One of the most common questions at the center of the pro-life versus pro-abortion debate is simply this: when does life begin? Our worldview defines our answer to that question. In Part 1 of the Life and Religious Liberty Debate, Humanist CA claimed that the Bible declares that life starts at “first breath” in an attempt to attack my worldview. I refuted this claim with various excerpts from scripture. In the next segment of this discussion, the debate with CA continues on this specific topic. Moreover, humanist MC tries to equate contraception with abortifacients. Humanist SL jumps into the debate thread as well.
Below is Part 2 of 6 of the Life and Religious Liberty Debate. Transcript portions are not exactly consecutive, 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.
KH, This legislation mainly affects the prevention of conception. Are you against preventitive measures, such as the Pill or morning after medication?
MC, Your question supposes a logical fallacy of false equivocation. I’m not against true contraception; I’m against ending the life of a child in the womb that starts at conception/fertilization, because God considers children in the womb to be children, as noted in my earlier comment. How do you equate oral contraceptives (“the Pill”) that prevent fertilization, with “morning after pills,” which are abortifacients that are intended to prevent or disrupt the implantation of an embryo, leading to death of the child?
KH, The Morning after pill prevents these implanting of the cells. There's nothing viable at that point. Also, you sidestepped the question. Are you against the Pill?
KH, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Gen 2:7
KH, And there you go, trying to force your religious beliefs on everyone else. Nothing you have said is not your religious belief.
CA, Using Genesis 2:7 to claim that the Bible asserts life beginning at first breath is specious reasoning. Adam was specially created from the dust of the ground, rather than through sexual conception and growth in the womb. The creation of Adam and Eve is a unique case compared to how people are conceived since then. Nowhere does the Bible assert that a child in the womb is not life / not a child.
MC, Those cells carry DNA combined from both parents into a unique set of genetic information for a unique person, and the cells are completely “viable” to develop in the womb. Just because the baby is not yet at a gestational age to survive birth does not mean that it’s not life. I already answered your question about oral contraceptives—I’m not against true contraception—I’m against abortifacients.
SL, How so? How is having a debate and asking questions forcing my religious belief on anyone in this thread? Is it not your prerogative and the prerogative of others in this thread to either (1) ignore my comments or (2) respond to them?
I did not see any additional comments from MC. CA had one other comment, which will be shared in Part 3 of the debate transcript. SL responds later on in the debate.
Recall in Part 1 of the debate thread that I originally replied to CJ’s comment. CJ did have much to say in response, and I will begin sharing my specific discussion with her in Part 3 of the Life and Religious Liberty debate to be shared in my next blog post.
For a helpful resource to understand the difference between contraception and abortifacients, I recommend the following article from Answers in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/abortion/semantics-matter-what-does-the-pill-do/