All of the anti-abortion arguments are pretty illogical.

Besides the ones you list, here are two of the worst

First, the Democratic politician position (ala John Kerry, etc.) that 'I believe abortion is wrong but can't force my religious beliefs on others.' Uh, you have no problem forcing your beliefs about murder, theft, helping the poor, etc. on the entire population. Why is abortion somehow different?

Second, there is the whole, 'Right or wrong, it is a woman's right to choose'. Once again, we already don't give women unlimited rights to choose. Otherwise, as Chesterton pointed out almost 100 years ago, why shouldn't women have the right to kill their babies after they are born as well? Currently in the US, we end fathers 'right to choose' at the moment of conception, and mothers 'right to choose' at the moment of 'birth'. So why is ending choice at those moments OK, but ending a women's right to choose at the moment of conception is not?

Abortion is, as one person (I forget who) said long ago, "on a collision course with technology". These days we can see more of what's going on in the womb earlier than ever before.

When I was much younger, the reigning argument was that "life begins at birth". You don't hear that argument much anymore, because it makes no sense.

I think that most people who are for abortion rationalize it this way: it's bad, but not as bad as forcing a woman to undergo a pregnancy and delivery, and then raising a child she doesn't want. They also will add that a child who isn't wanted doesn't have a very good life anyway.

I think both rationalizations are bad ones (especially considering the number of people who are waiting to adopt children, the "unwanted" argument is particularly bad). But I think that they will continue to hold on to these args, because they are all they have left. It's becoming more and more impossible to represent the unborn child as "just a blob of tissue".

Because I feel you need to hear from a woman who has two babies and has two adopted nieces.

I believe that the lives of these wonders started the moment that things met and changed. Yep conception. Now if you’ve read any of my comments on this in the past you might be thinking I’m changing my mind, nope I haven’t. I knew I was pregnant the moment of conception with my son and was thrilled. The two mothers who gave the little girls life did a wonderful thing for my family, they could have chosen abortion.

The hard part is that I was raised knowing the dark part of humans because of my father’s job. Men go into their daughter’s rooms at night and little girls who play with dolls end up pregnant. It’s a very sad fact that horrible things happen to little girls. Could you make a child whose body isn’t ready to have a baby have one under such circumstances?

I don’t think having a baby is good for them nor do I think abortion is. I have yet to meet a woman who was thrilled about doing it.

The only thing I can say is pray because right now a woman, a child, and a parent are making a choice that will give them a huge amount of pain for the rest of their lives.

They also will add that a child who isn't wanted doesn't have a very good life anyway.

General but basic question: Is there biblical support for the idea that life begins at conception?

[ETA: "general but basic"? What am I talking about?]

dbd,

There's this one, suggesting that even in the womb babies are human beings, alive, and able even to be affected by spiritual things (emphasis below mine):

Luke 1: 39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

I think it is perfectly consistent to oppose the US invasion/occupation of Iraq, while at the same time opposing anti-abortion laws. In fact, those are my positions (so I hope I'm consistent).

I am a pacifist. That means I don't think it is appropriate to use violence to change the world, even if the goal is ostensibly to reduce violence. So I don't support blowing up people to liberate their neighbors.

At the same time, I think abortion is immoral. I don't think it is murder in the same way that killing an infant is murder, but if you want to call it murder I don't have a problem with that classification.

Even so, I don't think it is appropriate to use men with guns to try to stamp out abortion. It doesn't work and has all sorts of unintended consequences. It's the same as thinking that cocaine abuse is immoral, but not wanting to make it illegal.

Finally, to anticipate a reductio ad absurdum: yes, I also don't think the government should use men with guns to hunt down serial killers. That's because I meant it when I said I was a pacifist and don't think violence is a good tool to change the world.

Obviously everyone reading this now thinks I am nuts, but I hope you can at least concede the consistency of my foolish views.

1. Yes, Roe collides with technology making more and more apparent that (legally permitted) murder occurs. But do not expect that collision to change opinions. Recall that history tells us that when technology did not facilitate abortions, people simply abandoned babies in the local dump.(And that Christians got in trouble with everyone because they adopted those babies.)

2. Another collision besides that of technology will certainly make the abortion practice more grisly. Roe will collide with OASDI (Social Security). I predict that this collision has already started, but will become undeniably evident within the next two decades. Kids who survived the "kill 'em" mentality of Roe will now have to face the ponzi scheme of OASDI. Trained to accept the view of life upon which Roe hinges, they will have to choose whether or not to kill older people.

Who says God had to use lightning bolts from a clear sky in order to judge a wicked nation?

Devon, it sounds consistent to me. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by opposing anti-abortion laws, though. Do you oppose laws against homicide?

I understand being opposed to "stamping out abortion through violence," although I don't think that is the recommendation of the vast majority of pro-life advocates.
Establishing and enforcing anti-abortion legislation doesn't automatically indicate committing violence against anyone.

Dweller,

Yes, I think your views are consistent, so far as you stated them, but I wonder how far you go as a complete pacifist. Saying that we shouldn't even hunt down serial killers shows you obviously go a lot further than most people who call themselves pacifists. However, to remain consistent, you have to essentially advocate complete anarchy, with no protection or justice for victims, and no punishment for any crime whatsoever.

If that is your position, I can only quote CS Lewis from his essay 'Why I am Not a Pacifist':

I therefore begin by ruling out one Pacifist position which probably no one present holds, but which conceivably might be held - that of the man who claims to know on the ground of immediate intuition that all killing of human beings is in all circumstances an absolute evil. With the man who reaches the same result by reason or authority, I can argue. Of the man who claims not to reach it but to start there, we can only say that he can have no such intuition as he claims. He is mistaking an opinion, or more likely, a passion, for an intuition. To him, we can only say that if he is not a moral idiot, unfortunately the rest of the human race, including its best and wisest, are, and that argument across such a chasm is impossible.

Thanks, Bill, but I don't think that quote speaks to there being a moment when life begins in the way it's argued about today.

I think you're right to be optimistic, though, about gradually changing attitudes. Certainly my own attitudes have changed since I was younger, though not really as the result of technology.

Wasn't there a biggish survey about this that was done in the past year or so? I thought so, but can't google it up.

True - I believe the purpose of that passage is to show that the Holy Spirit was upon John, even in the womb. It doesn't say when "life" begins (that also needs to be defined) but it does give good evidence that babies in Utero are alive.

Again - that's not its purpose, of course.

I think the question should be turned around: how do we know life doesn't begin at conception? Why are pro-life people always the ones needing all the burden of proof?

As Peggy Noonan once said, if you were walking down the street and saw a paper bag, and you weren't sure if what was in it was alive, would you kick it?

Jared said: [Dweller], it sounds consistent to me. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by opposing anti-abortion laws, though. Do you oppose laws against homicide?

I understand being opposed to "stamping out abortion through violence," although I don't think that is the recommendation of the vast majority of pro-life advocates.
Establishing and enforcing anti-abortion legislation doesn't automatically indicate committing violence against anyone.

Jared,

What do you mean? When the government makes something illegal, it is threatening to either take money from the criminal or put that person behind bars. The only reason these things "work" is that they're ultimately backed up by violence.

So if you pass laws in order to discourage pregnancy, the scared teenage girl might be dissuaded (which in and of itself is a good thing) because she doesn't want to go to jail. Or, depending on the phrasing of the law, she is dissuaded because no reputable doctor will give her an abortion because he or she is afraid of going to jail.

Say what you will about this arrangement, but it isn't based on persuasion. If the government didn't back it up with force, few people would care what a bunch of politicians thought about abortion.

Evan wrote, Yes, I think your views are consistent, so far as you stated them, but I wonder how far you go as a complete pacifist. Saying that we shouldn't even hunt down serial killers shows you obviously go a lot further than most people who call themselves pacifists. However, to remain consistent, you have to essentially advocate complete anarchy, with no protection or justice for victims, and no punishment for any crime whatsoever.

No, that's not true. I am going to raise my son without (I hope) ever hitting him. Does that mean there are no "rules" in our household, and that he can "do whatever he wants"?

There could still be judges and laws without being backed up by force; the system just wouldn't look very much like the state-enforced system of today. E.g. if I steal your car, you can take the case to a disinterested judge whom the community respects. If s/he rules in your favor and agrees I owe you $10,000 compensation, then that finding could be publicized and I would be a pariah. Nobody would hunt me down and throw me in a dungeon (which is what happens today in our "civilized" society), but people could refuse to do business with me, etc.

Obviously there would still be murders and theft in such a world, but there are still murders and theft in our present world, even though we're willing to tolerate police forces (that occasionally kill the wrong people) and a state judicial system (that allows horrible treatment of prisoners and erroneous executions).

Of course I'm not trying to persuade you with this one blog comment, but I do hope you've seen that there are plenty of ways to have "law" without backing it up with force.

Finally, as to C.S. Lewis' comment that I am a moral idiot, I'll just say that I am reassured in my views by the commands of Jesus, in particular "resist not evil." I can't possibly imagine Him using violence to achieve justice, and I don't think that's the proper model for us either. If someone shoots a home intruder, I don't think that person is a reprobate, but on the other hand I also think Christians should shun violence as much as possible.

If we want to reduce or eliminate abortions (and I do), I don't think the political process is the way to go.

I guess I don't see how taking someone to a judge wouldn't require "force" as you're defining it, and letting murderers be "pariahs" in the community doesn't seem like a very grace-driven way to treat communities.

I would be a governmental pacifist if I believed the Bible taught it, but I don't believe it does.

Also, I don't believe legislation would eradicate any sin. But it would reduce the number of abortions.

I have never heard the view that we shouldn't have laws against moral evils that protect society. Well, except from anarchists.