Neither is specifically mentioned, but it is clear from the following passages that human beings are made with a special dignity as part of their nature. The Bible does address abortion as directly as it addresses the killing of toddlers. That approach helped Stacey to consider the possibility there was a whole other person involved in the abortion question, and she showed genuine interest in thinking further about that. That’s the sequence we teach any chance we can: Be relational…then be intellectual. It’s a lesson I’ve learned again and again: Don’t make assumptions from appearances.Īs I found common ground with Stacey repeatedly about bodily rights, showing relational sensitivity to the emotionally heavy topic of what a woman can do with her body, I think she became open to my perspective about the unborn child. She showed the exact opposite throughout our conversation. I’ll have to think about that!Īt the beginning of this conversation, Stacey sounded completely pro-choice, and frankly, I think I suspected she wouldn’t have much interest in an alternative opinion. Stacey: I never thought about the fetus as a separate person-that it has its own rights we would be taking away.
What she said in parting really surprised me: If this is true, the woman’s fundamental right to her body would not include the right to abortion, because then abortion would be killing a human being with the same bodily rights.Īs Stacey got ready to move on from the conversation, she eagerly accepted a copy of the Invitation to Dialogue Brochure that included the same pictures we had been discussing. (Indeed, Stacey contributed much more detailed responses than what my memory has allowed me to include here.) We discussed how the embryo is very different from us (in looks and functions) but is also the same kind of being that we are-a being with the same human nature we have. Our conversation continued for ten minutes or so. But that would mean that the embryo has a fundamental right to his body just like the toddler and the woman. So, I think the woman and the toddler began to exist at fertilization, and that’s also when they gained their fundamental right to their bodies. If we have something as important as fundamental human rights now, I don’t think we could gain those rights by eating. All that’s been added from then until the toddler stage is food. Steve: Well, from fertilization, when the sperm and the egg came together, both ceased to exist, and a new organism came into existence. Stacey: That makes sense, but I guess I’m not sure. Steve: Does it make sense to you that if their rights are fundamental, they had them from the moment they began to exist? When did this toddler begin to exist? Perhaps the only legitimate way the state could limit those rights is if these people were using their bodies to take away someone else’s bodily rights. And those rights are fundamental, so the situation would have to reach a really high bar to justify limiting something so important as a person’s bodily rights.
Steve: So the woman and the toddler have the same bodily rights.
Can we agree he has bodily rights that are fundamental?
Steve: Now, what about this toddler? I assume we would agree he shouldn’t be killed.
0 kommentar(er)
