains are just as human as I and just as worthy of protection. Not that it will do any good, but I will at least have a clean conscience.

Dan,
Yes – I would bet reporting increased that much. There is no way that the social climate in the country changed that much in short order to effect a real 400% increase in abuse from 73 to 80. To propose that it did before considering and ruling out every other possible answer is, quite frankly, stupid. Numbers have to make sense. It is far more likely that the ground rules for reporting changed.
But the child abuse argument is an orthogonal rabbit trail anyway. And no one, least of all me, is asking you to change your position.

Paul – # 56, I understand what you’re saying because I would naturally tend to agree with you about implantation. However, I think it is a misrepresentation of the RCC view to say that it is about birth control. It is about the value of life and the image of God. They argue that the sperm and the egg are potential human life, and because of that sacred imago dei, this potential needs to be treated as more then just matter and not “prevented”. It is an argument about life and the imago dei. Is this philosophy easily discounted? It at least is consistent in its value of the creation of life and doesn’t stoop to arguing about finding a “point” or “moment”, which is virtually impossible.
When I try to decide at which POINT we become human, I land at implantation, but I have been reprimanded that this sort of search for a “point” of ensoulment is dangerous because it is so unclear, and because life MUST be defended, we should return to a point that is “safe”. That, however, is usually presented as being conception, and to me it makes no sense that this is any more “safe” then a Roman Catholic view.
Beyond that, it bothers me that I constantly hear anti-abortion arguments (which I agree with), but very little self-analyzation about the pill and the patch (which can cause an abortion if life begins at conception). If we (the church) really care about this abortion, why aren’t we addressing this potentially pervasive method of abortion within our own communities? That has HUGE implications. I myself use one of these hormonal methods of birth control, and I echo the letter that Scot posted in my longing to base my life on the truth of biblical principles. I have looked for guidance from the church and have only heard “abortion is bad”, but no guidance on this important question.

I have no problem believing that abuse reporting has increased 400%. Because of my daughter’s situation our family was investigated twice by CPS. My son was hauled out of class during an exam to be interrogated by social workers. We have a file on us even though we have never hit, swore, neglected or even barely yelled at our children. We have a file on us because of an overzealous psychologist and because any report of possible abuse, no matter how unlikely, needs to be recorded. I know a number of stable loving families where families were reported because a neighbour heard “yelling” or because a teenager has complained on Facebook about her/his parents. Teachers, nurses, counsellors, clergy, social workers – any one who works with children is mandated to report any suspicion of child abuse founded or not.

RJS, I would dispute your use of the phrase “stupid”. I would not say that the 400% increase is caused “only” by legalizing feticide, but to say it had no effect is not exactly reasonable either. Numerous studies have been done on the linkage, such as this one, but a hopefully not “stupid” PhD:
http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijpn/vol6n2/abortion.xml
I would like to see real evidence that reporting rules changed in such a fashion as to lead to such a rapid rise between 1973 and 1980. I doubt awareness of that issue was on the front burner in those years, but you are correct, abuse is tangential to the question at hand.
For the record, I AM arguing for others to change their position, because I do not think the view that everyone’s opinion on this matter is equaly valid. There are many issues in life and politics that are “grey” areas. This is simply not one of them. Either abortion is the unjustified killing of an innocent human being or it is not. As I read Genesis 9:6, the shedding of INNOCENT blood is condemned (and not coincidently, capital punishment is not condemned, simply because murderers are not innocent.)
If the pro-life position is correct, then we have allowed in this country somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 million innocent deaths, sanctioned and given blessing by our courts. This was a judicial decision based on an ill-defined right to privacy and made in the absence of solid reasoning based on medical fact. In the intervening years the medical data made the decision even more indefensible.
It pains me deeply that so many who profess to be Christians have adopted either a pro-choice view, or worse claimed to be pro-life while supporting stridently pro-choice candidates for “other” reasons. I see no rational basis for this state of affairs, only positions adopted on the basis of sentiment, feeling, desire for autonomy and speculation about metaphysics.
In two weeks, there is a likelihood that the most stridently pro-death senator in the history of this country will win the presidency, will appoint Court Justices who will solidify a culture of death for at least another generation and will sign FOCA into law, effectively ending debate on this issue for good. Thirty years of prayers, tears and work on the part of Christian pro-life groups on behalf of the unborn will be pulled apart – and it will be progressive Christians who will have tipped the balance toward the culture of death.
I’m a pretty lonely voice on this matter, it seems. But as Francis Schaeffer once said of this country, “I no longer pray for justice, I pray only for mercy”.

I suppose that the discernment required to conclude that abortion is wrong (a “sin”) is different than the conviction to make it illegal. I believe that murder is wrong, at any stage of life, and so abortion should be made illegal. But I also understand that my position is a cultural conclusion, not a spiritual one. In other words, my American Constitutional belief is that the function of government is to prevent and convict bodily harm against others, enforce contracts, and provide for the general welfare. That’s it. But that also means the government should protect the fetus against harm. There is no need to decide on dates of implantation or whatever. Unfortunatley a fetus cannot speak for itself or vote so those jobs are left up to us.
Don’t be fooled by the “poor 15 year-old girl who was raped by her dad” or the “if she doesn’t have an abortion, she will die” arguments. The overwhelming number of abortions in the world are for contraception. The fetus becomes an inconvenience and so is sacrificed on the altar of convenience. If the law allows this to happen, it really is an implicit approval. For example, the rate of alcohol-related deaths went down during Prohibition. And that was a law far less related to bodily harm than the killing of a human life.

Dan,
The study you link is interesting. It shows a correlation among women with a history of maltreating their children, where those who had a prior abortion reported a higher number of incidents of abuse toward subsequent children than those who had not had an abortion.
My main point here though is that misuse of of statistics and studies does not help make a case. It makes one an easy target for others. I’d never make a good politician…

# 39 Dan
What you write is elegant and right on accurate. So much for that “every child, wanted child” argument.
# 42 Denny
You get to the theological heart of the issue.
As a resident of Kansas, where George Tiller proudly boasts in his skill as a late term abortionist, justice demands an end to this tragedy and human rights for all.

Just to re-restate that the core question was still unanswered and deserves discussion…. as was stated by comment number 21,27 and 51 (and my previous post at 50)
….
“I feel like you haven???t really responded to many of the concerns that were raised in the original email. Saying that abortion is wrong because humans are Eikons makes sense, but you still haven???t addressed how we know when a fetus becomes an Eikon.
You wrote, ???Humans are Eikons once they are conceived.??? I don???t necessarily disagree with that statement, but I would also like to know why you think that is the case…”

Timmy C,
Your question is a pesky one and I’ll tell you why: I think I answered it when I said those biblical texts aren’t talking about “when cells become a person”. So, for me, there is nothing in the Bible to answer that question.
What we are left with is discernment based on what the Bible does say — we are Eikons (even in the womb) — and what science says.
My own view of the matter: the moment of conception begins a process of the formation of a human being who is an Eikon. To interrupt that process from the moment of conception on is to interrupt in the formation of an Eikon.
I thought this was obvious in my comment but evidently not.

Dan #39 said: There is no rational, factual reason to suggest it is anything less than both living and human. ???Personhood???, as used by Roe, is an arbitray legal term that gets in the way of the medical facts.
I respond: I agree with the conclusion that abortion is morally wrong, but I think you’re overstating the case here. What gives us dignity is not simply that we are biologically “alive” and genetically “human.” Rather, what gives us dignity is the capacity to bear the image of God, which includes various aspects of cognition.
For example, assume that a person’s brain is removed and that the body is kept alive by artificial means. Is that living, genetically human body a person? As a more realistic example, assume that a person dies and that her organs are harvested for transplantation. The organs — lungs, heart, liver — are kept alive prior to transplantation. Are those living, genetically human organs human persons in themselves?
It seems clear to me that something more is needed than merely “living and genetically human.” I would refer here to the “potentiality principle,” developed well by Robert George and others. In a developing human embryo (as well as in even the most debilitated child or adult), there is at least some potentiality for the exercise of the sorts of affective and cognitive capacities we associate with being “human.” Because of the immense value of the human, it is wrong to terminate such potentialities.

Scot, In your comment at #67, I agree with what you’r saying – that the text doesn’t provide clear direction, so we come to it with with biblical principles. Your conclusion then is “..To interrupt that process from the moment of conception on is to interrupt in the formation of an Eikon.”
I guess my question is – why pinpoint this objection from the moment of conception? What reason do you have to particularly choose this point rather then to take an RCC view and say that it is wrong to interrupt the process of the joining of an egg and sperm?

Kacie (#60) says, “I think it is a misrepresentation of the RCC view to say that it is about birth control. It is about the value of life and the image of God. They argue that the sperm and the egg are potential human life, and because of that sacred imago dei, this potential needs to be treated as more then just matter and not “prevented”. It is an argument about life and the imago dei.”
I’ll have to disagree with the RCC on this then and say that it’s easy to draw a line (at conception) between “potential” and actual human life. Extending protection beyond actual to potential life requires additional justification which I don’t see. Unless sperm and egg are joined, they die. I don’t understand who either cell can bear the imago dei in itself.

Paul (#70), it seems you’re arguing here that because the sperm and egg survive only after joining, we cannot say that there is life prior to this. To me, this reasoning can be pushed way further to say that the egg and sperm do not survive unless implanted in the womb – they cannot become a child without this. And even then, a fetus cannot survive survive outside the womb until late-term pregnancy…
so those arguements have led people to approve all but late-term abortions. It seems to me that we must have a better reason for life beginning at conception then that it doesn’t survive until this point.

Kacie (#69) and Timmmy C (#66), thank you for also seeing the ambiguity and difficulties that I’m seeing.
Scot, in #67, you wrote: “What we are left with is discernment based on what the Bible does say ??? we are Eikons (even in the womb) ??? and what science says.”
Combining discernment of Biblical texts with science could easily lead one to conclude that we become Eikons after some milestone (e.g., the formation of the brain or the existence of sperm and egg in sexual partners). How do you come to the conclusion that we are Eikons THE WHOLE TIME we are in the womb from what the Bible says?
Your views of the matter were obvious from your posting, but your reason for holding those views is not. You’re not using the verses mentioned in the original letter to arrive at your conclusion in a legalistic way, so how are you arriving at your conclusion that a fetus is an Eikon from conception?

Thanks Scott… that clarification helps somewhat…
I do see and think most would agree that conception is the start of “the process of formation of an Eikon” and agree the question is pesky.
“Eikon’s exist from the moment of conception” implied to me a bit more than conception as the start of the process of Eikon creation that by definition is not complete at the first step.
I’d add that over the ages believers discernment on this issue has lead to varied conclusions in my understanding.
(It would seem that the discernment of early Jews did not believe the fetus was fully human until birth, St Jerome and others felt it did not occur until the fetal body was formed, and for Augustine and Aquinas it was not until quickening 30-40 days in…before that it WAS life, but live not unlike vegatable life)
For me, the point of thinking and praying over this issue discernment seemed to lead me to looking at when brain waves first begin in ways that mimic children’s brain waves. After all we consider “brain death” to be a key sign of the ceasing of life. Perhaps the first real functioning brain is a good marker for the human being or Eikon being first reaching formation.
Perhaps you draw the line at when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible. That is measurable via brain waves scanning, and occurs at about 6 months into pregnancy.

Dan,
Well, I don’t think the Bible addresses the question we keep asking here: when do cells become Eikons.
Discernment involves church bodies and not just individuals, and so I will appeal here to the RCC and other such bodies who have argued against intervention into the Eikon-forming process.
My point is this: from the moment of conception cells are in formation to become Eikons. I don’t know “when” that happens; nor does anyone else. One can’t infer from “brain” to Eikon because the genesis of “brain” is set into motion at conception. So, I take the conservative route here in agreement with many, many others: from the moment of conception the Eikon is being formed and intervention against that Eikon formation is violence.

Timmy,
Well, I think it’s clear I draw the line at conception, not at the outset of brain waves.

SteveT (#22):
I think you and I agree. What I was saying is I beleve the Church has deferred to the gov’t way too much. We should not be waiting for the gov’t or even let the gov’t step in and manage things and then the Church “pick up the slack.”
The Church is not the stable boy for gov’t. We are to be much more proactive and compassionate than any government. The government is not compassionate it has no capacity for compassion. But the Church on the other hand is full of compassion or ought to be because we are full of Christ. And I also don’t believe that Jesus had any intention for His Church to be carrying water for any regime and we need to stop abdicating.
Peace. Bill. +

Kacie (#71): My point is this: It takes a fertilized egg for an individual human being to develop. Egg and sperm cells do not do that on their own. Implantation doesn’t make a difference. Without it the child will become an ectopic pregnancy and will not survive, true. But it’s still a unique human being and would have grown naturally as one on its own given the proper environment to do so. Intrinsically, a human life begins at conception. After that she needs the proper environment (uterus, womb, and good postnatal and child care after birth) to survive. But these are all extrinsic qualities that don’t change the inherent status of the individual as a human being. I hope this is clear. I don’t think I can make it much more so.

As a nurse (for whatever that’s worth) and a mom (ditto), I’m on the side of conception.
Conception creates a singular moment in time where 2 sets of chromosomes combine to form a unique and new genetic creation. If allowed to proceed to its natural conclusion, that new creation will become a living, breathing, outside-the-womb human being.
To define it before conception looks at 2 entities, a sperm and an egg, which are genetic components of their respective donors, rather than of a new life. Individually they proceed to nothing on their own.
To define it after conception looks at developmental milestones that don’t actually have a singular moment. Brain wave development is fascinating, but has no singular moment and can only be determined after the fact.
The only alternative to this that I find logical is to consider implantation as a defining moment for all the same reasons, but like Scot, I default to the more conservative definition.
To Timmy C, “After all we consider ???brain death??? to be a key sign of the ceasing of life.”…. brain death is a relatively recently created medico-legal definition that was largely invented/defined for 2 reasons – To facilitate the removal/transplantation of organs and to facilitate the removal of someone from life support. Such a concept did not exist before the technology of organ transplantation and respirators. I’ve cared for “patients” who have been pronounced brain dead, yet maintained on respirators until transplantation. It’s an unsettling experience, as you are usually treating unresponsive patients on life support – that breathing, heart-beating person with compassion and tenderness, always speaking gently and with respect. Once declared brain dead and available for transplantation, that same body must be maintained w/ a similar standard of care, yet speaking to the “patient” while carrying on the physical care of a very much alive body which is declared “brain dead” seems strange, to say the least. “Brain death” is a simple construct in theory – quite odd in reality.
RJS, many thanks for your attention to the use and abuse of statistics and for your patient clarifications.
Mariam, again as a nurse whose practice spanned decades, I agree that the awareness of child abuse and the propensity to report has increased dramatically in recent years. We all have many examples, but I think of a young couple I know who are parents of a child w/ a condition that requires steroid treatment, a known side effect of which is weakened bones. The child had a spontaneous fracture of a limb. They were reported to social services for potential abuse and were not allowed to take their child home from the ER. The child’s pediatrician was furious at the report and tried to have it retracted, but once done and in the system, the nightmare goes on and on. This is not in any way to criticize the over-reporting – far better than under-reporting (though some intelligent thought on the part of that ER doc would have been nice … the simple point being is that the situation that we are currently in has changed dramatically from years past to produce more reporting.
And back to my position from the previous post, I don’t see what it helps to make abortion illegal. If you’re not going to incarcerate women (though many would choose this), what would you propose? Fines? Then those with money simply see it as the cost of abortion. Traffic tickets? Pointless. Misdemeanors? Generating a criminal record that impacts one’s ability to work doesn’t seem helpful. Incarcerating the abortion provider? As I recall, that didn’t work very well.
My final thought is that if we would just take the punitive approach – the argument of making abortion illegal – off the table, then maybe we could start making the argument for life without getting everyone’s back up who wants to defend/ have mercy on the woman (btw, that would be me).

Response to #73, 74, and 75:
I think my thoughts on these issues run somewhat like Timmy’s. Using discernment I find it hard to come to the conclusion that a zygote is an Eikon, and that would mean that we are not violating the sacredness of an Eikon if we use very early term abortion measures (e.g., the “morning after” pill). (Please don’t take that as my definite conclusion, it just seems to be where the evidence is leading me at this point in the conversation.)
Erring on the side of safety seems like a good idea, but I how far do we take that? As has been mentioned many times above, RCC safe is different from “at conception” safe, but you’ve decided “at conception” is safe enough for some reason. Timmy has decided that first brain waves is safe enough.
It seems that the sacredness of Eikons has allowed you to make the issue of abortion a moral issue (and I don’t disagree with that), but you seemed to have taken a leap of discernment when you decided that a fetus is an Eikon at conception. Timmy’s leap of discernment led him to a different conclusion.
Perhaps this is the crux of my difficulty: how do we know that your leap of discernment is the right leap? What do we do when conclusions of discernment contradict?

Paul (#77), you wrote, “It takes a fertilized egg for an individual human being to develop. Egg and sperm cells do not do that on their own.”
If we give them the right environment (i.e., no birth control), they will do that on their own. One can conclude that a sperm and an egg contain the intrinsic qualities of human beings even while they are seperate. Preventing a sperm and egg from uniting (e.g., by using a condom) could be considered to be similar to preventing a zygote from implanting. They both stop life that would have otherwise existed.

Dan H. (#80) says, “If we give them the right environment (i.e., no birth control), [sperm and egg] will [conceive] on their own.”
Not necessarily. That’s a contingency, not a necessity. That’s the difference. Reducing the likelihood of a contingency or a potential occurrence like fertilization is not the same as actively destroying an already conceived and developing human being. Your arguments against birth control would also apply against abstinence since eggs and sperm are ovulated and produced all the time by human bodies they go to waste whenever people abstain from sexual activity at the opportune times.

Today « Living Is Easy With Your Eyes Closed

[...] and this. ? ? [...]

“So, humans are Eikons once they are conceived…” In the preceding paragraph you argued that humans are eikons of God, then in the next paragraph you make this conclusion, which I think is an unsupported leap. I am not saying it is not true, but you did nothing to demonstrate your point. And that IS the point: when does the fetus become a person? On that question, I think the person who wrote in with the original question had some decent suggestions.

Thank you, Kacie, Dan H., and Richard. You are articulating my questions much better than I did.
Thank you, Scot, for explaining better the logic upon which you base your conclusion.
And to the rest, my heartfelt appreciation for discussing this so thoughtfully. This is the discussion we need more of in the marketplace.

Dianne P (#78), thanks for your comments. They are well worth reading. I disagree that making abortion illegal would do no good. Its legal status certainly does plenty of harm. See my comment #29 above. But it should be done gradually and, like someone else said, with no penalties for the women. only for those who perform abortions on them.

Paul, I appreciated the reference to go back and read your post #29. By post #85, my head starts to spin and my eyes pop out. But enough of my whining.
I don’t know your age, but I recall, during my college years at Kent State in the 70s (oh my, oh my), driving young college women to illegal abortion providers. I don’t know what it would help to make illegal the provision of abortions, other than to make it a nasty business, but a thriving business, nonetheless. I would like to think otherwise, but my memory tells me “not”.
I’m not so sure that it’s “legal” status does so much harm, as does its “OK” status. I don’t much care that it’s legal, in fact I prefer to remove the barriers that “illegal” creates. However, I very much want to make it NOT OK. Or better yet, to create an OK environment that makes choosing life a good thing. If that makes any sense.
If I can think of a good analogy, I’ll post on it.

Dianne P. (#86) what you say makes a lot of sense. But I think being “legal” has had a very strong bearing on abortion being “OK”. But I agree with you in the sense that, given where we are today, most of the effort has to go into showing why abortion is not OK. But I think legal constraints should follow that consensus at some point. For example, there is strong consensus against late term “partial birth” abortions and for parental consent laws, I think. But the courts and pro-choice activists thwart that consensus.

Thanks for those thought Dianne P. You hit the issue squarely. I tend to view the abortion issue as one that has been lost, if you will, in the sense of the fight to make abortion illegal. I tend to see the evangelicals as having lost this issue due to the language we speak. That is, by proclaiming rights as paramount – the question becomes whose right is primary – the unborn child, the mother, the father, society in general, etc. and on it goes. Now I do not want to be seen as suggesting abortion should be legal or as you say ok. Rather, if we evangelicals (and of course that must be said most humbly as I am far from convinced I can actually speak for evangelicals directly) profess Christ, we must also profess a belief in the sacredness of life which is transcendent of human conceptions on the question of primacy of rights. As such, the medical/scientific/philosophical questions of when does life begin, when does one become human etc. become meaningless as conception is the beginning of a person made in the image of God and has value simply as such. We must begin to speak a language consistent with that understanding – the we being the church as community – meaning grace to the mother and father, to the child, loving them in the concrete mundane of the struggle that will ensue as well as fostering an environment where life is seen as a blessing and not a curse but also an environment where young people are exposed to these ideas in a way that is real to them so they have some preparation for the choice they may face someday rather than dealing with the “crisis” as it hits them. Hauerwas writes extensively on this topic and of course Community of Atonement speaks well on this matter as well.

Just to correct something. Apparently, brain waves start at 6 weeks, not 6 months. Big difference. Or is it?

Dianne, #86, you articulated my thoughts after reading through this comment stream so well! I’m not old enough to have driven girls to an abortion provider, but I can imagine their desparation while taking that action.
How hard is it to get into the head of a woman/girl in a crisis pregnancy? How hard is it to target our interventions to meet those needs? Sure. Some get abortions callously with no regard to the new life in their wombs. But I would guess that for most, it’s an agonizing decision.
My daughter got pregnant at 15. She waited four months to tell her father and I because she thought we’d make her get an abortion. How she came to that conclusion, I’ll never know. But my guess is that a pregnant 15 year old girl does not think clearly. After our initial upset, we got down to the business at hand: supporting our daughter.
Our church did wonderfully. They prayed for us. They threw her a shower. They have taken an interest in the life our our granddaughter who is now almost 3. But there was another side. Another group of loving church ladies thought she shouldn’t have a shower. After all, wasn’t that condoning what she did? My own mother thought I should not allow my daughter to have an epidural during her birth experience. “So she wouldn’t forget it” was her reasoning. I don’t think my response to her that day fulfilled the fifth commandment but I’ve sought forgiveness.
If we don’t make an environment of love and support where a girl or woman in a crisis pregnancy feels safe and supported there will continue to be abortions, whether they’re legal or not. If we continue to stigmatize sexual sins as if they are the fast track to hell where God’s grace doesn’t actually reach, we will continue to have abortions.
Mans’s wrath does not work the righteousness of God.

Hi again,
I really hate to be a pain, but I still feel like I haven’t really gotten a response to my inquiries.
Just for some quick background: I have been reading the Jesus Creed blog for about 3 months now. I have found it very informative, helpful, and instructive. Scot and everyone else have been very good at demonstrating how constructive dialog can happen around some tough issues.
Until this post on abortion, I had yet to offer any comments on the website, but I am genuinely intrigued by some of what Scot has said in this post. As a physics graduate, I really appreciate the fact that Scot is pointing out that the Bible is a document of it’s times and that it doesn’t have the “sophistication” to address some issues directly–instead we must use discernment.
Until I had read Scot’s post yesterday morning I believed that it was wrong to abort a fetus at any stage after conception, but Scot’s post regarding Eikons has made me question that position. You see, I was content to blindly accept what other Christians had told me, but Scot is forcing me to think about why it’s actually wrong.
The assertion that its wrong to destroy Eikons seems to be quite plain to me, but that only allows me to conclude that murder is wrong, but it says nothing about abortion being murder. In order to conclude that abortion is wrong at all stages we must believe that a fetus is an Eikon at all stages, and that seems like a problem of science more than anything else.
I mean, when one examines a zygote, it has few features that would lead me to conclude that it is made in the image of God. How much does a zygote have in common with a human infant? They both have genes, but I don’t feel that individuality (or Eikon status) is found in the genes. (If it were, wouldn’t that mean that identical twins are actually only one individual?) Locating it in the brain or blood or something else seems to make more sense, but in that case it is okay to abort a zygote. Maybe we can claim there is some metaphysical individuality that comes into existence at conception, but if the Bible can’t tell us that, then how do we know?
Do people see my dilemma? Bringing the concept of Eikons into the debate only gives us good evidence that murder is wrong, it doesn’t tell us if or when abortion becomes murder.
Admittedly, I think it’s probably a good idea to be on the safe side, but “playing it safe” is a much more shaky position to base an argument on.
Hopefully someone still notices this post,
Dan

Hey Dan, I’m still reading! I am with you in my questioning. Some of these issues were presented to me in college, so I have taken the view that personhood begins at implantation, for a number of reasons.
Recently, though, this discussion has come up again as a result of the current political issues, and has been addressed in my husband’s seminary courses. If have ended up only with more questions and feeling quite unsatisfied with answers many people are giving. Abortion is wrong because it’s murder, people say, but few have ever thought through the actual process of from a sexual act to the birth of a child, and is it difficult to say at what point we are dealing with the image of God.
I was excited when I saw this topic come up on the blog because this decision is not just a sky-high discussion to engage in. For me, if I decide one way, my husband and I need to change our method of birth control in order to be faithful. That’s very personal. I have felt… umm.. I guess unsatisfied by most of the answers. I struggle to know where to turn to for advice about this since I know so few who truly engage in theology, philosophy, and science on this issue.

Dan H.,
For me, the eikon status is grounded in the genes. The story of each person begins when 2 separate genetic identities (dad and mom) combine to form a uniquely genetic being. Twins don’t complicate it for me, as it just brings into play the concepts of space and time. Twins occupy 2 different locations in space and will encounter, throughout their lifetime, 2 different sets of circumstances, 2 different times of birth, different relationships etc – all because of the simple reality that they occupy 2 different spaces.
BTW, I think it’s an dazzlingly brilliant way for God to use 2 people to create someone entirely new and different from, yet similar to, their parents.
I guess I don’t share your need to define abortion in terms of murder. I think it’s seriously wrong to abort, but I also understand that circumstances take some people in that direction. As long as babies continue to grow inside moms, they are intertwined beings in a unique way that make comparisons to other situations not relevant for me. I appreciate your desire for more definition and clarity… I just think it’s (way) more complicated than that – and I’m ok with that.

BTW: here is where I first saw the definition of brain activity as a possible line where a legal Person first exists…from Pastor/Author Gregory A. Boyd:
“My proposal ??? my humble, personal, non-kingdom, political
view on what would be best for America at this present stage in our history ??? is that we take the criteria for when a person is no longer a ???legal person??? (the
criteria for death) and simply reverse it for the unborn.
Now, no one knows ???God???s perspective??? on when exactly a person dies, when the soul leaves the body, etc??? Yet we as a culture have agreed that when the electromagnetic activity in a brain falls beneath a certain threshold, they are to no longer be considered ???legal persons.???
Our criteria for death was not revealed by God. Indeed, it???s actually quite arbitrary. The people we pronounce dead continue to replicate cells and grow hair and finger nails, for example.
And we could easily raise or lower the minimum threshold of brain activity necessary to remain a ???legal person.??? Yet, with rare exceptions, there???s no controversy in our
culture surrounding when a person is no longer a ???legal person.???
My humble, personal, non-kingdom, political proposal is that we might be able to move beyond the ugly impasse we???ve hit in our culture on the abortion issue ???
the impasse that is allowing babies to be aborted that both sides wish weren???t aborted ??? by stretching our consensus on the ???legal loss of personhood??? to cover
the ???legal beginning of personhood.???
When the unborn???s brainwaves are above the level that constitutes the loss of legal personhood, perhaps Americans could agree they should be considered legal persons. I am told by neurologists that this occurs between the 11th and 12th week of pregnancy.”

And then I saw this later (though it was written much earlier) from the late Carl Sagan:
Carl Sagan:
“The trouble with these particular developmental milestones is not just that they’re arbitrary. More troubling is the fact that none of them involves uniquely human characteristics–apart from the superficial matter of facial appearance.
Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain–principally in the top layers of the convoluted “gray matter” called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn’t begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy–the sixth month.
By placing harmless electrodes on a subject’s head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves.
But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy–near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this–however alive and active they may be–lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.
…If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.
It is, in fact, a very conservative definition: Regular brain waves are rarely found in fetuses. More research would help??? If we wanted to make the criterion still more stringent, to allow for occasional precocious fetal brain development, we might draw the line at six months.”

Carl Sagan! Seriously, did he believe in personhood at all? He believed in “thought” but thinking is not really the same as personhood. I think his agenda and philosophy call his conclusions into question.

By the way, by Sagan’s 30th week criteria, he could say infanticide was allowable.

Kacie (#92) and Dianne (#93), glad to hear your still reading. I also am glad to hear you admit that this issue is very complicated and escapes easy definition and conclusions. I think that’s what caused me the most consternation about Scot’s post and a lot of the responses that I’ve been seeing: to me, relating the morality of abortion to the idea of Eikons makes things much more complicated rather than simple, yet for many people seem to be acting like the concept simplifies the issue and allows them to make rock solid conclusions. When it didn’t make things easier for me, I had to wonder if I had missed something.
I guess I just needed a chance to things things over in conversation and to make sure that my thinking wasn’t completely nuts. Things were “easier” for me before I read Scot’s original post, now they’re more complex, but I don’t mourn that loss of naivety. Instead, want to engage with these ideas. Thanks.

I included the Sagan quote because it was an example of an agnostic as well as the Boyd quote from a Christian coming to similar conclusions…showing how the idea of using when brain waves exist in a developing fetus as a marker for when it becomes a “Person” as an idea that could bridge both believer and non-believer alike… And yes, whether it was self-consistent or not, Sagan was a firm believer in human rights for “Persons”, just not from a Christian world view.

I’m confused about the whole discussion of measurement of brain activity to define personhood. Why does the lack of some level of brain activity count against the fetus in this respect. The condition is temporary. Why is a temporary condition used to determine whether it’s OK to kill someone? How much brain activity does a “normal” adult display during dreamless sleep? If it’s not significantly distinguishable from that of a fetus, is it OK to kill people while they’re in this state? No, because we regard it as a temporary condition. This, most importantly, distinguishes it from end-of-life scenarios where we might expect the condition to be permanent and decide to withhold life preserving measures and let death take its natural course. Applying such criteria at the other end of life’s spectrum seems like an attempt to justify active intervention to end a human life based on a temporary condition. I don’t think its justified at all.

Are we really still posting on this one? Ok, to add to your point Paul, our hubris is showing when we assume that something does not exist because it cannot be measured by our current tools. Although I’m quite passionate about science, I think that this is it’s Achilles Heel – to think that “what we know now” is somehow the ultimate in knowledge. There seems to be no wisdom or humility gained in reflecting that just decades (years, months, days) ago… we didn’t know what we know now. And in just decades, years, months, days… we’ll know more than we know now.
And to the complexity issue, Dan H and others, the reason I do not think that we can come up with simple (I didn’t say easy) answers is that “conception to birth” is a process – a dynamic unfolding of the development of a life, not just a moment in time. That’s why we call it a miracle. Or like the RCC mass – Let us proclaim the mysteries of faith – so, let us proclaim the mystery/miracle of life. Just like the bible is a dynamic unfolding story, not just a collection of isolated precepts/propositions.

Hey, it’s me again. Thanks for all the contributions–I had hoped for this kind of discussion when I sent Scot the original letter.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have an incredibly serious issue (the possible killing of innocents) with pretty much zero information–or maybe better to say contradictory information. So we have a question we desperately must answer (When does personhood begin?), and are completely unable to with any real confidence.
Oh, one point I’d like to raise on the “best to be safe” position: isn’t that what led the Pharisees to build a “fence around Torah”? Does declaring “life/personhood begins at conception” (and, by extension, condemning a pro-choice position as sin, horrible sin) fall into the category of elevating the precepts of man to the doctrines of God?
This kind of strikes at the heart of my unease with Scot’s “discernment” model. Does it elevate the thinking of the community to the status of Scriptre?
I’d be curious to hear your thoughts, folks.

Passionate,
Let me try to put this together:
From my read of your letter, you aren’t convinced the Bible has a clarity on when a group of cells become a “person” in order to determine if abortion is appropriate.
My response was two-fold:
1. The Bible is not only unclear but it is so because the category of “when cells become a person” isn’t within the orbit of the Bible’s authors.
2. I appeal then to the need for the Church to “discern” how to put the Bible’s raw materials into a shape that answers that question.
3. My own read of that discernment, an attempt to discern how the Church reads this stuff and not one where I attempt to go at it alone, is that the Church thinks at the moment of conception the cells are forming into an Eikon. So, therefore, abortion is violence against an Eikon.
4. I’ve never suggested the Church’s discernment is the “status of Scripture” — and never have I. (I believe we have to respect at a profound level anything the great traditions clearly affirm — like the Trinity.)
5. On the “safe” tradition: yes, I fall into that category on this issue but it’s a little pejorative to connect safeness with the Pharisees. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. But by calling this discernment instead of Scripture, I rely on John 16′s promise of Spirit guidance instead of calling it the “doctrines of God”.
6. If you are asking if the Bible teaches at conception cells become Eikons, I keep saying we can’t prove that. So, what are we left with?
7. I see three possibilities:
a. Go with this rather widespread conclusion of the Church’s discernment.
b. Go with science, which really has to invent the idea of when cells become persons by such things as brain acitivities, and ignore the Church’s tradition.
c. Go at it alone and let each person make up his or her mind.
Where are we?

Dianne (#101), I would agree with you that it is foolish to think that science tells us all that we need to know, but can’t it also be viewed as hubris when we stubbornly hold to a view despite the fact that science seems to be suggesting that the evidence leads to a different conclusion?
The fact that we’re having this debate seems to indicate to me that we all believe science and faith coexist, some just seem to have “mixed” their faith and science differently than others. In some ways this debate about abortion doesn’t seem to be so very different from some debates about evolution.
One thing that I find refreshing about the discernment approach is that it allows us to dialog with science and secular thought (as Timmy suggested with his quote from Sagan) in a way that allows some common ground. I’m not convinced that the pro-life cause can really get anywhere when the majority of it’s arguments are pinned on Scripture and tradition. I think that exploring the philosophy and science surrounding the idea of conception and personhood is extremely important for that reason.

Scot (#103),
Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound perjorative. I was raising it as a question/concern, not a rebuke. As long as we take our discernment with a hefty dose of humility, we’re on pretty safe ground.
I would like to make a distinction between this issue and theology like the Trinity, because I think this strikes at the heart of my concern. Theology that seeks to understand and harmonize biblical teaching is, for the most part, safe ground. And that’s what I would see Trinitarian doctrine falling into. But theology that seeks to extrapolate beyond what Scripture says seems to me to be more dangerous.
Certainly the biblical writers knew nothing of in utero development of a fetus, but they did know that sex leads to procreation (for instance, calling semen and offspring both “seed”). Is it a reach to say that they could have said that the new child’s existence begins when the parents have sex?
I would suggest a fourth option to your trio: that the Church stay silent on theological matters that Scripture stays silent on. Well, maybe that’s just a different wording of number three on your list.

Passionate,
“Is it a reach …?” The famous sin of Onan might well show that they saw in the male’s seed the mystery of it all and that might suggest violence against the male’s seed was violence against God’s designs.
I don’t believe we can be silent on this one; the Scripture’s “silence” is an eloquent silence of raw materials and that silence leads to the Church’s near universal affirmation that abortion is violence.

Dan H. (104) says, “I would agree with you that it is foolish to think that science tells us all that we need to know, but can’t it also be viewed as hubris when we stubbornly hold to a view despite the fact that science seems to be suggesting that the evidence leads to a different conclusion?”
Yes, but for that possibility to be relevant to this discussion you need to show how and why it applies to the argument of those you disagree with your point of view. Otherwise you are treating that point of view unfairly, dismissing with hand waving generalities, not substance.
I think Diane is right to view the attempt to define personhood in scientifically measurable terms as hubris. Science overreaches its bounds in this area. The point of my comment (100) is that it seems like scientific hubris to attempt to define personhood by the temporary qualities of a human being. I appears to be a stubborn attempt at justification of the status quo where abortion is concerned.

Scott:
Thanks for sticking with this thread, and I very much appreciate the tone that everyone is taking.
I agree the church should not be silent on abortion, but overspeaking Scripture would be a danger as well. It would seem that a stance could be made that does not do either.
Also in terms of Church history (and I bring this up not a a challenge but as a check of my own understanding) in terms of when Personhood begins, and thus when violence is occurring in abortion, hasn’t there been less than 100% agreement?
Below are snippets of research I’d been doing trying to figure out my views on the subject:
1. Jews and Ensoulement
a. traditionally believed that it occured when baby’s head (or if born feet first, the majority of their body) exited the womb. Prior to that it was ALIVE, but not a Person, and in cases of Mom’s health or life, the fetus could be aborted. Prior to birth, the preborn was considered human life, but not unlike an apendage of the Mom. The Talmud says: ‘ubar yerech imo–the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,’ i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman’s body.”
b. For Jews traditionally the embryo was not considered to be of the same moral status of “water” or “fluid” until the 40th day of pregnancy for men and 80th day of pregancy for women. (Yevamot 69b) and (Mishna Nidda 30A)
c. If the mom’s life is in danger, then abortion is actually mandatory under Jewish law… it is seen as akin to cutting off a limb of the mother to save her life. In the Jewish Talmud this is here: Mishna (Oholos 7:6)
2. Church Positions on Ensoulment over time
a. Augustine: (400 AD)
Believed that ensoulemnt occured at the quickening, about 4 to 5 weeks after fertilization.
St. Augustine writes that “the great question about the soul is not hastily decided by unargued and rash judgment; the law does not provide that the act abortion pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation when it is not formed in the flesh, and so not yet endowed with sense.”
and elsewhere: “unformed fetuses are like seeds which have not fructified.”
b. The Teaching of an Irish Synod (675 ad)
Illicit Intercourse is a Greater Sin…The Irish Canons place the penance for “destruction of the embryo of a child in the mother’s womb [at] three and one half years,” while the “penance of one who has intercourse with a woman, seven years on bread and water.”
St. jerome: (400 AD)
“The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs”
Gratian (1140)
In 1140, Gratian compiled the first collection of canon law that was accepted as authoritative within the church. Gratian’s code included the canon Aliquando, which concluded that “abortion was homicide only when the fetus was formed.”
Thomas Aquinas: (1200 AD)
He said ensoulment occurs at about 4 to 5 weeks after fertilization, or at the “quickening” when mom’s feel the fetus move. Before that abortions (although wrong) were not homicide because “one cannot say there is a living soul inside a body that lacks sensation…the flesh has not been formed, and thus does not have the capacity to feel.” He compared the process of fetal develpment to passing through three stages: “vegative” – alive, but analagous to non-sentient plant life – “animal” – alive, but not unlike the moral status of nonhuman animal life – and finally “rational” or capable of thoughts and feelings.
“Aristotle defined soul as that which actuates an organized physical body with the potential of life, a potential not existing apart from the soul.”45 Some see in this (an organized physical body is one that has organs that Aquinas is “saying that all the organs necessary for the proper operations of the human soul must be in place for a human rational soul to be infused in the body.” “….at the end of the process of human generation, God creates an intelligent soul.”
To Aquinas, only in the last rational stage did a fetus become ensouled and become a full Person.
Pope Innocent the III (13th Century)
He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not “animated.”
As did Pope Gregory IX (1200 AD)
Again, the Quickening is when ensoulement occurs. which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).
He issued Sedes Apostolica, which advised church officials, “where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does.”
This papal pronouncement lasted until 1869.
So it wasn’t until Pope Pius in 1869 that the Catholic church moved to it’s formal stance that ensoulment occurred at fertilization.

Paul (#107), you’re point is well taken. I would say that the hand waving generalities (and extrapolations?) abound on both sides of this argument.
“[It] appears to be a stubborn attempt at justification of the status quo where abortion is concerned.” Perhaps, but I think “playing it safe” could be seen as a stubborn attempt at justification of the status quo on the anti-abortion side (i.e., that there can be no room for dialog about things like the morning after pill).
In any case, I don’t mean to be extremely argumentative about the point. I have been a “life begins at conception” believer for a long time. It’s just that introducing the concepts of Eikons has forced me to take a step back and think about these things.
I think this discussion has more or less “run its course” for me (not that I’ve got closure, just that no one seems to be offering any new information). Thank you everyone for the thoughts.

Dan H. (#109),
I’m inclined to agree. I think Scot laid out his perspective with exceptional clarity and intellectual integrity. He does make a good point about the overwhelming (but obviously not unanimous, per Timmy C. (#108)) opposition by the Church throughout history to abortion. I think I can leave the discussion at that, now that the evidence (and lack thereof) has been clearly laid out.
Thanks to all. Unless someone offers up a new argument or perspective or piece of evidence, I think I too will bow out of this thread.

The serious issue is raised about whether a woman who is impregnated as a result of rape shoud be “forced” to bear the child by denying her the option of abortion. This morning, the verses in Deut 22 came to mind – 28 ???If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. (ESV)
In the Torah, a woman who was raped was apparently compelled to marry the rapist! Seems like bringing his child to term and then having the option of giving the child up for adoption would be a “lesser” matter.

Voting for Obama, Part 5: What About Abortion? « Running With the Lion

[...] Furthermore, I agree with Christians who find the act of abortion to be immoral, at least under normal circumstances. (I do not speak here of situations where the health of the mother, for example, is in danger or where there is no ultimate hope for a viable fetus). I believe that human beings are made in the image of God (we are “eikons”). I’m not sure we can really say when “human” life begins, but the development of the fetus within the womb is the process by which eikons are created, and – if I risk being wrong one way or the other – I prefer to “err” on the side of preserving the sacred image of God-in-people. [...]