.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« I am Christian … As for … babies … At this stage in life … they are innocent. Unborn babies are in the same boat on the rationale of their innocence »

Thank you for that precision. Clearly, though you are Christian, you do not believe in the Christian doctrine of “original sin” whereby all human beings are born guilty – not innocent – and only become innocent when they are baptised.

However, you add :

« On that note though, many of my points can be addressed and scrutinized or agreed with without this turning into a focus on religion … I don't see the merit in this kind of approach, and I hope you don't try to divide the issue towards that kind of direction … The point on an unborn baby being innocent for instance can be a continuation of the perspective of babies being innocent. Which as far as I'm aware is not a view solely held by Christians, but held by many people regardless of religion »

Three remarks :

1. The comments and opinions on this thread relate to the monthly sermon of Peter Sellick, an Anglican deacon. Peter has been posting sermons on OLO since 2002. Naturally, they are always eminently religious – which explains why the corresponding comments and opinions on this forum are also, inevitably, very much religiously oriented.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

2. According to the Christian doctrine of “original sin”, what you refer to as “unborn babies” – i.e., foetuses – are considered guilty, not innocent, until they are born as babies and baptized. This is peculiar to the Christian religion. For all other religions, agnostics, atheists, etc., as well as ordinary people such as myself, foetuses and babies are considered innocent.

3. Obviously, you do not agree with your religion on this point.

.

You ask :

« … where is the data to pinpoint consciousness to the 27th or 28th week? »
If you click on the link I provided where you read that in my post on page 21 of this thread, you will find an article in the Scientific American entitled “When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?”. Then, under the sub-title “The Road to Awareness” you will find the phrase : “ Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.”
And, as I indicated just above the link to the article : “ the third trimester of pregnancy … begins at the 27th or 28th week ”

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for all that. I shall study it very carefully and in detail, with interest.
I have to admit that I am a curious “soul” (to employ the term in a colloquial sense, of course).

.

Dear David,

Since you asked, I do care for pregnant women and for their freedom to choose.

"This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live" [Deuteronomy 30:19].

It is impossible to choose good unless one can also choose evil.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Thank you, I appreciate the information.

«Some say having a soul is something given to us after we're saved, and that is our eternal self»

Well, they must be utterly confused: suppose a soul is given to you, which is your eternal self, then whom was that soul given to? Who were you before you got that soul? Have you then stopped being you?

What does make sense, however, is that when we are saved, our soul (not us) is renewed, in the sense of being filled with pure tendencies and cleansed of impure tendencies.

To Banjo Paterson.

Fair point about the context that abortion was brought up. If it helps I'll explain my views a little more in the areas you brought up that pertain to religion. It has been my experience though that many people who aren't religious will turn away from any perspective that has a religious reference in it. Even if there are other points of the perspective that do not rely on religion to agree with or discuss. For instance the ideas to not kill and that fetuses are still people, (though unborn), have influences in them from my understanding in my faith, but being Christian is not necessary to see their merit. None the less. To answer your questions.

First though, I must confess, doctrine is not my strongest suit. When deciding to trust Christianity, I did so while reading the bible. And after that I struggled with many theological concepts I heard and came across that that conflicted with one another (or seemed to anyways) without as much background of the theological reasons for each stance. Eventually I came to the conclusion to test our perspective (especially religious perspectives) against the words in the bible. Some things even to say I don't know yet and hope to find answers in time with being more familiar with bible verses.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Regarding sin and innocence. I think Jesus was both born without sin, and remained sinless. But the way He died was a measure of taking on our sins and redeeming us. From life experience I can say there is sin, and an inclination towards sining, but we are not forced. It is each of our choice to do the actions we do. From that understanding I don't think of sin as being guilty or innocent until you fail to resist sin. It is always in us. Sometimes waiting for an opportunity, sometimes actively tripping us up.

It is an inner struggle, something that if we fail to resist then we are guilty of it. In that light, yes I still see fetuses and babies as innocent. They have not yet had an opportunity to sin and therefore are still innocent. If we could remain that way throughout our lives we would not need Jesus to come and save us, and redeem us from our guilt. But I don't think that is really possible. Without God's help we are weak. With God's help we ourselves are still weak but are made stronger by relying on God. This shows one of our needs that God helps us with.

Thank you for pointing out the link on consciousness. I read it, but it'll take some time to consider my conclusions regarding it. My initial thoughts are that I probably have a broader definition of being conscious then that article holds. Give me time though to consider it's points.

I wonder where this idea as if babies are innocent came from - not from religion anyway, perhaps from humanism?

A soul would not identify itself with a body (human or animal) unless either:
1) It desires to experience and interact with the material world through that body.
2) It is God's will for that soul to come down and help the world.

#2 is very rare, so apart from those few, a baby is not innocent but tainted with desire and desires stem from previous impressions in previous bodies. Had they been innocent, they could have remained with God, but desire leads them into mischief.