Skip to main content

"Life Begins At Conception" Is Not A Religious Claim

I think it may seem so, because the ethical system from which a person might claim this is fully consistent with a supernatural worldview, (and the Christian one) and many people who make the claim are Christians.

It's a funny thing about our public space today: people find it easier to assess and dismiss others, rather than engage their arguments. I'm the worst at this. If I don't like someone, it's really difficult to engage in a meaningful way. I'm still learning.

 The full claim as an argument would be something like, "Human life begins at conception. It is morally wrong to take innocent human life at any stage of development. Therefore, governments around the world should enact laws prohibiting the taking of innocent human life at any stage of development."

If someone makes a claim that abortion is morally acceptable in some circumstances--while conceding that abortion ends a human life--accompanied by the claim that the aborted fetus is a "clump of cells," no more entitled to protection than one of your fingernails, then it has become a utilitarian argument. Human life is valuable insofar as that life is useful to someone else, or perhaps to themselves. But that view, you'll notice, views people in terms of their capacities, not because of an inherent dignity they possess, irrespective of their capacities. The respective philosophical positions, and the ethics that flow from them, should be the matter up for discussion.

A specifically Christian claim along the same lines would be, "Human life begins at conception. It is morally wrong to take innocent human life at any stage of development. Therefore, governments around the world should enact laws prohibiting the taking of human life at any stage of development. Moreover, since Jesus Christ became man as a part of his good news of salvation and eternal life with God, He reaffirmed the inviolable dignity of the human person. Anyone who, without repentance, participates in the taking of innocent human life makes themselves liable to the judgment--in body and soul--of eternal fire, and permanent separation from God."

You see the specifically Christian elements there: eternal souls, eternal life, communion with God, the resurrection of the body, and/or hell. You don't see those supernaturally revealed elements changing the basic ethical argument all that much, or at all.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un