Wednesday, December 26, 2018

The coathanger argument

Most of us familiar with the abortion debate are familiar with what I call the "coathanger argument," that abortions are being done with less damage to mothers if abortion is legal. But could this line of argument be extended to murder in general?

Probably if you legalized murder, people would do it in a more efficient and even less harmful way. (Murder could be legal, but you might be prohibited from doing it improperly, so as to cause unnecessary pain to victims). Messy ways of killing could be illegal, but clean and painless ones would be OK. 

77 comments:

John Moore said...

The difference, of course, is that most murder victims will fight back. A fetus can't. This complicates things for those eager to legalize murder.

Joe Hinman said...

Abortion was something the woman chose to do murder usually isn't chosen by the victim. Why do you assert that abortion and murder are analogous? Unless you prove that relationship your augmenter has no applicability. Naturally it can't be used in the determination.

Legion of Logic said...

Abortion was something the woman chose to do murder usually isn't chosen by the victim. Why do you assert that abortion and murder are analogous?

In each situation, one side is choosing to kill the other side. The woman would not be paired with the murder victim in this analogy.

jdhuey said...

1. When you equate an abortion of a fetus with murder, you are making a statement based on a religious belief. To codify abortion as murder is to impose that religious belief on everyone, even if they do not hold that religious belief.

2. Pointing out that, when abortion is illegal, women will resort to illegal and very dangerous options to stop their unwanted pregnancies shows that their decision is not some frivolous or casual decision.

3. Coercing women to take to term an unwanted pregnancy is to deny their autonomy: it relegates women to the status of baby making machines. When those women resorted to the "coat hanger", they were reclaiming their right to control their own body.

bmiller said...

When you equate an abortion of a fetus with murder, you are making a statement based on a religious belief. To codify abortion as murder is to impose that religious belief on everyone, even if they do not hold that religious belief.

That is a rather dogmatic statement. There is a Secular Pro-Life movement.

The rest is just grumbling against a law without addressing opposing views.

Legion of Logic said...

. When you equate an abortion of a fetus with murder, you are making a statement based on a religious belief.

Or an understanding of basic reproductive biology.

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger Legion of Logic said...
. When you equate an abortion of a fetus with murder, you are making a statement based on a religious belief.

Or an understanding of basic reproductive biology.

Begging the question.what understanding of reproduction tell us us that the fetus is a person?
Why your ideology of course,hence begging the question.

Joe Hinman said...

The rest is just grumbling against a law without addressing opposing views.


The Law provides for abortion

Joe Hinman said...

jdhuey said...When you equate an abortion of a fetus with murder, you are making a statement based on a religious belief. To codify abortion as murder is to impose that religious belief on everyone, even if they do not hold that religious belief.

Not just a religious belief but a particular theological take on belief,

Legion of Logic said...

Begging the question.what understanding of reproduction tell us us that the fetus is a person?

Something does not have to be a "person" for me or anyone else to value its life.

jdhuey said...

JH: "Not just a religious belief but a particular theological take on belief,"

A very good distinction.

jdhuey said...

"Something does not have to be a "person" for me or anyone else to value its life."

Really? When some of the states, like Texas, forced the clinics that performed abortions to close they not only took away access to abortion services but they also, very often, took away the only health care services locally available. Very few clinics were just providers of abortions. They also provided other health care services: health screenings, prenatal exams and maternal care. Without that care, the maternal mortality rate has soared, rivaling that of developing countries.

And that is just the indirect impact. Women who would have terminated a pregnancy because they were high risk, frequently loose that option and die from the complications.

But then dying in childbirth is just part of God's plan, right? Punishment for the apple thingy.

Legion of Logic said...

I'm not certain how that is a response to what I wrote.

bmiller said...

JDH and JH,

JH: "Not just a religious belief but a particular theological take on belief,"

A very good distinction.


But a mistaken one. The following quote is from the link I provided earlier.
You can be an atheist and believe that abortion is morally wrong even though all orthodox Christians have believed it historically.

The late atheist author Christopher Hitchens, when asked in a January 2008 debate with Jay Wesley Richards whether he was opposed to abortion and was a member of the pro-life movement, replied:
“I’ve had a lot of quarrels with some of my fellow materialists and secularists on this point, [but] I think that if the concept ‘child’ means anything, the concept ‘unborn child’ can be said to mean something. All the discoveries of embryology [and viability] – which have been very considerable in the last generation or so – appear to confirm that opinion, which I think should be innate in everybody. It’s innate in the Hippocratic Oath, it’s instinct in anyone who’s ever watched a sonogram. So ‘yes’ is my answer to that.”

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
Begging the question.what understanding of reproduction tell us us that the fetus is a person?

Something does not have to be a "person" for me or anyone else to value its life.

December 28, 2018 1:21 AM

It should have an ineptitude life of it's own before you make it a crime to abort,

Joe Hinman said...

bmiller said...
JDH and JH,

JH: "Not just a religious belief but a particular theological take on belief,"

A very good distinction.

But a mistaken one. The following quote is from the link I provided earlier.
You can be an atheist and believe that abortion is morally wrong even though all orthodox Christians have believed it historically.

b I am saying the RTL is the theological take, are you saying RTL is the mistaken view?

Legion of Logic said...

It should have an ineptitude life of it's own before you make it a crime to abort

I read to my children while they were in the womb. Sorry, I was not reading to a non-human, non-living clump of their mother's cells.

bmiller said...

b I am saying the RTL is the theological take, are you saying RTL is the mistaken view?

No. I am saying that atheists (who have zero religious or theological views) can believe it is wrong to kill children in the womb, so claiming the view is peculiar only to the religious is ignorant.

Legion of Logic said...

It is remarkably easy to formulate a pro-life argument that is in no way dependent upon any religious teaching.

Premise: It is wrong to end an innocent human life.

Premise: Very young humans are innocent.

Premise: Human life begins before birth.

Conclusion: It is wrong to kill the unborn.

Of course, you can deny that any human life has value, or that it is wrong to kill the innocent, and thus reject the first premise and conclusion. Most people aren't comfortable doing that.

You can deny that the very young are innocent and thus reject the second premise and conclusion. Again, most aren't comfortable doing that.

So what those who argue in favor of abortion do to justify their position is to deny the third premise by injecting progressive ideology and arbitrary, unscientific qualifiers onto what constitutes a human life. The sacred right to kill the unborn will be defended regardless of any given fact, so there's no point in even arguing with them. If human life has value, the facts support opposition to abortion. Simple as that.

Now for the flip side, where the pro-life movement goes wrong...

Birth control should be passed out like candy. Social support programs should be massively expanded to help the poor who get pregnant. Pro-family tax structures should be implemented to incentivize marriage and children - let the rich pay for it, since more people means more customers. And so on. Restricting abortion isn't sufficient - making pregnancy a blessing instead of a curse is the way to go.

Too bad such solutions are impossible so long as people keep voting D and R.

Joe Hinman said...

bmiller said...
b I am saying the RTL is the theological take, are you saying RTL is the mistaken view?

No. I am saying that atheists (who have zero religious or theological views) can believe it is wrong to kill children in the womb, so claiming the view is peculiar only to the religious is ignorant.

I agree with you on that,

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
It should have an ineptitude life of it's own before you make it a crime to abort

I read to my children while they were in the womb. Sorry, I was not reading to a non-human, non-living clump of their mother's cells.

they where human because you read to them? life is a process of becoming.

Joe Hinman said...

Of course, you can deny that any human life has value, or that it is wrong to kill the innocent, and thus reject the first premise and conclusion. Most people aren't comfortable doing that.

The weakness in the argument is that you can't equate human status with the developmental process prior to the independent viability of the fetus. Fingernails are a form of human life.That i why I used person-hood as the standard,

Joe Hinman said...

Birth control should be passed out like candy. Social support programs should be massively expanded to help the poor who get pregnant. Pro-family tax structures should be implemented to incentivize marriage and children - let the rich pay for it, since more people means more customers. And so on. Restricting abortion isn't sufficient - making pregnancy a blessing instead of a curse is the way to go.

That's right man,we need to punish those evil women. those bad women who want to have sex and not be tied down as the property of a man.

Is it enough that we punish them for wanting sex shouldn't we punish them for being women? How dare they not be men!? If they die from coat hanger that's what they deserve for being women, and for thinking they own their bodies, right?

Of course the men don't want sex outside of marriage we don't need to punish them, Here are ainthe 21st centiry and the evangelicals have not gotten out of the 19th,

Legion of Logic said...

That's right man,we need to punish those evil women.

Not even the Clinton spin machine would be able to twist what I wrote into such an accusation.


those bad women who want to have sex and not be tied down as the property of a man.

Is this a Christian view of marriage?


Is it enough that we punish them for wanting sex shouldn't we punish them for being women?

Nothing I wrote can be used to justify this characterization.


How dare they not be men!? If they die from coat hanger that's what they deserve for being women, and for thinking they own their bodies, right?

You have vile fantasies about women. Hey look, I can completely come from left field and misconstrue what you said with a sickening and baseless accusation, too!


Of course the men don't want sex outside of marriage we don't need to punish them, Here are ainthe 21st centiry and the evangelicals have not gotten out of the 19th,

Yet another reason why I struggle with the concept of a leftist Christian, in the same way I would be baffled at a Muslim who believed Christ was the son of God. You think the sexual revolution was a godly movement?

Honestly, you are so hung up on the concept of punishing women - which really makes me wonder about your views, not mine - you are unable to see that nothing I wrote has anything to do with "punishing women". It is about making women not afraid of pregnancy so they won't kill their unborn out of fear. It's about removing lack of access to birth control as a reason for unwanted pregnancies. It is about HELPING and SUPPORTING women and families.

How is free and readily available birth control "punishing women"? How is financial support for pregnant women "punishing women"? How is society incentivizing families "punishing women"?

At this point, trying to figure out why you are having this response to what I wrote, I can only conclude that you either seriously misread, or you absolutely love abortions and want them to occur because you find pregnancy demeaning to women, married or not. I suspect the former over the latter, so please reassure me that you misunderstood.

bmiller said...

Joe,

Don't you think fornication is a sin?

Or is being an evangelical the only sin in your book?

Legion of Logic said...

bmiller,

Apparently many progressive Christians indeed do not believe premarital sex is a sin. I've never seen any of them trash marriage like Joe did, but his is not an uncommon view for Christians on the political left.

bmiller said...

Weird.

If there's no sin, there's no need for a Savior. So why even bother to claim to be Christian?

Joe Hinman said...

Happy new year Yeeeeha!

Joe Hinman said...

miller said...
Joe,

Don't you think fornication is a sin?

Or is being an evangelical the only sin in your book?

December 31, 2018 2:11 PM

We don;t live in ancient Israel We don;'t have convent relationship with Gd for our nation as Israel did.


We are new testament. Nowhere does God tell Christians to police the morals of other people. Nowhere does Go tell us men to keep women in line.

How you can see a statement about not contorting women and conclude I think there;s no sin is so telling,

Joe Hinman said...

Legion of Logic said...
bmiller,

Apparently many progressive Christians indeed do not believe premarital sex is a sin. I've never seen any of them trash marriage like Joe did, but his is not an uncommon view for Christians on the political left.

SHOW ME WHERE WE ARE ASSIGNED BY GOD TO POLICE THE MORALS OF OTHER PEOPLE.? then then it doesn't matter that is a sin we are not called to punish sin

Joe Hinman said...

At this point, trying to figure out why you are having this response to what I wrote, I can only conclude that you either seriously misread, or you absolutely love abortions and want them to occur because you find pregnancy demeaning to women, married or not. I suspect the former over the latter, so please reassure me that you misunderstood.

your words condemn you! It's pretty obvious the narrow minded bigotry you encase yourself in is a manifestation of deep desire to collator others as you have allowed yourself to be controlled. The things you say are typical of fascism. you are brain washed by a form of Fascism that attached itself to Christianity in the 80s

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
That's right man,we need to punish those evil women.

Not even the Clinton spin machine would be able to twist what I wrote into such an accusation.

that is so stupid,there is no valid reason for turning we can't control other people,:into you don't believe in sin but that you equate Christian belief with control of others,

Here is the statment thatset me off:


"Birth control should be passed out like candy. Social support programs should be massively expanded to help the poor who get pregnant. Pro-family tax structures should be implemented to incentivize marriage and children - let the rich pay for it, since more people means more customers. And so on. Restricting abortion isn't sufficient - making pregnancy a blessing instead of a curse is the way to go."

that such an seriousness mockery of what i've argued for that actually screams "I want OT control people," your tone and your mockery indicates that you really think any kind of open minded desire to allow women to have their own lives make up their own minds is loosing the hounds of hell on society,it has to be because you think it;s our duty to control them,


Joe Hinman said...

those bad women who want to have sex and not be tied down as the property of a man.

Is this a Christian view of marriage?

It's the fundamentalist view of marriage. fundamentalist is not Christianity,it's self indulgent desire to deify the superego


Is it enough that we punish them for wanting sex shouldn't we punish them for being women?

Nothing I wrote can be used to justify this characterization.

you clearly are not willing to allow them to make decisions about their own bodies,


How dare they not be men!? If they die from coat hanger that's what they deserve for being women, and for thinking they own their bodies, right?

You have vile fantasies about women. Hey look, I can completely come from left field and misconstrue what you said with a sickening and baseless accusation, too!

you already did, your statement above, but is telling, in doing that you revealed your true stripe,


Of course the men don't want sex outside of marriage we don't need to punish them, Here are ainthe 21st centiry and the evangelicals have not gotten out of the 19th,

Yet another reason why I struggle with the concept of a leftist Christian, in the same way I would be baffled at a Muslim who believed Christ was the son of God. You think the sexual revolution was a godly movement?

where did I say that? Your narrow minded binary thinking is leading you down a ridiculous path. Of course the sexual revolution did a lot of bad, But they weren't just evil minions of Satan out to destroy truth,(although many of them were that) what they rebelled agaisnt had it/s false hypocritical side. Their movement had some honest qualities, it was not just a monolithic satanic ploy. It was a necessary necessary sociological reaction to the opposite extreme.

you say these things because you see the issue of abortion as stopping the tide of sin by controlling people's sexual life. We are not called to do that,




Honestly, you are so hung up on the concept of punishing women - which really makes me wonder about your views, not mine - you are unable to see that nothing I wrote has anything to do with "punishing women".

Bull shit, study after study has shown that is what the protestant evangelical RTL movement is about.You are blind to it because you are brainwashed,


It is about making women not afraid of pregnancy so they won't kill their unborn out of fear.

that is insane, women don't get abortionists because they fear being pregnant, it;s because they are afraid of what living with the product of the pregnancy will mean, on that score the church lays a goose eggs,does not help them,


It's about removing lack of access to birth control as a reason for unwanted pregnancies. It is about HELPING and SUPPORTING women and families.

yea right support them by cutting medicaid,snap wic and all other social programs

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion said:
"Birth control should be passed out like candy. Social support programs should be massively expanded to help the poor who get pregnant. Pro-family tax structures should be implemented to incentivize marriage and children - let the rich pay for it, since more people means more customers. And so on."

That's great, and wheb doing all that, abortions already get reduced a lot, which is a good thing.

But:
"[Third] Premise: Human life begins before birth.
[...]
So what those who argue in favor of abortion do to justify their position is to deny the third premise by injecting progressive ideology and arbitrary, unscientific qualifiers onto what constitutes a human life."

I still don't get why you go as far back as conception here. It's completely arbitrary to care about a new combination of DNA, and if we do our best to prevent unwanted pregancies, and thus abortions, with birth control, policies and education, nothing is 100% effective. So why not tey to encourage pregnancies by allowing the occasional abortion ao that women get to decide when to have that pregnancy. What switch to caring more about a fertilized egg than future children and their moms?

I get the part about caring about an innocent human life, a baby, and an unborn baby just before birth, but going back more and more is just more and more of a grey area in my mind. What makes you see it that clearly?

Every time, the answer is that a human life starts at conception, but I find this underwhelming as it's not a reliable process at all; human lives are lost all the time naturally if we include fertilized eggs in the group, devaluing life completely.

Legion of Logic said...

Joe, you are so unhinged from reality I don't even know where to begin with you. Wanting to help women is wanting to control them? Thinking it's a good idea for society to be pro-family is policing the morals of others?

If you are that unable to think, if you are that blinded by your political ideology, then there is no help for you whatsoever. At least from me. I'm done with you.

P.S. I've gone to church maybe a dozen times in my life, rarely the same one. My fellowship has been non-denominational Bible studies and reading the works of theologians and pastors from multiple perspectives, including Catholic and certainly from outside the conservative evangelical movement. Long story short, there has been no one to "brainwash" me. Who brainwashed you to the point you can't even understand the words of others without throwing dump trucks of false accusations and bizarre distortions at them? Please work on that. A little charity goes a long way, rather than immediately assuming the worst of others. They shouldn't have to agree with you for you to be civil.

Hugo,

To me it's the natural extension of actually accepting the premises of the argument I constructed before, which includes premises that it is wrong to kill an innocent human life and that human life begins before birth.

If you agree with those two premises, how do you ensure you do not kill an innocent unborn human life? I think the go-to "solution" thus far, even if you don't outright deny the humanity, is to go from calling it wrong to calling it unfortunate, or less than ideal. Then it's more like running over a possum on the highway - dang, that's too bad.

So that's my question. What metric can we use to know that no innocent unborn human lives are ended in an abortion?

bmiller said...

Joe,

Me:
Don't you think fornication is a sin?

We are new testament. Nowhere does God tell Christians to police the morals of other people.

I can't tell whether you answered my question or not. Do you or do you not consider fornication a sin?

I did not ask you what you consider a Christian's duty toward sinners (of course if you don't consider fornication a sin, then of course you would not consider them sinners in the first place).

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion of Logic said...
"To me it's the natural extension of actually accepting the premises of the argument I constructed before, which includes premises that it is wrong to kill an innocent human life and that human life begins before birth."
Yes that’s fine, but that does not answer my question. What makes you see so clearly that the human lives we are trying to save start at conception? Again, the simple fact that 25 to 50% of fertilized don’t yield a baby seems to discredit the fact that these things are already human lives.

"So that's my question. What metric can we use to know that no innocent unborn human lives are ended in an abortion?"
Right, that’s my question too basically. Because, as you said:
"I think the go-to "solution" thus far, even if you don't outright deny the humanity, is to go from calling it wrong to calling it unfortunate, or less than ideal. Then it's more like running over a possum on the highway - dang, that's too bad."
Yes, exactly. It’s really not a big deal to get rid of more fertilized embryos when they already go away on their own so often. It’s not ideal but it’s not a big deal. But why should it be a big deal right away? Or when should it start to be a big deal if not at conception?

My personal answer is to defer to women and their doctors.

Legion of Logic said...

It’s really not a big deal to get rid of more fertilized embryos when they already go away on their own so often. It’s not ideal but it’s not a big deal.

At what point is it a big deal?

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
Joe, you are so unhinged from reality I don't even know where to begin with you. Wanting to help women is wanting to control them? Thinking it's a good idea for society to be pro-family is policing the morals of others?



If you are that unable to think, if you are that blinded by your political ideology, then there is no help for you whatsoever. At least from me. I'm done with you.




P.S. I've gone to church maybe a dozen times in my life, rarely the same one. My fellowship has been non-denominational Bible studies and reading the works of theologians and pastors from multiple perspectives, including Catholic and certainly from outside the conservative evangelical movement. Long story short, there has been no one to "brainwash" me. Who brainwashed you to the point you can't even understand the words of others without throwing dump trucks of false accusations and bizarre distortions at them? Please work on that. A little charity goes a long way, rather than immediately assuming the worst of others. They shouldn't have to agree with you for you to be civil.


hog wash, you don't think you are parting right wing drivel you are you are not willing to think past eh end of your nose

Joe Hinman said...

miller said...
Joe,

Me:
Don't you think fornication is a sin?

We are new testament. Nowhere does God tell Christians to police the morals of other people.

I can't tell whether you answered my question or not. Do you or do you not consider fornication a sin?

yes of course I do

I did not ask you what you consider a Christian's duty toward sinners (of course if you don't consider fornication a sin, then of course you would not consider them sinners in the first place).

Our duty toward sinners is to show them the love of God.

doesn't the fact of the question tell us that you are thinking in terms of policing the morality of others others?

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
It’s really not a big deal to get rid of more fertilized embryos when they already go away on their own so often. It’s not ideal but it’s not a big deal.

At what point is it a big deal?

One answer might be when they become conscious that's why I introduced person hood, as the dividing line.

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion of Logic said...
" At what point is it a big deal?"
The short answer to that was implied in my last comment already; I don’t know.
Hence, I defer to women and their doctors.

However, to be fair, I think it’s fine to try to find an objective answer, which would apply to all cases. But that’s a much longer and difficult answer to give because this is where I think we have a grey area rather than a clear-cut line.

Consciousness, as Joe just mentioned, might be one of many good criteria, but it’s a bit late I think, as a baby that was just born is not really conscious, yet I don’t think we’re here to discuss infanticide, so it must be before birth.

Viability seems more logical, as it means that the woman is not forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy; we can just save the viable fetus should she want to abort at a late stage. But that’s also problematic in some cases as it could hurt the chances of that baby to develop normally. In other words, the closer to viability, or even when it’s after, the more difficult it should be to get an abortion. That’s why it’s usually just in the case of danger to the mother’s life in those cases anyway.

Which brings us to the reality of when most abortions take place: during the first trimester. That’s when 91% of abortions take place. During that time, is it a big deal?
Next, almost 8% take place in the next 2 months, so before that viability line of ~20 weeks, and it’s a huge stretch at that time, close to 99% of voluntary abortions have taken place. Here, was it a bid deal?
After that, it seems to me that the reasons to get abortions are entirely different and have nothing to do with the debate around women having the right to choose, so I am not sure whether it’s relevant. That’s also why it’s silly imho to have laws against such abortions; it’s more a political stunt from clever politicians who want to keep the pro-life crowd on their side at the expense of the tiny portion of women who might really need a late-term abortions, for medical reasons. But anyway, side topic...

So, as I said, it’s not a simple answer... at what point is it a big deal? I don’t know, somewhere in there, but I don’t think there is a specific point. What I do know do, and will never change my mind about, is how the fertilized egg is not a big deal to get rid of. It’s just too absurd to care about that egg, which has barely changed because of that tiny sperm coming in contact with it. Every month, every fertile woman in the world loses one of these eggs, it’s definitely not a big deal. But is that what you labelled unscientific before?

bmiller said...

Joe,

doesn't the fact of the question tell us that you are thinking in terms of policing the morality of others others?

You're having a conversation with your own imagination, not with me.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger bmiller said...
Joe,

doesn't the fact of the question tell us that you are thinking in terms of policing the morality of others others?

You're having a conversation with your own imagination, not with me.

January 02, 2019 5:18 AM


can you explain how its not? You know I'm a Christian,Ive established that many ties. I've talked about salvation and the role of Jesus in the death on cross and I've argued for the existence of God why would it be necessary to ask if I believable in some tenet so basic?

Joe Hinman said...

Hugo you are right viability is a better standard. I think the two go together. By consciousness I don't mean they are asking questions about the meaning of life or playing Hamlet but hey feel pain.From a developmental standpoint I would guess that would come with viability.

Hugo Pelland said...

Feeling pain would be a good one too, ya. I wonder how that could be determined, and whether that's consider a subset of being conscious. Interesting questions!

bmiller said...

Joe,

can you explain how its not?

Because I explicitly said so.

You know I'm a Christian,Ive established that many ties. I've talked about salvation and the role of Jesus in the death on cross and I've argued for the existence of God why would it be necessary to ask if I believable in some tenet so basic?

I think you've made up your own form of Christianity unhinged from any authority other than yourself. So with that in mind, I have to ask these basic questions.

Legion of Logic said...

hog wash, you don't think you are parting right wing drivel you are you are not willing to think past eh end of your nose

Your delusions do you no favors. You accuse me of thoughts I don't hold and think you've made a point? And then act like you're somehow representing a Christian standard of behavior? I might be forgiven for having doubts, especially since you actually defended the sexual revolution. I was astounded.

I figure the root cause is your bigotry against political conservatives, which is demonstrated repeatedly on this blog, coupled with typical left-wing ideas which deny reality. You are locked into caricatures which make you unable to actually listen.

Given your uncharitable behavior toward me, given your inability to engage with what I actually wrote and your insistence on accusing me of nonsense, this will be my last response to you until you demonstrate that you understand what I actually said in this thread, and can successfully articulate my motivations for doing so. If you think it has anything to do with right wing evangelical Christian theology to punish evil women, despite my clear refutation of such a thing, then engaging with you is not profitable in any sense. Even Stardusty provided entertainment at least.

Legion of Logic said...

Hugo,

Let's say I concede that it is absurd to include a zygote in my argument. So we would agree there. And you concede that abortion of an 8 month old "fetus" would be problematic at best. So we would also agree there.

That means that somewhere between the first cell and birth, there is a qualifying change that occurs in which it goes from being no big deal to being a big deal. Assuming you do not reject any of the premises in my argument (wrong to kill an innocent human, extreme youth grants innocence, human life begins before birth), then this qualifying event which makes it a big deal is when my argument would apply, and when it would become as wrong to abort as it would be to dismember an infant. To illustrate, no rational person would justify an abortion during a full-term labor. That's just killing a baby.

I can't imagine a set of circumstances in which I would shrug at the killing of an infant. Which means I can't imagine there being a process or event having a good probability of killing an infant with me not trying to stop or alleviate those deaths by playing on the safe side.

Joe flew off the handle and is in orbit somewhere, thinking all I care about is punishing evil women, but I think you can see where I am coming from, Hugo. So long as there is a gray area in which fuzzy criteria are used to establish that cutoff point between a human life and not a human life, it means human lives are being ended in abortions. It doesn't matter if the vast majority of abortions clearly occur before even the gray area of when the change occurs - somewhere in that gray area, human lives are being ended out of uncertainty, and if you accept the premises of my argument, then the killing of those unborn humans is as unacceptable as the killing of a newborn. Those fuzzy criteria should be deemed "not good enough".

Now notice that this logic has absolutely nothing to do with evil women. Regardless of evil women, it is either wrong to kill an infant or it is not wrong to kill an infant. Similarly, where fuzzy criteria establish the beginning of human life, it is either wrong to kill or it is not wrong to kill, regardless of evil women. It is the act of killing an innocent human life that is either okay, or it is not okay.

Hopefully you can grasp my point of view here. I've laid it out as plainly as I can.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger bmiller said...
Joe,

can you explain how its not?

Because I explicitly said so.

You know I'm a Christian,Ive established that many ties. I've talked about salvation and the role of Jesus in the death on cross and I've argued for the existence of God why would it be necessary to ask if I believable in some tenet so basic?


I think you've made up your own form of Christianity unhinged from any authority other than yourself. So with that in mind, I have to ask these basic questions.

you are brain washed by the Shepherding herasey. That is an absurd idea that one's opinion has to be submitted to authority,no passage in Bible says anything remotely that draconian.

Joe Hinman said...

One of the stupidest things you guys are into is this assertion that my views are so way out I've made up my own thing. That shows you are totally sequester in a cult, you don't have any exposure to other views. If you met a real radical you would have a heart attack, I hae a Masters degree fro a major seminary,its Methodist. the great radical group the United Methodists, next to communists right?

grow up,get some learning.break out.

Joe Hinman said...

Joe flew off the handle and is in orbit somewhere, thinking all I care about is punishing evil women, but I think you can see where I am coming from, Hugo. So long as there is a gray area in which fuzzy criteria are used to establish that cutoff point between a human life and not a human life, it means human lives are being ended in abortions. It doesn't matter if the vast majority of abortions clearly occur before even the gray area of when the change occurs - somewhere in that gray area, human lives are being ended out of uncertainty, and if you accept the premises of my argument, then the killing of those unborn humans is as unacceptable as the killing of a newborn. Those fuzzy criteria should be deemed "not good enough".

that is a good argument its a rational argument,why did You not make that argument with me? I can respect a good rational argument.I can also answer it. WE can know viability within a reasonable time frame.So they could say abortion is only legal in the first trimester or something.

bmiller said...

Joe,

You say this:
you are brain washed by the Shepherding herasey. That is an absurd idea that one's opinion has to be submitted to authority,no passage in Bible says anything remotely that draconian.

And immediately follow it with this:
One of the stupidest things you guys are into is this assertion that my views are so way out I've made up my own thing. That shows you are totally sequester in a cult, you don't have any exposure to other views. If you met a real radical you would have a heart attack, I hae a Masters degree fro a major seminary,its Methodist. the great radical group the United Methodists, next to communists right?

On the one hand you claim you don't have to submit to any authority other than yourself and on the other you appear to claim the authority of the Methodist Church. I don't follow.

I stand by my claim that you think you are your own authority.

Hugo Pelland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugo Pelland said...

Legion,

In general, yes, I get where you’re coming from and it makes a lot of sense. There are, however, a few details that explain why we see things very differently.

"That means that somewhere between the first cell and birth, there is a qualifying change that occurs in which it goes from being no big deal to being a big deal."
That’s not quite how I see it because I don’t think there is a "qualifying event which makes it a big deal". I really see it as gradually changing from ‘no big deal’ to ‘big deal’, to keep using the same words.

The other thing relates to this:
"It doesn't matter if the vast majority of abortions clearly occur before even the gray area of when the change occurs - somewhere in that gray area, human lives are being ended out of uncertainty"
Here, the difference is that I do think it matters that we are way before that ‘cutoff’, or way before the end of the gray zone where it becomes more and more ‘a big deal’, to be consistent. I think it matters because I personally don’t see it as a big deal to kill a 20-week old fetus, at all. Now, I know this can get tricky, or even disgusting to some, and it’s purely a personal opinion; I would not even try to convince someone as to why that’s how I see it. Because at that point, what matters more to me anyway is something else: the decision of the woman.

In other words, by the end of the 4th month of pregnancy, when I consider that we are barely entering that gray zone of uncertainty, 99% of abortions have already occurred and it’s really up to the woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. Before that, way before that, nobody else could even tell that she was pregnant, so it was again entirely up to her. We can still discuss the issue of course, but I think it’s essential to point out that the discussion of personhood, ending human lives or not, and everything we guys are talking about here, is ultimately a secondary issue in my opinion. The main thing, the first thing, is that women should be able to choose what to do with their body, in the privacy of a medical office.

Finally, I think it would not be fair to Joe to ignore the notion of punishing women because, even though I believe your intentions, I also do understand why Joe brought that up. It has been, historically, and still is today, in many places, a big taboo for women to have sex outside of marriage, or even to have sex just for fun while married. Therefore, there’s a long history of shaming women for the consequences of such sexual experiences, while men can get away with it so much more easily. Limiting access to abortion has often come hand-in-hand with this idea of shaming, with placing moral judgement on others, instead of letting individuals make their own choices. Now as to ‘how’ it was discussed and the exact words that were used... I will pass.

Legion of Logic said...

I said we should hand out birth control like candy, and I've said it many times previously. I would think that would pretty well prove that policing women's sex lives is not my motivation.

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion,
Yes, you were very clear on this. That part of my comment was not a critique of your position. It's just a general point regarding why Joe mentioned it. Again, 'how' he did it is a different story...

Joe Hinman said...

On the one hand you claim you don't have to submit to any authority other than yourself and on the other you appear to claim the authority of the Methodist Church. I don't follow.

I stand by my claim that you think you are your own authority.

you are evoking authority because you know your arguments have no logical basis.

Hugo: 'how' he did it is a different story...

I'm tired of Bull shit, people can't be honest with themselves about their own motivations.

Joe Hinman said...

Bmiller wrote "JDH and JH,

JH: "Not just a religious belief but a particular theological take on belief,"

A very good distinction.

But a mistaken one. The following quote is from the link I provided earlier.
You can be an atheist and believe that abortion is morally wrong even though all orthodox Christians have believed it historically.


Not mistaken to any degree, RTL is a theological take on a religious view that does not mean it's the only view concurring with that position, it is that much, so that is not incriminate at all. your preachment was incriminate,


Legion of Logic said...
It is remarkably easy to formulate a pro-life argument that is in no way dependent upon any religious teaching.

Premise: It is wrong to end an innocent human life.

Premise: Very young humans are innocent.

Premise: Human life begins before birth.

Conclusion: It is wrong to kill the unborn.

at what poimt before birth? that;s the issue.

again,I think we established that RTL is not biased for being religious,it doesn't matter that you can have secular RTL the point is it is not universal to Christian outlook, the religious branch of the movement is based upon one sect not upon all of Christian belief,you try to say that I am the only person who ever supported pro choice and called himself a Christian that is obviously BS.

You guys were the first to resort to ridicule and tell me I;m crazy I;' off my own,I that is just the same as admitting you can't answer a logical argument,

Hugo Pelland said...

Joe said...

" Hugo: 'how' he did it is a different story...

I'm tired of Bull shit, people can't be honest with themselves about their own motivations.
"

I don’t see any reason to doubt Legion’s sincerity. The only thing I pointed out is how, in the broader context, you are right to mention the urge to control women. But again, that doesn’t mean the specific people we are interacting with here, on this blog, think like that. I don’t see why you’re accusing him like that...

Legion of Logic said...

I'm tired of Bull shit, people can't be honest with themselves about their own motivations.

On that we certainly agree. Of course, "people" never includes the beholder, does it?

bmiller said...

@Joe,

you are evoking authority because you know your arguments have no logical basis.

No, I just pointed out that I cannot know what you believe even though you claim to be a Christian. That's why I had to ask you if you considered fornication a sin.

For instance you brought up that you went to a Methodist school. Can I look up the published beliefs of the Methodists and those are your beliefs? I don't think so. So was it logical to bring that up? I don't think so.

Joe Hinman said...

No, I just pointed out that I cannot know what you believe even though you claim to be a Christian. That's why I had to ask you if you considered fornication a sin.

We have new topic here I said your appeal to authority was fallacious you are still harping on the sin thing.

For instance you brought up that you went to a Methodist school. Can I look up the published beliefs of the Methodists and those are your beliefs? I don't think so. So was it logical to bring that up? I don't think so.

Of course you can look up the beliefs of the UMC, Why would you thing mine woudnot coincide,?

I started the apologetic group the CADRE and the main requirement there is to believe the Nicene creed,So I believe the Nicene Creed,


January 03, 2019 5:48 AM

Joe Hinman said...

I don’t see any reason to doubt Legion’s sincerity. The only thing I pointed out is how, in the broader context, you are right to mention the urge to control women. But again, that doesn’t mean the specific people we are interacting with here, on this blog, think like that. I don’t see why you’re accusing him like that...

they have done this bs since I first stated posting here, when you say things of which they are ignorant because they are not scholars they are not well researched they stat saying you are crazy you are way out. they are very sequestered so they are easily alarmed by attitudes that are really pretty mild. Real liberals have told me I am not liberal I'm neo orthodox, these guys are clearly alarmed by my ideas.They think it;s bizarre fora Christian to be pro choice and that just shows they are very sequestered.

they drove Jeff Loweder away with that attitude

Joe Hinman said...

I'm tired of Bull shit, people can't be honest with themselves about their own motivations.

On that we certainly agree. Of course, "people" never includes the beholder, does it?

I've been more than tolerant,many times we've gone 50 or sixty posts me vs all of you or most of you with out me resorting to insult. I get no credit for that. You should have seen me in the old days on atheist boards

bmiller said...

@Joe,

We have new topic here I said your appeal to authority was fallacious you are still harping on the sin thing.

I did not appeal to any authority.

Of course you can look up the beliefs of the UMC, Why would you thing mine woudnot coincide,?

Because I don't think the Methodist Church would officially approve of aborting Jesus. Because the official stance of the UMC is that an eternal Hell exists where the residents are tormented. Let's start there.

Joe Hinman said...

bmiller says: "I did not appeal to any authority."

said January 03, 2019 8:09 AM

Really? put money on it?

bmiller says:

"On the one hand you claim you don't have to submit to any authority other than yourself and on the other you appear to claim the authority of the Methodist Church. I don't follow.

I stand by my claim that you think you are your own authority."

January 02, 2019 10:54 AM


you stand by the claim but not for long apparently. I stand by the claim as long as I can remember it

Legion of Logic said...

they have done this bs since I first stated posting here

You were here before me, I believe, based upon the earliest posts of ours I could find.


they stat saying you are crazy you are way out

To compare, because I advocated helping women, you accused me of wanting to control their sex lives. That's not even close to what I said or believe, thus it is way out.

Meanwhile, you characterized marriage for a woman to be, and I quote, "tied down as the property of a man." (Interestingly, you did not depict it as a man being tied down as the property of a woman, despite them having the exact boundaries within a marriage.) You also criticized us as being backward for not supporting the sexual revolution. Given that neither the sexual revolution nor the belief that marriage is inherently oppressive to women is even remotely Christian in nature, they are certainly remarkable coming from a Christian.

Note that believing promiscuous sex outside of marriage is a sin is not the same as wanting to police that behavior. It's harmful to society, to be sure, but what can you do?


they drove Jeff Loweder away with that attitude

He was gone before I arrived, far as I know. Only reason I know who he is, is because Victor has quoted him.

Joe Hinman said...

Authority is not a valid issue because you don't have the right to police my opinions or my soul, and you are merely talking refuse in the words of others (ill litigate authority) because you know you have no basis for your arguments. you are just regurgitating political propaganda.

for the record here is my authority"


Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]”
declares the Lord.

33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”



I may be the least i the Kingdom but I;'m in, God wrote his laws on my heart and he gave me his spirit and prophesies that the Spirit will lead me into all truth,

Joe Hinman said...

they stat saying you are crazy you are way out

To compare, because I advocated helping women, you accused me of wanting to control their sex lives. That's not even close to what I said or believe, thus it is way out.

If you support making abortion illegal and if you support the RTL movement in the tactics they use most often you do not support helping woman, you support ridiculing them.Have you ever been to an abortion clinic and seen how they teat those who go inside? I have it. It is not loving its not christian.

I understated that you think you are helping and maybe you do help them in other ways,maybe you don't do those things I;'m describing, I am not going to judge and say you do. But if you think the RTL thing is helping them guess again




Meanwhile, you characterized marriage for a woman to be, and I quote, "tied down as the property of a man." (Interestingly, you did not depict it as a man being tied down as the property of a woman, despite them having the exact boundaries within a marriage.)

I'm not talking about all marriage I'm talkie about the kind of marriage in a traditionalist house where the man is the"head' the woman has to obey, complementary.
My parents had the bwst marriage ever. they were actually giving lip service to the traditional view but they were so full of love they never had any conflicts like that. My DAd never said i;'mthe man I;'m in charge, my Mom always deferred to him except when he wanted to buy Studebaker,



You also criticized us as being backward for not supporting the sexual revolution. Given that neither the sexual revolution nor the belief that marriage is inherently oppressive to women is even remotely Christian in nature, they are certainly remarkable coming from a Christian.

Not what I said at all. you so often exaggerate my views and change what I said in order to give it worst interpretation.I gave an honest appraisal of good and bad in the sexual revolution. I myself don't support it,as such, I support aspects of it

Note that believing promiscuous sex outside of marriage is a sin is not the same as wanting to police that behavior. It's harmful to society, to be sure, but what can you do?

Not its not however I believe you do both,


they drove Jeff Loweder away with that attitude

He was gone before I arrived, far as I know. Only reason I know who he is, is because Victor has quoted him.

I can't tell the players without a program

January 03, 2019 8:44 AM

bmiller said...

@Joe,

you stand by the claim but not for long apparently. I stand by the claim as long as I can remember it

Concluding that you consider yourself your own authority is not an "appeal to authority". You understand that, right? It seems to me that your response confirms my conclusion.

And once again, I only brought it up to explain why I felt the need to ask you explicitly about your beliefs.

Legion of Logic said...

you support the RTL movement in the tactics they use most often you do not support helping woman

While I believe this is too broad a statement to be useful, I agree to an extent. Which is why I am not a member of any pro-life group, do not donate to any pro-life organizations, and oh yeah, I advocate mass availability of birth control and the broadening of financial assistance - to poor women and parents in particular - at the expense of the rich, so that children are not a financial detriment. It should be readily apparent that I am not in lockstep with the typical pro-life conservative.


I'm not talking about all marriage I'm talkie about the kind of marriage in a traditionalist house where the man is the"head' the woman has to obey

Okay. Then we agree on that.


Not what I said at all

Then can you explain what you meant by this:

Here are ainthe 21st centiry and the evangelicals have not gotten out of the 19th

Which aspect of modern sexual norms in society are you upholding over that of the 1800s? When I think of today's culture, it is how sex is used to sell virtually everything. Pornography is everywhere. Broken families, which are devastating to the black community especially. Relationship problems. STDs. Pregnancies out of marriage, particularly disruptive to teenagers. And yes, millions and millions of abortions. What in the 1800s was worse than this?


however I believe you do both

You believe wrong.

Joe Hinman said...

you stand by the claim but not for long apparently. I stand by the claim as long as I can remember it

Concluding that you consider yourself your own authority is not an "appeal to authority". You understand that, right? It seems to me that your response confirms my conclusion.


You have twisted my words my words, now you have worked it out to where I said I am my own thirty you are a liar! I clearly repudiated that idea and you are speaking as though I admitted it, you are a liar,

And once again, I only brought it up to explain why I felt the need to ask you explicitly about your beliefs.

which is the same as saying you need some euchre official to tell you what to think and I don't need that.

the fact i you have contradicted yourself,

bmiller said...

Joe,

I have not twisted your words. I have not made an "appeal to authority".

The fact of the matter is that I can't tell what beliefs you hold.

which is the same as saying you need some euchre official to tell you what to think and I don't need that.

Right. You don't listen to anyone but yourself. That's my point.

Joe Hinman said...


I have not twisted your words. I have not made an "appeal to authority".


Obviously you did its right thereon paper, so you may not know what the words mean but sure did say it,

The fact of the matter is that I can't tell what beliefs you hold.

I just told you believe in the Nicene creed do you not know what that is? look it up.

which is the same as saying you need some euchre official to tell you what to think and I don't need that.

Right. You don't listen to anyone but yourself. That's my point.

you are the one who said it, so you not know the words coming out of your mouth?
January 04, 2019 5:20 AM

Joe Hinman said...

bmiller you can/t be honest with your self or the people you argue with

bmiller said...

Joe,

From Wikipedia-
Argument from authority:
An argument from authority, (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.

Where did I make this appeal to authority that you're accusing me of? I did not mention you should reach any particular conclusion because some authority supported that conclusion.

And as far as "twisting your words", if you think I did that then you should tell me how I did that. I'm trying to understand your position, not mischaracterize it. It would be pointless for me to discuss a position that you do not hold.

I just told you believe in the Nicene creed do you not know what that is? look it up.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Nicene Creed but it was composed primarily in response to the Arian heresy, not to give an exhaustive list of all Christian beliefs.

You also said this:

Of course you can look up the beliefs of the UMC, Why would you thing mine woudnot coincide,?

I did look up the beliefs of the UMC and listed 2 examples where it is my understanding that your beliefs do not coincide. You've ignored those.

which is the same as saying you need some euchre official to tell you what to think and I don't need that.

Right. You don't listen to anyone but yourself. That's my point.

you are the one who said it, so you not know the words coming out of your mouth?


Once again, my point is that I have to ask you explicitly about some very fundamental, historically held orthodox Christian beliefs because from my interaction with you I find that you don't hold only historically held orthodox Christian beliefs.

You claim you don't need anyone including a church official (also including the UMC I assume ) telling you what to think. I understand that. But that also seems to me that you then have to consider yourself your own authority (since there is no one you can talk to that you consider a higher authority). Please tell me how I'm reaching the wrong conclusion.