Originally a comment by Eric MacDonald on No exception for extrauterine children.

On what basis can anyone say that “Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God.” Of course, we should simply dismiss the idea since there is no God. But if we take it in terms of the beliefs expressed in Genesis, we have to ask what does speaking about the image of God even mean? We have no idea. But it is implausible to think that reference is being made to fertilised eggs, since no one knew of them at the time, so it couldn’t have been part of the meaning of ‘image of God’. The implication is that it refers either to physiognomy or mental characteristics. We are in the image of God in respect of our ability to know good and evil, for example, for it is in that section of the story that the idea of the image of God arises. Or we are in the image of God in that we have a physical structure that may have been thought to reproduce God’s image.

What is more striking is an American state making laws grounded on religious beliefs. This simply determines what people must believe, since religious interpretations bind people to the beliefs of those defining them. Yet I thought that no religious test was required for citizenship in the US.

Besides, religious beliefs are open to hermeneutical variety and resulting confusion. There is no way we can pin down definitive religious beliefs, unless we have an ecclesial structure that provides the means for defining dogma. Is the Alabama Supreme Court going to start defining Christian (or any other) religious dogma which will be binding on Alabamans?

What a peculiar country the US is. It began with 13 colonies that were seeking religious freedom, and yet the country itself is overburdened with fundamentalists of various stripes who want to define what everyone must believe. I’m glad I live in Canada!