I transferred this thread from the old Car Spy Shots Lounge since it was posted just a short time ago, and then threads were closed before much response happened.
So here goes again.
I tend to go with the crowd that sees scripture/bible as authoritative. With that in mind, I have little alternative in this issue, but to see life before or after birth as precious.
I am saddened that much current thought uses "viability of life" as the parameter of life or death for infant humans.
That "viability of life" is usually hinged on survivability, and survivability is considered post-birth canal.
I would counter the viability issue with this. Is a post-birth human or infant any less dependent on it's mother or outside help than before birth? In other words, can a new born infant immediately after birth or even 6 months after birth survive in human society by itself? Can it feed, dress, bathe, communicate needs clearly, work(contribute to society), in human society? The answer is obvious.
Now, let's look at the unborn infant. Would the same parameters exist for the unborn infant as a 0-6 month infant. Basically, yes. The unborn infant is solely dependent on the mother for nutrition, and safety. In fact many outstanding pediatricians, and researchers are starting to accept that some outside-the-womb stimulus affects the unborn too. This may include, a the host-mother talking or singing to the baby. There is much research continuing in this area. It is literally in an "infant"(lol) stage at this time.
So, with the matter of viability of life as a major factor in continuing or terminating an unborn infant's life, I am left pondering if this criteria is indeed correct or ethical.
If viability of life centers around one's dependence or independence or worth to society, where does this ultimately lead?
If there is a creator that has endowed all humans with free-will, yet many of His created beings are terminated by us before they can excercise that gift or quality of choice, what does that say about us?
Many will say that the majority of those terminated before birth were condemned to poverty, disease, or total dependency upon society through welfare. Termination of those potential, "society draining" lives was for their own good, and society's.
I personally believe that the bible clearly expresses that viability of life is determined not by the created, but by the Creator of those lives.
There is an illustration in scripture about a potter and the clay that he's molding on his work bench or wheel. In this illustration, the potter is metaphorically God, and the clay is metaphorically human's or us. In this metaphorical scene, the clay or us wants the potter or God to make us a certain way, but the potter or God, says, "your the clay, I'm the potter". Basically, what the metaphor was saying, is that when we determine the viability of life ala "unborn" we are stepping into the realm of the potter. We have absolutely no credentials to play that role. In fact for those who claim to be Christians yet wink an eye at abortion as it is in the U.S. and many other "advanced" countries, in think there needs to be some introspection.
Scripture says many things to all men and women and children. One person can read a verse and get a certain message from it and know without a doubt that God spoke/directed to them through it. Another person can read that same verse or verses and receive a totally different message and feel confirmed in their soul that God ordained it. Here's the one thing that scripture will not do. It will not contradict itself. The bible either condones abortion or doesn't.
I know that many anti-biblical or Anti-religious folks can quote scripture as well or even better than many Christians, and even point to verses that seem to speak on their behalf. The bible is to be taken in total....as a message from the Potter to the Clay, and not "piece-mealed" in order to force it to say something else.
The Potter will be questioned why He allowed entire cities to be destroyed in the Old Testament. Yet, He was the potter, all along. Who but the Potter knows the viability of a life. Creation has always longed to assert itself in the role of Creator, ala "I'm the commander and chief of my life." Without a moral compass, creation has created it's own form of morality that side-steps the issues of, personal responsibility, guilt, forgiveness, etc. Science, and philosophy, have become the mantra of creation in it's attempt to counterfeit it's Creator's intact parameters of right and wrong.
By the way Naga Lateral (Moderator) had replied to this thread in the old lounge, and I wanted to include it below.
"I really like the breakdown you present. I have had little exposure to the bible, and over the years I believe humans are more than what most religions "allows" us to be. Humans are destructive parasites, but we are still infantile on the grand scheme. Not that religion doesent serve its purpose, or that its ideas are wrong;
but in a world where a table of wealthy people basically command ( to an undeniable degree ) the quality of life or even the survival of a great many others, often for their own benefit; who is stealing the role of the potter then? ( they are doing their jobs.....? ; im not ridiculing them the least bit for it either)
Thus the analogy brings open far more than abortion.
I hope this unfolds into a good discussion. "
Naga Lateral Mlstrom
Modified by eightballsidepocket at 12:40 PM 12/21/2004