Recall from Part 1 of the Life and Religious Liberty Debate that I initiated a debate in response to a comment from Humanist CJ on an American Humanist Association Facebook post. In Part 2 of the debate thread, I shared responses from other humanists along with my rebuttals. Here in Part 3, CJ has much to say in response.
Below is Part 3 of 6 of the Life and Religious Liberty Debate. Transcript portions are not in exact consecutive order, but are in topical order for clarity. By the time I share Part 6 of 6, I will have shared the entire debate transcript. Note that names are abbreviated for privacy and brevity.
CJ:
KH, Oh, honey, take some science classes - the fetus IS just a collection of cells. It can't LIVE outside the womb during the time when an abortion is legal. The only reasons an abortion would be done after that would be because the mother's life was in danger OR the fetus had died already or was so compromised in health itself that it would not survive birth.
YOU ALREADY get to live your life by YOUR beliefs. No one can force you to have an abortion. And yes, I'm guessing you are a man, so you don't have a womb and can't get pregnant. You believe it is already a child. Most don't. You get to live YOUR life. Why should YOUR beliefs cancel out someone else's opposite belief? Why are you right and everyone who disagrees wrong? Why can't you and all the others who believe as you do live your own lives, and let everyone else live their lives? IF people are conscientious about using birth control there won't be many abortions anyway. You do know the abortion rate has been dropping and dropping for y*e*a*r*s don't you?
CJ:
KH, You BELIEVE your god thinks children in the womb are children. That is a BELIEF. There is no science behind that belief. And actually not much in the bible. There's something about when they "take their first breath" that makes them a child. That would be AFTER the birthing process was COMPLETED. They don't "breathe" IN the womb.
YOU already get to live your life according to your beliefs. If you want others to respect YOUR beliefs, then you have to respect THEIR beliefs. That's how it works.
CJ:
KH, What country on this planet MANDATES *forced* abortions???? NONE!!!
CA:
CJ, China did.....but that's literally the only case, and had nothing to do with faith, but severe population control.
Kevin:
CJ, I will respond to your comments in segments for clarity.
[From “…take some science classes…” to “…would not survive birth”]
Actually, there are numerous babies that have survived birth at a gestational age when abortion is legal. Some babies survived at only about ~22 weeks gestation, and there are many states where aborting a baby at that gestational age is legal. Some states allow abortion all the way up to 40 weeks gestation.
[From “YOU ALREADY…” to “…don’t you?”]
Thankfully, I get to live my life because my mom did not kill me in the womb. That’s the issue at stake here: a person can’t even have beliefs about right or wrong unless they are born and get to live long enough to even learn such concepts.
[From “…You BELIEVE your god thinks…” to “…no science behind that belief.”]
Assuming you are a humanist, how do you define “life” in your materialistic, evolutionary worldview? If we are all just the byproducts of random, chemical processes, then what makes humans different and more valuable than an inanimate object such as a chair, table, or can of motor oil? You also say that there is no science behind the belief that a child in the womb is a child. By what standard of observational science is it claimed that a 7-pound baby in the womb, sucking his/her thumb, is not life, and is not a child? Regarding science, if your brain is the byproduct of random chemical processes, then how can you trust your own conclusions to ever be accurate? If the universe is simply an accident, then why can’t 2+2=5 instead of 2+2=4 within your materialistic, evolutionary worldview? Why can’t the laws of math and physics change tomorrow within a random universe? The Hebrew word “Nephesh” for life in the Bible carries a lot of deep meaning to it, including the presence of a soul and consciousness. Moreover, observational science is made possible because the universe obeys the same laws day-to-day, and God established the laws of heaven and earth (Jeremiah 33:25). The Bible-believing Christian has reason to believe that the laws of physics today will be the same tomorrow. Moreover, since humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), we have the desire and ability to study the universe. You can try to imply that my “belief” is simply that, just a “belief,” and yet, when you talk about the concepts of “life” and “science,” you are borrowing biblical presuppositions. I expect that you will disagree with me, but if you do, then please try to answer the questions that I shared in this paragraph.
[From “There’s something about…” to “…they don’t ‘breathe’ in the womb.”]
Nowhere does the Bible claim that a child in the womb is not life. See my response to CA which I will post right after this.
[From “YOU already get to live your life…” to “That’s how it works.”]
Again, thankfully, I get to live my life because my mom did not kill me in the womb. Although I’m being assertive in my responses, I’m striving to be respectful toward you and the others in this thread; I’m not personally attacking you or anyone else. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that I’m receiving the same type of respect in return from you.
[“What country on this planet MANDATES *forced* abortions???? NONE!!!”]
As CA noted, China often does. Perhaps China is the only country that does it, so I should not have pluralized “country/countries” in my earlier comment. There are also non-state entities that force people to have abortions, such as sex trafficking rings.
I mentioned in this portion of the thread that I had a specific response regarding the false notion that the Bible declares life beginning at “first breath.” Since I share debate transcript portions in topical order for clarity rather than exact consecutive order, note that I already shared that response in Part 2. I did not see any further responses from CA, but CJ followed up with additional comments. I will share more of my debate with CJ in Part 4 of the debate thread to be shared in my next blog post.