Should ban surrogacy as well.
Posted on 06/12/2024 10:46:36 PM PDT by Cronos
Southern Baptists, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, voted on Wednesday to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization. The vote was an indication that evangelicals are increasingly open to arguments that equate embryos with human life, and that two years after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, “fetal personhood” may be the next front for the anti-abortion movement.
...The resolution proposed on Wednesday called on Southern Baptists “to reaffirm the unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage, and to only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation, especially in the number of embryos generated in the I.V.F. process.”
It also exhorted them to “advocate for the government to restrain” actions inconsistent with the dignity of “every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.”
...A vast majority of the delegates oppose abortion, but fertility treatments are widely used by evangelicals. Although the process of in vitro fertilization often results in the destruction of unused embryos, many Southern Baptists see that as fundamentally different from abortion because the goal of fertility treatments is to create new life.
Mr. Mohler compared the nascent evangelical conversation around in vitro fertilization to the years after the Roe v. Wade decision, when Catholics led the anti-abortion movement and evangelicals were less attuned to the issue.
“We had to learn after 1973 as evangelicals,” Mr. Mohler said. “We had to learn how to get this issue right.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The remnant speaks with a voice that cannot be ignored.
Should ban surrogacy as well.
What happens to the souls of those embryos?
Test tube babies do not have souls. Only normally conceived babies have souls.
So an IVF human has no soul?
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not
If IVF babies don't have souls, then that means that many people living today don't have souls.
It also beggars the question: how do you know?
Our pastor covered this when talking about abortion. He said only Christianity has the person being a human with a soul at conception. Every other religion has some period of time before it “gets” a soul. I did my own research and that seems to be true. In Islam various teachers had different timelines (20+ days iirc).
He said he didn’t think that a person conceived in a test tube was a problem. The problem is when the other embryos are discarded.
Although my daughter took issue with it. “A married couple can adopt. The idea of some guy doing it that way into a cup doesn’t seem like the proper attitude to have when bringing a life into the world.” (I didn’t tell her that lots of babies are brought into the world without the “proper attitude” - but their parents still love them. And God does too.)
“Only normally conceived babies have souls.”
Jesus had a human soul. He could not have been truly human without a human soul. Otherwise, He was only pretending to be human.
“I didn’t tell her that lots of babies are brought into the world without the ‘proper attitude’”
As in children conceived via rape. It doesn’t damage their worthiness, humanity, or soul.
“Test tube babies do not have souls. Only normally conceived babies have souls.”
There are probably hundreds of thousands of “test tube babies” on earth, walking among us. Are they a form of zombie? Do they not have the potential to accept Christ and be saved?
If a fire chief made a decision to risk his men’s lives to go into a burning apartment building to save many lives, would you criticize him or would you direct most of your ire at the arsonist who started the fire and endangered more lives just for the fun of it? That’s what it’s like getting distracted by the IVF argument.
Sperm + egg = person
How it happens is irrelevant.
Interesting. But if the soul enters the body at conception, what becomes of it if it’s aborted or discarded?
Interesting, I did not know that, but a quick google check is that “The Hanafi madhab places the point of ensoulment at 120 days after conception and a minority opinion teaches that it occurs at 40 days.”
Thank you for that information.
It’s a separate topic to abortion.
“A” is willful moider. IVF is picking
WTF are you taking about? I agree with you. I asked a question to provoke thought and discussion.
Here's the deal. The discussion of IVF embryos being alive and therefore worthy of being protected (i.e. not created in the first place to be discarded as most embryos in the IVF process are done)...it's nothing more than the left trying to destroy the pro-life argument for protecting babies from abortion. The pro-abortion left says, "Well, if you guys say that embryos in the mother are alive and worth protecting then you're hypocrites as long as you don't hate on the IVF process."
It's deflection, pure and simple. It's like equating the death penalty with murder -- two completely different things but can be made to seem similar with fancy wordplay. This is from the same left that promotes post-birth "abortion".
“...what becomes of it if it’s aborted or discarded?”
I have no idea. Probably the same thing if a baby is stillborn or dies during or shortly after delivery. A quick thought on it would be that God is full of grace, and that these babies would not be condemned to an eternity of Hell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.