Here. For those who are just interested in the abortion stuff, it's around 13 minutes in. Apparently he had a discussion with Pope Benedict on the issue.
Here. For those who are just interested in the abortion stuff, it's around 13 minutes in. Apparently he had a discussion with Pope Benedict on the issue.
110 comments:
Ya.
He is essentially saying that he is personally against satanic pedophilia cannibalism but he does not wish to impose his personal belief upon others.
If I believe firmly that a human life begins at conception, I absolutely will do everything in my power to stop abortions from happening based upon what achieves actual results. To do otherwise is to reveal myself as a vile excuse of a human being. As Biden has done by claiming to be pro-life but not wanting to prevent a single abortion per the demands of his psychotic base.
And his ridiculous cop-out that he doesn't want to "impose" on others would be much more believable if he wasn't committing to doing everything in his power to ENABLE MORE ABORTIONS. That is not something a pro-life person does.
You can expand access to contraception to prevent abortions without providing federal funding to kill the unborn. Biden is a tool who parrots the very deadly propaganda that killing the unborn is simply a "reproductive choice" despite the death it causes. Deciding to have sex is a reproductive choice a man or woman can make. Once they have conceived, reproduction has already occurred. Not that there is a single person on the left intellectually honest enough to admit that.
So, either Biden is a liar (we already know he is) or he is a vile coward. Either way, his faith is of no effect. No leadership for another four years.
What is this one issue a measure of someone's faith? The Catholic Church has clear teaching on capital punishment, but I don't see Catholic supporters of the death penalty being called CINOS.
I see things a little differently than the previous commenters.
(1) I think words like "satanic pedophilia cannibalism", "a tool", "psychotic base" and " a liar (we already know he is) or he is a vile coward" reveal something that doesn't sound very christian to me. I understand yoiu feel strongly about this, quite reasonably, but I think we are required to speak the truth in LOVE.
(2) A person can believe something but not be certain enough of it to choose to impose it on others. For example, a jury may believe the accused is guilty, but not beyond reasonable doubt. That jury would be required to acquit. So perhaps Biden is in a similar position. If that is the case, then the rather extreme words used above would be entirely unfair. I wonder if you have considered that?
(3) Even if he is totally wrong, is he any more a sinner than everyone else? Than someone who approves warfare on less than compelling grounds? Than someone who abuses their wife? Than someone who supports an unequal tax system that reduces some people to desperation? Than someone who locks up refugees without hope so they end up committing suicide? Than you or I? Are we not all forgiven if we seek grace, even if we are mistaken about some things we commit that we think are OK but God thinks are sin?
Perhaps you could both write a comment that shows grace while it makes its point?
I think making false promises to a person in order to get someone to sleep with you is very, very unethical. It causes all kinds of pain in many cases. Am I insincere in opposing this because I don't think the law should put people in jail for committing this offense?
I think I would be a lot closer to the pro-life cause if the pro-life movement didn't try to soak up all the moral oxygen, and render just about every other offense forgivable. Did anyone bother to listen to the rest of the interview?
unkleE,
(1) I think words like "satanic pedophilia cannibalism", "a tool", "psychotic base" and " a liar (we already know he is) or he is a vile coward" reveal something that doesn't sound very christian to me. I understand yoiu feel strongly about this, quite reasonably, but I think we are required to speak the truth in LOVE.
Quick question. Who said this?
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Was this speaking the truth in LOVE?
I used the words I used to emphasize a point. The point being that the view of "I personally oppose x but I don't wish to impose my view on others" deserves ridicule.
(2) A person can believe something but not be certain enough of it to choose to impose it on others.
The man claims to be a Catholic and no one is forcing him to be a Catholic. There is no doubt about the Catholic Church's on abortion. He is also in a position to do something about it unlike most people.
(3) Even if he is totally wrong, is he any more a sinner than everyone else?
Do you think 'satanic pedophilia cannibals' are bigger sinners than everyone else? You seem to think that that phrase is unChristian for some reason. Why if every sin is the same? Sorry, but being complicit in murder is not the same as stealing from the collection plate.
Victor,
The Catholic Church has clear teaching on capital punishment, but I don't see Catholic supporters of the death penalty being called CINOS.
That's because capital punishment is not considered inherently evil like the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Presumably, the one being executed is guilty. Therefore a Catholic can argue for or against the death penalty on prudential grounds. Not so for abortion.
I think making false promises to a person in order to get someone to sleep with you is very, very unethical. It causes all kinds of pain in many cases. Am I insincere in opposing this because I don't think the law should put people in jail for committing this offense?
Well if you end up killing that person should you go to jail?
I think I would be a lot closer to the pro-life cause if the pro-life movement didn't try to soak up all the moral oxygen, and render just about every other offense forgivable.
I doubt it because you talk like a secular consequentialist. You consider the commandment not to murder negotiable if allowing murder means the government (ie. other people) will pay for health care.
The concept of murder is a fascinating one, and one that strikes me as less than clear. Does it require malice toward the victim, or is it just homicide without moral justification.
Of course one could believe that God is right in condemning murder but oppose state sanctions against it. I had an anarchist friend who held just this position about abortion and every other crime, including murder in general.
Of course, God could be wrong about murder. But that is a radical position to take. (The Jewish tradition seems to allow critical views of God).
The law recognizes different degrees of murder.
First degree murder requires pre-meditation, second degree murder is not planned but intended and third degree murder is when someone is killed but without the specific intention to kill.
I expect atheists and anarchists to have wacky views, but what I find fascinating is that some Christians take the view that logically leads to justifying the abortion of Jesus.
Hi bmiller,
Thaks for engaging.
"deserves ridicule"
I'm guessing you identify as a christian, a follower of Jesus. So do you think that a follower of Jesus should readily use ridicule? Do you think that respects the other person as made in the image of God? Clearly, disagreement can always verge on ridicule, but Peter says we are to give our answers "with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). Paul gives simialr advice (Colossians 4:6, Romans 14:10). Have you not realised that strong statements often polarise whereas kore respectful statements are more likely to win someone over? Would you not rather communicate and win someone over than express yourself strongly and polarise them? If I as a christian of almost 60 years found your remarks polarising, imagine how a non-believers or young christiand rewading them might feel. Do you think of those effects?
"Quick question. Who said this? ..... Was this speaking the truth in LOVE?"
I have heard than answer given before, and I think it is a poor justification for three reasons:
(1) You are not Jesus. The son of God has authority that you and I don't have, especially whe talking to to the priests and rabbis if God's chosen people.
(2) Words must always be considered in the cultural and social context. Reading the NT illustrates that 1st century Jewish culture was very forthright. Things that were acceptable back then would not be acceptable today, and vice versa. We need cultural, social and personal sensitivity if we want to communicate the love of God. Wouldn't you rather communicate love that something that sounds awfully unloving?
(3) We have the commands from Peter and Paul to behave differently.
"The man claims to be a Catholic and no one is forcing him to be a Catholic."
Are you saying as a matter of principle tat a person should follow EVERYTHING that their church teaches? That no-one should follow where they think conscience and the Holy Spirit is leading them? I don't believe that is a BIblical or godly principle, but perhaps you do.
In the end, I suggest it comes down to this. I want to communicate with my words, not just say words that don't communicate what I think. I would prefer to try to be gentle and loving, even if I don't get it right, and avoid giving offence by my choice of words. I am hoping you might see it in a similar way. Thanks.
What is this one issue a measure of someone's faith?
EVERY issue with a moral component is a measure of someone's faith. Do we all sin? Obviously. But it is not that Biden isn't morally perfect, it is that he is going out of his way to enable the killing of the unborn. That's a bit more egregious. Just a bit.
The death penalty is targeted at violent criminals, and the innocent are collateral damage. Abortion targets the innocent intentionally.
unkleE,
I prefer dialectic discussions but there are times when rhetoric is in order.
Do you think "I personally oppose murder but I don't wish to impose my view on others" is a legitimate excuse to tax people to pay murderers? The man has imposed all sorts of things on people with different views for nearly 50 years. Sorry but that seems pretty ironic to me.
If you are actually a Christian it is your duty to point out evil and oppose it. Instead, you seem to want to spend your time criticizing those pointing out evil. Look at how much time you've spent defending your judgementalism of style over substance.
(1) You are not Jesus. The son of God has authority that you and I don't have, especially whe talking to to the priests and rabbis if God's chosen people.
(2) Words must always be considered in the cultural and social context. Reading the NT illustrates that 1st century Jewish culture was very forthright. Things that were acceptable back then would not be acceptable today, and vice versa. We need cultural, social and personal sensitivity if we want to communicate the love of God. Wouldn't you rather communicate love that something that sounds awfully unloving?
(3) We have the commands from Peter and Paul to behave differently.
(1) I'm not Jesus, but I'm called to follow His example. In this case he called out evil in harsh terms. I did the same. Do you disagree that abortion is a grave evil?
(2) Rhetoric is acceptable today as it has always been. I used a common rhetorical technique of substituting an obviously odious thing in Biden's argument emphasize the logical consequences of such poor reasoning.
(3) Please don't force your own personal Bibilical views on me.
Are you saying as a matter of principle tat a person should follow EVERYTHING that their church teaches? That no-one should follow where they think conscience and the Holy Spirit is leading them? I don't believe that is a BIblical or godly principle, but perhaps you do.
It's clear that you haven't engaged many knowledgeable Catholics. There are certain things that are not negotiable if you wish to remain in the Catholic Church. Supporting abortion is one of them. I understand that you have a different opinion being a Protestant and maybe that's why you are confused why Catholics are criticizing Biden.
In the end, I suggest it comes down to this. I want to communicate with my words, not just say words that don't communicate what I think. I would prefer to try to be gentle and loving, even if I don't get it right, and avoid giving offence by my choice of words. I am hoping you might see it in a similar way. Thanks.
You are perfectly within your rights to communicate any way you see fit. Here is what I'm taking away from this discussion:
You prefer I follow your style rather than my own.
You never told us your opinion on abortion.
You're OK with someone saying the Holy Spirit told them abortion is OK.
It seems unlikely that he wants to go out of his way to enable the killing of the unborn. We wouldn't have dragged his feet on the Hyde Amendment when all the other candidates opposed it if he was really trying to do that. I for one wish he hadn't changed his mind, and have been trying to figure out the reasoning. I do think that as abortions go, the more excusable ones are ones done because of economic pressures, being unable to care for a child once it's born, and the amendment would prevent those abortions, as opposed to abortions for wealthier people where it seems more like mere convenience. I think he thinks universal health care will result in fewer abortions in the long run. But, I realize that pushing us in the direction of socialism with the intent of decreasing abortion is thought by many to oppose abortion in the wrong way.
Maybe, just maybe, he changed his stance because that is what it took to get the nomination.
It seems unlikely that he wants to go out of his way to enable the killing of the unborn.
Desire or the lack of integrity to stand up to his base which does desire it. Either way, the killing is enabled.
I don't know if they are going to pass a repeal of the Hyde Amendment--repealing it will make it more difficult for spending bills to get any Republican support. Of course, any politician's motives are open to cynical analysis. Even with a Democratic Senate, I suspect getting rid of the Hyde Amendment would render legislation more likely to face filibuster.
Biden's position is based on the separation of church and state. He thinks, based on his Catholic beliefs, that life begins at conception and the abortion is wrong. He seems to think he cannot make a case against abortion that everyone, regardless of religious belief, could accept. From what I can tell, from the perspective of his religious views, if the choice were up to him he would choose against abortion unless the mother's life was in danger. But he opposes anti-abortion laws he thinks he can't defend to the people as a whole, who are the real sovereigns in America (not the President).
Like I said.
He's spent 50 years in office passing legislation that half of the population disagrees with. It's just this one issue (that happens to be a litmus test for Democrat politicians running for office) that he must somehow appeal to the entire populace? Yeah, right.
It was pretty apparent that Trump was either pro-choice or ambivalent to the abortion question before he ran as a Republican. He had to come out as pro-life to get the nomination. Likewise Biden cynically changed his position on the Hyde Amendment in order to get the Democrat nomination. It's not difficult to figure out.
The difference with Biden is that with respect to the other issues, he thought he had good reason for thinking that other people ought to believe that these were good policy. In the case of abortion, I think he doesn't have reasons for opposing abortion that would be valid for people who do not share his faith.
If you are a Muslim, you believe that no one should drink alcoholic beverages. However, a Muslim could oppose Prohibition in America without betraying his or her faith.
In the case of abortion, I think he doesn't have reasons for opposing abortion that would be valid for people who do not share his faith.
That's odd because Kevin is not a Catholic and thinks he has valid reasons for opposing abortion. There are people of all faiths and no faith that oppose abortion so that doesn't make sense.
Gallup Poll shows regular church goers are likely to be pro-life and apparently regardless of denomination. Pro-life and pro-abortion opinions are about equally divided across all groups.
And yet the arguments against abortion are surprisingly secular. But I think the polling numbers suggest that the majority in America are not strictly pro-life in the way you are, but are more comfortable with abortion restrictions than are permitted by Roe.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/8-key-findings-about-catholics-and-abortion/
Overturning Roe would, according to Antonin Scalia, make abortion a matter of democratic choice. The reason abortion is legal in America now is not because of Roe. It would remain legal no because most Americans think it should be legal. I don't think even in states that are passing anti-abortion laws would be able to keep them in place if Roe were overturned.
You differ with Biden in that, in Thomist terminology. Biden thinks that the case against abortion is a matter of divine law, while you think the case against abortion is matter of natural law. Matters of natural law are things that can serve as the foundations for government, while divine law is not a basis for legislation and is in the proper sphere of the church, not the state.
Do you think, for example, an atheist ought to oppose abortion, based on evidence available to all?
Polls haven't been very reliable lately have they. Part of that is who is polled, and what the question is. Regardless, polls don't determine policy in America.
I don't think even in states that are passing anti-abortion laws would be able to keep them in place if Roe were overturned.
Fascinating. You think laws against abortion will disappear when Roe is overturned. Well, to each their own.
What makes you think Biden has not become aware of the Church's reasons for opposing abortion in his 77 years as a Catholic in public life? That's incredible.
Do you think, for example, an atheist ought to oppose abortion, based on evidence available to all?
Of course I do. They claim to be reasonable and moral don't they? BTW, are you still a Christian?
One of my big concerns about the abortion issue is the proclivity of people on the right to question the Christian seriousness of those who disagree with them on the issue. It makes the issue deeply divisive within the Christian Churches, and I think it's dangerous. Christianity is no guarantee that a person will get things right in the area of morality. Christians have supported and practiced slavery, have slaughtered Native Americans, have supported oppressive regimes, have burned people at the stake, have killed one another in massive numbers during the Wars of Religion in which 1/3 of the population of Europe was killed, they have persecuted Jews, and accepted anti-Semitic ideas which served as the basis for Hitler's Final Solution. When it comes to these things, it would be nice and convenient to say that these people who did all these wrong things weren't real Christians, but that would be manifestly false.
It may be deontologically most adequate to have laws against abortion. However, when it comes to preventing abortions in real time, the legal campaign is doomed. If there are errors in attitude and reasoning when it comes to abortion, these are the real problem, and they won't be fixed by abortion laws.
Since you think that the Christians that did all those things were wrong does that mean that you think Christianity is false?
I asked the question I did because I can't remember the last time you defended Christianity, including this time. I see you challenging naturalists and defending the existence of God, but I can't tell where you stand on Jesus.
There are certain appeals one can make to Christians regarding abortion that would not appeal to non-believers. Here's 3:
1) Jesus declared, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'
This is why we have laws against slavery, slaughtering indigenous people, etc. regardless of evildoers errors in attitude and so on. Some thought slaves and indigenous people were less than human, just like some think the same as the unborn today for many of the same reasons.
2) Matthew 25:31-46 is too long to post, but Christians should realize that Christ is present in the weakest and most vulnerable among us and what we allow to be done to those, we are allowing to be done to Him.
Which again is why we have laws against slavery.
3) Some Christians argue that killing the unborn is not doing harm to Christ because the unborn are not human or 'persons'. But they cannot claim certain knowledge of this. "Lord, I did not know it was you I was killing".
However, they also have Luke 1:35-1:42 to consider. It's the story of the Annunciation and what happened immediately after the conception of Jesus:
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Mary is already a mother, the second Person of the Holy Trinity is present and Elizabeth recognizes it immediately after Mary conceives and goes straight to Elizabeth's house. Christians should have no doubt that the unborn are persons at the moment of conception deserving the same protections as all other persons. That is if they believe the Bible is true.
Now it's true that people will still sin no matter what the law says, but few sane people reach the conclusion that therefore there should be no laws. To be consistent, those arguing that there should be no laws against abortion because abortions will still happen should then also argue that there should be no laws against slavery because it still happens.
2020 has been full of historical events. Here's another one.
These acts of wrongdoing by Christians do not disprove Christianity, because if it did, then the horrific crimes of atheistic Communists would prove the existence of God, and the don't.
I have defended the historicity of the Resurrection many times here, and stand by my arguments.
As for abortion, there are evidences from a theological standpoint that we as persons stand in solidarity with our prenatal selves. That is why I have been motivated in my personal life not to cause an unwanted pregnancy that might lead to an abortion. At the same time, I do not see that this necessarily shows that there is no relevant difference between abortion and infanticide. There do seem to be mitigating factors in the case of abortion. I also suspect that those mitigating factors are not sufficient to justify abortion in most cases.
I want the number of abortions to get as close to zero as possible. The effort to overturn Roe and legislate against abortion is, to my mind, less promising than a number of other strategies, such as universal health care, paid family leave, children's health insurance, etc. In spite of possible temporary victories, what will not help the pro-life cause is supporting a p****-grabbing President who treats women as objects, who separated children from their parents when they try to come into the country legally by applying for asylum, and who attacks clear Christian teaching on forgiving our enemies, who expects the Department of Justice to function as his own personal legal firm, and who does everything in his power to subvert American democracy, and whose administration is mercifully coming to an end. That is why a group of pro-life evangelicals endorsed Biden while openly disagreeing with him about abortion.
Outlawing abortion while not doing our level best to create situations where women to not desperately need abortions to provide for the families they already have is a recipe for disaster.
If you want to make sure you have laws against abortion, and that is the most important thing in the world to you, then you might want someone who is going to rip the Constitution to shreds and be a pro-life dictator. I understand they have someone like that in Hungary. If not, then unless the people in our country change their minds in a radical way about abortion, the legal crusade against it is doomed. It won't work. Christians are NOT the moral majority in America. Maybe this will change if Christians, and our government work as hard as they can to make live birth the reasonable choice for women facing difficult pregnancies. But whenever I bring up measure like that the very people who are pro-life say "Oh no, we can't do that. That would be socialism." So what is more important, preventing abortion, or avoiding socialism?
There are two parties in America. One of them pushes to outlaw abortion, but opposes policies that make is easier for women to carry their pregnancies to term. Then you have a party whose policies that make it easier for women to complete their pregnancies, but support the choice to get an abortion.
I CAN see why reasonable people might be OK with abortion, even Christians. Even given the theological reasons for opposing abortion, I do not believe in judging the faith of others. My philosophical mentor, William Hasker, defended the pro-choice position in a debate in Human Life Review. But I find the whole "Shout your abortion" movement disgusting. But I have been tempted to do a lot of things, but I have never been tempted to get an abortion. I have no idea what it is like to have an unwanted pregnancy. I had a student tell me that she got an abortion because she had a child, was in an abusive relationships she had to get out of, and could not take care of both the new baby and the child already born.
Outlawing abortion while not doing our level best to create situations where women to not desperately need abortions to provide for the families they already have is a recipe for disaster.
Precisely. Neither party is right on this issue. Ironically, it's Democrats, who pretend abortion doesn't involve a death, that champion the programs that lead to more financial security for the poor, the demographic where most abortions occur. Meanwhile Republicans' lip service on the issue acknowledges the reality of what an abortion is, but unrealistically coasts on the assumption that people have enough sense and survival instincts to avoid sex if not wanting children.
Which leads to
was in an abusive relationships she had to get out of, and could not take care of both the new baby and the child already born.
A prime of example of someone who did not need to be in a sexual relationship. Emotions make people idiots, particularly when it comes to pretending that sex is not inherently a reproductive act.
We need to both acknowledge the truth - abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn life, and not a "reproductive choice" - but also mitigate the environment which causes people to want abortions out of fear, like Victor's student. Government should promote family, which is good for society.
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/01/29/donald-trump-is-making-us-pro-life-activists-look-like-fools/
Victor,
The reason I asked if you were still a Christian is because I thought you were a Protestant and that you believed in Jesus Christ as being your Lord and Savior and that the Bible is the word of God. I certainly wouldn't point out New Testament passages to an atheist or a Unitarian.
I wonder why you decline to engage in theological points I've been making if you are a Christian. That's not a claim that I'm a superior Christian or anything, just an honest curiosity.
At the same time, I do not see that this necessarily shows that there is no relevant difference between abortion and infanticide. There do seem to be mitigating factors in the case of abortion. I also suspect that those mitigating factors are not sufficient to justify abortion in most cases.
I'd be interested in discussing the specifics if you are inclined.
Blah...blah...Trump is bad...blah, blah...pro-lifers want a dictatorship...we can only pass laws that 100% of the population agree on...Republicans want to punish poor people...etc etc.
I'm going to ignore that rant.
I'm trying to convince you that deliberate killing of an innocent human being is an intrinsic evil just like the commandment says. I'll join hands with you find solutions for expectant mothers that cannot keep their unborn child. I already give to organizations like Maggie's Place and the Catholic Church has always provided support but if you have specific government funded programs that provide like Maggie's Place I can support them as long as they can be held accountable. BTW, did your student seek out Catholic Services or organizations like Maggie's Place?
Hi bmiller,
I don't regard myself as a Protestant, but as a christian. I'm not happy with labels other than that. Since you say you are called to follow Jesus, we are on the same page, and your Catholicism can only be relevant if it is also following Jesus.
"If you are actually a Christian it is your duty to point out evil and oppose it"
I strongly disagree. Sometimes that is our responsibility. But there are plenty of NT passages that teach otherwise. Paul says (Romans 14) not to judge our fellow believers, which I take to be a broad principle that rests on our definition of "judge". And in 1 Corinthians he says it isn't our task to be criticising non-believers. Jesus says to remove beams before pointing out motes. I don't think all that means we should never point out evil, but I do think we need to be careful. And we must do it with gentleness and respect (which I don't think you were doing). On a practical level, I am very interested in communicating as well as possible, which means not just speaking what I think is truth, but speaking in a way that the other person receives it. I was hoping you'd be interested in improving your communication, just as I am.
"Please don't force your own personal Bibilical views on me."
I'm sorry. Is quoting the Bible forcing it on you? I would hope the Holy Spirit might convict you, but I certainly don't see that as my role.
"You prefer I follow your style rather than my own."
No, I prefer to follow the NT as much as I can, and I would be happy if you did too.
"You never told us your opinion on abortion"
No, I didn't, I was discussing something else. Does it make a difference to this discussion if you don't know?
"You're OK with someone saying the Holy Spirit told them abortion is OK."
Honestly, this is an amazing statement and I have absolutely no idea why your would think you could say it. It's a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type statement. But to clarify - I am absolutely not OK with that. I would appreciate an apology from you for such an outrageous statement.
Thanks.
unkleE,
If you strongly disagree that one should criticize fellow believers then why are you criticizing me? You don't seem to follow your own advice.
The original topic is Biden and his stance wrt abortion. You have contributed nothing to that topic and in fact are actively avoiding it. I wonder why?
Honestly, this is an amazing statement and I have absolutely no idea why your would think you could say it.
Because when I pointed out that Biden is Catholic and supporting abortion is automatic self-excommunication for a Catholic. Then you said:
Are you saying as a matter of principle tat a person should follow EVERYTHING that their church teaches? That no-one should follow where they think conscience and the Holy Spirit is leading them? I don't believe that is a BIblical or godly principle, but perhaps you do.
So I concluded that you thought that he felt the Holy Spirit guided him to kill the unborn. I accept that you didn't mean that, but what did you mean if not that?
Finally, what are your particular beliefs that set you apart from the general category of Protestant? It's generally accepted that there are 3 major groups that fall under the heading Christian. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.
Catholic and Orthodox believe in Apostolic Succession, Magisterium, Scripture, Tradition, Liturgy etc, with the biggest difference being in the role of the Pope.
Protestants generally believe in some of none of those things but explicitly reject the Magisterium and Tradition and rely only on sola scriptura and the personal interpretation of scripture. Do you not believe in those 2 things?
bmiller,
I'm trying to convince you that deliberate killing of an innocent human being is an intrinsic evil just like the commandment says.
Until you at least make the simple acknowledgement that forcing one person (the woman) into the bodily servitude of another person (the fetus) is also an intrinsic evil, your lecturing comes across as hollow and self-serving.
Wanting to stop the unborn from being killed is not an intrinsic evil.
Analogies for this topic never work, but if I intentionally put you in a situation where you require my organs to survive for nine months, and I kill you to escape the consequences of my decisions, is that evil of me?
Analogies for this topic never work
Which is why trying to make the analogy of a newly created human being as being the slave master of his mother is not only a bad analogy but,...let's face it,...insane. Maybe even worse than that, but I'm not an exorcist so I don't know.
Well let's be charitable. There are two competing moral issues here, the life of the unborn and the woman's bodily autonomy. Someone who denies there is a dilemma with either issue is a garbage person in that regard, but it is not provable which issue takes precedence.
The slave master analogy is simply problematic. A slave master is committing an evil act by nature, whereas the fetus is utterly innocent and powerless to cause or affect his or her own situation.
One might also understand if the slave kills the master to obtain freedom, especially if the slave did not voluntarily enter into slavery. To kill the fetus is entirely different, for of all involved parties, he or she is the only innocent one and also the only powerless one. Even the father can attempt to sway the mother. So if the fetus is truly the slave master in that analogy, then it would be like someone giving you ownership of a slave without your knowledge. If the slave kills you, and you were absolutely innocent of becoming a slave master, would anyone truly find that okay?
Because let's face it. In the vast majority of cases involving abortion, the parents voluntarily chose to engage in a reproductive act, and then lo and behold they reproduced. If they don't like the consequences of their behavior, the woman kills her offspring before it is old enough to have legal protection.
I've never heard of a slave master whose life is in his slaves' hands.
There are two competing moral issues here, the life of the unborn and the woman's bodily autonomy. Someone who denies there is a dilemma with either issue is a garbage person in that regard, but it is not provable which issue takes precedence.
I can agree with you in the case of a rape since the woman did not consent to allow her body to engage in the reproductive act. Otherwise, she has already made a decision regarding her bodily autonomy. But even in the case of rape, there is a moral choice that ends up with either 2 people alive or 1 alive and 1 intentionally killed.
Because let's face it. In the vast majority of cases involving abortion, the parents voluntarily chose to engage in a reproductive act, and then lo and behold they reproduced. If they don't like the consequences of their behavior, the woman kills her offspring before it is old enough to have legal protection.
Amen.
Kevin,
Wanting to stop the unborn from being killed is not an intrinsic evil.
I agree. It is admirable.
Analogies for this topic never work, but if I intentionally put you in a situation where you require my organs to survive for nine months, and I kill you to escape the consequences of my decisions, is that evil of me?
Yes. It would also be evil of me to forcibly remove the organs from you without your consent. Do you disagree with that?
When faced with these two evils, should the law demand that I have access to your organs?
It would also be evil of me to forcibly remove the organs from you without your consent.
Depending on your intent here, I'd say removing is much worse than sharing, which is the case with a pregnancy.
When faced with these two evils, should the law demand that I have access to your organs?
In a scenario where my conscious decisions led to you needing my organs to survive for a time, and you were completely innocent and powerless in the matter, the choice is for me to share my organs to help you survive the situation I put you in, or to kill you to get out of the consequences of my decisions.
Which of those sounds more evil to you?
Kevin,
You do understand that I agree abortion is an evil act? I also agree removing is worse that sharing.
However, it seems as if you are trying to avoid opining on what the law should require of you, regarding either sharing or removing. Were you saying I should be able to legally force you to share your organs with me, in this hypothetical?
Considering every issue and comparing the positions of various politicians vis a vis the teachings of the Catholic Church, Biden ranks near the top as a faithful Catholic. He does fail in being too supportive of a militaristic foreign policy. But other than that, if you were to tell me that Biden was the author of Pope Francis's latest encyclicals, it would not surprise me. Biden is very much in tune with almost all* of mainstream Catholic teaching. (There are, of course, points of difference.)
Jimmy Carter (sadly, not a Catholic) would probably have to be considered our most "Christian" president ever.
* No politician is in 100% agreement. If anyone knows of one, kindly name him.
However, it seems as if you are trying to avoid opining on what the law should require of you
Not trying to avoid it, I simply always like to frame how I view the situation from a moral position, and see how the other (you) feel about that, before moving onto the legal side.
So in this imperfect analogy, you are going along doing your thing, and here I come along and perform imaginary Action X, which is known to have an extremely high risk of causing another adult to lose bodily function for nine months and become bound to the person who performed Action X. You are now attached to me by a tube and will die if I sever it.
In this scenario, the law should at the very least charge me with involuntary manslaughter if I sever that tube. I caused your situation, you had nothing to do with putting yourself there, and I performed Action X knowing full and well the high risk of becoming someone's literal lifeline. Full responsibility of your situation and, if I sever the tube, full responsibility of your death lies with me. The law should not overlook that if I kill you.
And no doubt you and I both (as observers rather than participants) would be horrified if such a thing could occur and the innocent dependent was immediately stripped of all legal protections, with sole authority of the dependent's life or death residing in the hands of the one who performed the negligent action that put them there in the first place.
The concept is used similarly elsewhere. If I performed a negligent action that puts you in the hospital, I can't kill you to get out of having to pay your medical expenses. The law takes into account who is innocent and who is responsible for the situation, and people are (should be) held responsible for decision they make and the consequences thereof.
Of course, in this imperfect analogy, you were an existing adult with existing legal rights when I swoop along and make you my slave to do with as I please for nine months, to either spare or kill. The unborn have no rights, so legally there cannot be any negligent action or death for the law to take into account.
Dear consequentialist,
The topic is abortion. Francis is not in favor of taxing people to pay abortionists. Biden is.
The end.
One Brow,
So as you can likely infer, my sympathies lie more heavily in favor of the unborn who is dying rather than the woman who is killing. In a black and white society, with everything all nice and lined up evenly, I would absolutely advocate for, at the very least, involuntary manslaughter for an abortion.
However.
No such society exists. Our culture not only celebrates and encourages promiscuity in every form of media, but as puberty hits earlier and earlier, it takes longer and longer to complete all the education and training and domestic tasks necessary to establish a stable home and finally be prepared to begin having kids. This translates into at least a decade of having to completely ignore all sexual urges (which are insanely powerful at that age) with an ironclad discipline, all the while ignoring the messages of glamorized promiscuity being rained upon us every day from every direction, in order to avoid the potential for an unwanted pregnancy. When even Christianity only weakly protests the culture, and their voices are mocked by larger society, my black and white scenario is, shall we say, nonexistent.
This is why I don't advocate legal punishment. Instead I advocate schools handing out birth control like Skittles. Have piles of them in every locker. Have a pill pop out every time you turn on the water fountain. You get one every time you raise your hand and answer a question correctly. At work you get a complimentary birth control pill that pops out of the time clock when you swipe. Whatever it takes to make the situation where abortions occur as rare as possible. And government policy should be that the children arising from such pregnancies are guaranteed to have at least a minimum of financial security assistance. That's the best we can do. Legal threats simply drive the problem underground, and laws can and would be quickly overturned since the left and even some Republicans would be whipped into a frenzy at such laws.
"The topic is abortion."
Actually, the topic is "the faith of Joe Biden." In the interview, abortion was simply one amongst a multitude of topics addressed. Therefore, I responded "considering every issue."
So one can postulate two purely hypothetical presidential candidates. Let's call one "Biden" and the other "Trump." Let's say that "Biden" agrees with Catholic teaching on 99 issues and has reservations about the 100th. And further, we'll say that "Trump" not only disagrees with 99 but actively acts contrary to them. Meanwhile, he feigns to support the 100th, but since he lies with every breath he takes, how can one be sure?
So which (in my purely hypothetical thought experiment) is the truer Christian?
Hi bmiller,
”If you strongly disagree that one should criticize fellow believers then why are you criticizing me?”
I already gave my answer: “I don't think all that means we should never point out evil, but I do think we need to be careful.” I have carefully tried to avoid confrontation and be constructive, hoping you who identifies as a follower of Jesus would see that your manner is hurtful and harmful.
”The original topic is Biden and his stance wrt abortion. You have contributed nothing to that topic and in fact are actively avoiding it. I wonder why?”
I’m sorry, but you seem to want to redefine things in your own terms. The title of the post is “The faith of President-elect Biden” and I HAVE contributed to that - I outlined how I think it is possible that someone may be a follower of Jesus, hold his view on abortion but not choose to impose it on others. I asked you a question about that: (“I wonder if you have considered that?”) and you didn’t answer that.
Likewise, you have no right to say I have “actively avoiding” the topic of abortion. I have chosen not to engage on that topic. You may well wonder why that might be so, and I hope you consider it may not be for the reason that you may think.
”I concluded that you thought that he felt the Holy Spirit guided him to kill the unborn. I accept that you didn't mean that, but what did you mean if not that?”
This is another case of you putting straw man type words into another person’s mouth. I asked a very general question: “[Should] no-one should follow where they think conscience and the Holy Spirit is leading them?” In this case the context was the idea of imposing an anti-abortion stance as law. That is different from a personal view, and very different from guiding him to actively kill. (An example may be the difference between believing hate is a sin and proposing anti-hate laws.) You MUST see the difference. So why did you jump from what I said to an outradeous statement?
”Finally, what are your particular beliefs that set you apart from the general category of Protestant?”
I think it is best to avoid dogma and remain open to the Spirit and Jesus and the scripture. I can always learn new things, and I have found after almost 60 years as a believer I have continued to learn and grow. My present understanding is closer to Anabaptist than anything else, though I don’t think the same on all things. I don’t believe in sola scriptura because I believe in the Holy Spirit. I don’t think the personal interpretation of scripture is a sensible idea because I believe in the Holy Spirit’s guidance, discerned by the whole body of believers. But I do think we have to be personally committed and responsible. These are not lightly held beliefs - I read widely, pray for wisdom daily and have a degree in theology.
I will finish by saying again that I feel this discussion is more adversarial than I wish it to be and I suggest we either discuss as fellow believers sharing rather than confronting, or we stop. What do you say?
unkleE,
Thanks for engaging with me.
We're going to have to agree to disagree that Christians cannot use rhetoric. There is no absolute prohibition on using rhetoric in the Bible as there is in the killing of an innocent human being so I'll let you have your opinion as you should let me have mine. If you're interested in a pro-rhetoric view backed by other scripture quotes you can look here.
Let me do some housekeeping:
outlined how I think it is possible that someone may be a follower of Jesus, hold his view on abortion but not choose to impose it on others. I asked you a question about that: (“I wonder if you have considered that?”) and you didn’t answer that.
I did answer that, but maybe you didn't understand. This attitude is not acceptable for a Catholic. The reason is that the killing of an innocent human being is an intrinsically evil act and assisting it or turning a blind eye to it is a grave (mortal) sin. You may not like it, but I can't help that.
Likewise, you have no right to say I have “actively avoiding” the topic of abortion. I have chosen not to engage on that topic. You may well wonder why that might be so, and I hope you consider it may not be for the reason that you may think.
You don't have to discuss it if you don't want. Now. I don't want to discuss your opinion of rhetoric. I think that is fair.
This is another case of you putting straw man type words into another person’s mouth.....So why did you jump from what I said to an outradeous statement?
Please read the quote of mine you posted again. I admitted I didn't know what you meant didn't I? Then I asked you what you did mean, right?
I asked a very general question: “[Should] no-one should follow where they think conscience and the Holy Spirit is leading them?” In this case the context was the idea of imposing an anti-abortion stance as law. That is different from a personal view, and very different from guiding him to actively kill. (An example may be the difference between believing hate is a sin and proposing anti-hate laws.) You MUST see the difference.
Of course there shouldn't be laws against all sins. But all societies of all times have had laws against the killing of innocent human beings. The unborn are innocent human beings. Therefore there should be laws against killing them. What would you think of someone who tells you the Holy Spirit is leading them to abolish all murder laws? Don't answer....that was a rhetorical question ;-)
I'm really more interested in your religious perspective than anything else but this is not the place for that discussion it seems.
Have a nice day.
Dear Consequentialist,
I'm now realizing that people who have argued against atheistic moral relativism haven't been sincere. It seems the atheists have been the honest ones all along.
I have a new admiration for atheists now. Thanks for that.
For all moral relativists, honest and dishonest, the problem is that one is weighing possible goods attained by a policy against people's certain death in the case of supporting abortion to acquire those possible goods. But there is no guarantee that government policies will turn out to be good in the first place. Far from it. Guess which goose-stepping Nazi said this:
From the wild Irish slums of the nineteenth-century Eastern seaboard,to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles,there is one unmistakable lesson in American history:a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future--that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime,violence,unrest,disorder...that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved.
Aren't we all glad we have intellectually superior leftists planning to re-educate deplorables like this now?
"Aren't we all glad we have intellectually superior leftists planning to re-educate deplorables like this now?"
Actually, yes. Anything is better than the morally rotten "Christian Right", which seems eager to jettison 2000 years of Catholic teaching about the preferential option for the poor and the obligation to care for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger amongst us, all to enjoy an ephemeral political power at the cost of abandoning every reason to obtain such.
Yes, yes. Moynihan was a baddie wasn't he.
Lefties are beyond parody now.
Kevin said...
Of course, in this imperfect analogy, you were an existing adult with existing legal rights when I swoop along and make you my slave to do with as I please for nine months, to either spare or kill. The unborn have no rights, so legally there cannot be any negligent action or death for the law to take into account.
As analogies go, it was highly persuasive and well-written. The only note I have is not that the unborn not only have no right, but did not exist. It's as if you created me by Action X.
Still, I think we largely agree on policy. I especially like the bit about pills popping out of the water fountain. :)
Kevin,
That's the best we can do. Legal threats simply drive the problem underground, and laws can and would be quickly overturned since the left and even some Republicans would be whipped into a frenzy at such laws.
Legal threats drive human trafficing underground too. Does that mean we should legalize it too?
That's the logical trajectory of such thinking. If you think abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and that killing innocent human beings should be against the law, then to be consistent you need to be for laws protecting the unborn.
Of course that is a different proposition than thinking that all such laws will be struck down and so things will end up with no such laws anyway. In that case, why not support the proposed laws the best you can if you think they are best for the common welfare and let the chips fall where they may? You're just assuming that the half of the population that is pro-abortion will defeat the half of the population that is pro-life politically. We can't actually know how that will turn out as long as 'we the people' are prohibited from voting on it. My guess is that once the laws change at least half of the pro-abortion polled will change to pro-life. It's a sort of inertia with a lot of people who think that if it's against the law, it must be wrong. The half that are pro-life are already bucking that trend.
I don't think God asks us to do his will only if we are positive we will be 100% successful in the way we envision it. He only asks us to try the best we can. Once we give up, then we can start to rationalize that the evil we have given into is actually a good in some way. I haven't lived a perfect life and I can admit that because I have found myself rationalizing my evil actions as somehow good. Even at those times I knew the rationalizing was wrong. Do the right thing.
"then to be consistent you need to be for laws"
Why this need for consistency in our laws? The FDA (rightly) bans the manufacture and sale of hundreds, if not thousands, of substances known to cause cancer in human beings. But cigarettes are exempt from such bans. We outlaw most mind altering drugs, yet freely allow the sale and consumption of alcohol. We ban profanity and nudity from broadcast television, yet allow it on cable. Involuntary servitude is expressly forbidden by the Constitution, yet the military draft has been deemed legal by no less than the Supreme Court. Although the 2nd Amendment states that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed", I see no one lobbying for my right to own a surface to air missile or a nuclear weapon.
Our government and our laws are rife with inconsistencies... and that's a Good Thing.
Why this need for consistency in our laws?
Because justice.
But I don't expect a Maoist to understand that concept.
Legal threats drive human trafficing underground too. Does that mean we should legalize it too?
I was specifically referencing laws that would punish women for getting abortions. There is absolutely no way this culture would tolerate such laws, and it would do nothing but set back restrictions on abortion that at least have a chance of passing.
You are much more optimistic than I about this country if you think declaring abortion to be legally murder would have a net positive effect. I think the backlash would lurch things the other direction. Remember, you're starting with a population where half of them don't even want to admit that abortion involves a death that should be considered. They'll readily accept the propaganda that women are being punished for making a "health care decision" and that this is nothing but "men wanting to control the sex lives of women". I think we would see the toppling of all abortion restrictions.
"I think we would see the toppling of all abortion restrictions."
That's exactly what I've been trying to tell bmiller for many months (years?) now. Be careful what you wish for. An overturning of Roe v. Wade would in all likelihood result in a skyrocketing of the rate of abortion in this country. Is that what you really want? Yet bmiller has the nerve to call me a "consequentialist"!
If you are genuinely pro-life, and if your goal is truly reducing abortion, then STOP trying to change the laws of this country (which efforts are totally counter-productive) and start working toward winning "hearts and minds".
But perhaps, that's not really your goal, and all you're interested in is political power? That, sadly, explains most of what the "pro-life" movement has been doing for the past several decades.
I was specifically referencing laws that would punish women for getting abortions. There is absolutely no way this culture would tolerate such laws, and it would do nothing but set back restrictions on abortion that at least have a chance of passing.
Why not send abortionists to jail? Coyotes should go to jail right? And don't most states have laws against prostitution and arrest prostitutes? I don't see a national movement to legalize prostitution everywhere because women are punished for 'bodily autonomy' violations. I think you're listening to nutters like Starhopper too much who argue laws against things actually increase the practice of the outlawed activity. That's just fiction.
I also think you're wrong about the people listed as pro-abortion having as firm as view as the pro-life people. Sure there are some hard core pro-aborts, but like I said, there is a large number of people that will just think the law is right because otherwise it wouldn't be against the law. Also, laws are not enacted by polls, but by elected representatives or in the case of Roe, unelected officials.
So what happened in a country where the goverment decided abortions for any reason was the policy and then changed course and started to restrict abortions? Public opinion changed:
Although more than 90% of Poles identify as Catholics, most Poles initially opposed these pro-life measures. According to CBOS, Poland’s state polling agency, 64% of Poles supported abortion on demand in 1993, compared with 30% who did not. However, much has changed since. Today there are few Poles who accept abortion on demand; a poll by CBOS taken earlier this year shows that 75% of Poles oppose abortion when a woman is in a bad financial situation, 75% oppose it when her personal situation is difficult, and 76% are against legal abortion when a woman simply doesn’t want to have a child. According to this poll, 66% of Poles agree with the statement: “always and regardless of the circumstances, human life should be protected from conception to natural death.” Encouragingly, the number of Poles who want to restrict the legality of abortion has increased by 7% since 2012.
They'll readily accept the propaganda that women are being punished for making a "health care decision" and that this is nothing but "men wanting to control the sex lives of women". I think we would see the toppling of all abortion restrictions.
It sounds like you've been de-moralized. By that I mean they have defeated you by extracting your moral courage. In reality it is the pro-aborts who are scared. You can see it by the extremes they are going to. They want to pack the SC, eliminate any opposition by eliminating legislative safeguards, and flood the election process with new states. They don't sound very confident to me.
Hi bmiller, this will be in 2 parts (sorry it is so long).
"We're going to have to agree to disagree that Christians cannot use rhetoric. There is no absolute prohibition on using rhetoric in the Bible"
I'm not sure how you mean the word "rhetoric", but the Oxford dictionary defines it as: "The art of using language so as to persuade or influence others; the body of rules to be observed by a speaker or writer in order that he may express himself with eloquence."
So I absolutely don't want you to stop using rhetoric. I really do want you to speak with eloquence so you can influence and persuade. As I want for myself. But you will recall my first comments were suggesting that your approach was making your comments LESS persuasive.
I think tactics like demonising opponents (poisoning the well fallacy) and putting words in their mouths, exaggerating and misrepresenting what they say (straw man fallacy), making black and white statements when there are shades of grey (the fallacy of the excluded middle) very unpersuasive. I don't think they are "rhetoric" but unhelpful. That is what I object to.
"(1) This attitude is not acceptable for a Catholic. (2) The reason is that the killing of an innocent human being is an intrinsically evil act and assisting it or turning a blind eye to it is a grave (mortal) sin. (3) You may not like it, but I can't help that." (I have added the numbers for clarity.)
(1) That is YOUR view of what is acceptable to a Catholic, but it isn't necessarily every Catholic's view, or even the church's. I understand many Catholics disregard church teaching on contraception and still regard themselves as good Catholics. And then there is this statement apparently by the Vatican itself: "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths." There is lots more, on that page, and when I Google, about the Catholic view on obeying conscience. So it seems it is possible for Catholics to think differently to you.
(2) YOU believe that is what abortion is, but not everyone does. Some Catholics may not believe it. Some Protestants may not believe it. Others of both denominations may be unsure about it. You have every right to argue the case. But I don't think it is intellectually honest to insist there can be no other way to look at it, and to insist that is the basis of discussion. Proper discussion requires each person to hear the other person and meet them half way and argue their case. So perhaps (I don't know) Biden is one who uses his conscience as a christian and Catholic and thinks differently to you. You can properly disagree, but calling him evil for not conforming to your view isn't fair, nor is it persuasive.
(3) It's not a matter of me not liking it. It's a matter of fairness and persuasiveness. And following Jesus.
"Then I asked you what you did mean, right?"
Yes you did, and I appreciate that. But only after a few exchanges. Now perhaps you can understand why I haven't discussed my view of abortion yet. Not because I don't have a view or because I am unwilling to share it, but because experience tells me that discussing such an emotive issue with someone who plays so many "rhetorical" tricks is not a level playing field. But if you are now ready to have a discussion without the rhetorical tricks, I'm up for it.
"What would you think of someone who tells you the Holy Spirit is leading them to abolish all murder laws?"
See, here it is again, a rhetorical trick that misrepresents what I said, paints it much blacker than what I said (contrary to 1 Corinthians 13:6) and makes discussion difficult. Let me lay it out again. There are several different possible views:
1. I think abortion is OK.
2. I am unsure if it is OK.
3. I think it is morally wrong but I am unsure if it should be legally wrong.
4. I think it should be both morally and legally wrong.
Now you hold to #4. You seem to want to say everyone who disagrees is #1. But it is the fallacy othe excluded middle. Biden could perhaps hold to #2 or #3. But your statement paints him as supporting #1. I'm sure you understand the logic of this, even though your last comment ignored it. So can we agree this time that there is a possible middle view, and it is wrong to try to demonise someone by suggesting otherwise?
"I'm really more interested in your religious perspective than anything else but this is not the place for that discussion it seems."
Like I said, I'm quite willing to discuss if you can commit to avoid the rhetorical tricks and discuss what I actually say. Is it a deal?
unkleE,
My comment that set you off was a reductio ad absurdum. Please read the definition. Now, please stop falsely accusing me of things I did not do.
It's clear that you're confusing your own dislike of dogma with with the teachings of the Catholic Chuch. Here is an article that can help you understand. To your points, it doesn't matter that there are dissident Catholics that rationalize that they can do what they want in defiance of what the Church teaches. That is just a sign of their ill-formed conscience.
Now perhaps you can understand why I haven't discussed my view of abortion yet.
You don't have to. It's apparent by your selective dispute with me.
This documentary is shown as part of the curriculum in the Catholic schools in Poland. It seems to be at least partly responsible for the youth there having a more negative view of abortion than the older communist-indoctrinated people.
So for those people of good will here who think abortion is wrong, why not insist that schools in America show this documentary as part of sex-ed?
Why not send abortionists to jail? Coyotes should go to jail right?
Half the country doesn't believe human trafficking is worth celebrating, or at the very least legally protected. Political viability is very different for abortion fixes because half the country doesn't believe a human is being harmed.
there is a large number of people that will just think the law is right because otherwise it wouldn't be against the law
That didn't happen with Clinton's assault weapon ban. Quite the opposite. I think the left holds abortion "rights" in a sacred place as much as the NRA holds the ability to own an AK-47 or AR-15. You touch it, you cause an explosion of outrage.
By that I mean they have defeated you by extracting your moral courage.
It's not a loss of moral courage, it's a firm belief that a blanket ban would, in the long term, cause conservatives to lose power, which in turn causes Democrats to expand abortion. I suspect Poland is not as crazy as we are.
God himself permitted situations for divorce due to the hardness of men's hearts. Sometimes you simply hit a wall where progress cannot immediately be made.
Which leads to what you suggested with the documentary. It absolutely should be required teaching that abortion ends an unborn human life. It should require stories of kids who got pregnant early and how difficult it was to try to get their life on track. Raise kids right, then in a generation or two maybe the abortion nutters could be overpowered politically. In the meantime, preventing the situation that causes desire for an abortion in the first place is an immediately viable strategy.
"Unknown" has a very fine last paragraph there. Our aims, hopes, and goals should always be directed towards the next generation. Fixation on changing laws is just looking in the rear view mirror. Education (including materials such as bmiller suggested) ought to be our methodology.
Unknown,
Half the country doesn't believe human trafficking is worth celebrating, or at the very least legally protected.
I don't think half the country thinks abortion is worth celebrating either...only a small loud minority. Some people who thought they had a right to not wear seatbelts now wear seatbelts because the law changed. That's my point in this respect. Most people will just follow the law and eventually see the wisdom of a law that saves lives.
You touch it, you cause an explosion of outrage.
And yet it doesn't stop the left from trying. Those attempts seem to energize their base and bans on machine guns are still in place. So I think the theory that passing retrictive laws causes all restrictions to be removed as a backlash has been disproved in the field.
The reality we are living in is that there is no Constitutional amendment that specifically allows abortion like the 2nd amendment allows the people to bear arms. There was a SC decision regarding abortion that will soon be overturned.
it's a firm belief that a blanket ban would, in the long term, cause conservatives to lose power, which in turn causes Democrats to expand abortion.
A theory that the Democrats have already disproven by their ever expanding attack on the 2nd amendment. Why should pro-lifers do any less when they have a firmer Constitutional basis for allowing states and their people to decide.
It absolutely should be required teaching that abortion ends an unborn human life.
Which again puts pro-lifers who don't want to challenge pro-aborts in a lose-lose situation. If you won't fight for laws to restrict abortion, why would you fight the legal challenges for teaching 'religion' in schools.
Are we tired of losing yet?
Hi bmiller,
"You don't have to. It's apparent by your selective dispute with me."
Have you considered that what is "apparent" to you may in fact be mistaken?
"Now, please stop falsely accusing me of things I did not do."
I guess if you won't recognise it you won't discuss differently. Sounds like a good time for me to step away. Best wishes to you.
unkleE,
Have you considered that what is "apparent" to you may in fact be mistaken?
Sure. Have you?
I guess if you won't recognise it you won't discuss differently.
Have you considered that what is "apparent" to you may in fact be mistaken?
Good luck to you unkleE.
Not sure why it listed me as "Unknown".
I don't think half the country thinks abortion is worth celebrating either...only a small loud minority.
But half the country does think it is worth defending.
Most people will just follow the law and eventually see the wisdom of a law that saves lives.
You have a much more optimistic view of people than I do. The left will not adopt this view under any circumstances short of starving them of voters, which begins with proper education. Otherwise a blanket ban will be overturned the next election, along with no telling how many other existing restrictions.
So I think the theory that passing retrictive laws causes all restrictions to be removed as a backlash has been disproved in the field.
Even Obama could not get it re-implemented. Democrats grumble about it but they admit it's a political loser to try. I think that shows the power of the backlash.
The reality we are living in is that there is no Constitutional amendment that specifically allows abortion like the 2nd amendment allows the people to bear arms.
You and I know that. The Democratic base does not. And the Roberts Supreme Court is not going to overturn Roe v Wade.
If you won't fight for laws to restrict abortion
There are politically viable restrictions that can be passed that are not blanket bans, which would guarantee a massive loss of conservative power at the next election. I'm all for those laws that can be passed and kept. A blanket ban would last at most four years, then most abortion restrictions would wind up being erased after the next election. Remember, this is the Democratic party and base that is increasingly "shouting their abortions" and wanting it legalized all the way up to birth - a position that I guarantee Biden would not have the guts to oppose. We can't overreach and give them that power.
why would you fight the legal challenges for teaching 'religion' in schools
Even if Christians are the only ones with the moral courage or the intellectual honesty to admit that abortion is the death of an unborn human life, it is not inherently a religious position, despite leftist propaganda to the contrary. No battle required.
Kevin the Unknown,
But half the country does think it is worth defending.
...The left will not adopt this view under any circumstances...blanket ban...
We'll have to agree to disagree that fully half of those polled as being pro-abort are rabid defeneders. Most of them will do nothing, only the most radical will. And BTW, why do laws restricting abortion have to be a 'blanket ban' whatever that is. I don't know anyone who is demanding a firing squad for all involved.
Even Obama could not get it re-implemented. Democrats grumble about it but they admit it's a political loser to try. I think that shows the power of the backlash.
What backlash are you talking about that led to Republicans demanding laws to own sub-machine guns and surface-to-air missles? I still see Democrats in power. If they had enough votes from their own party they would implement gun bans tomorrow. In fact isn't that what Biden ran on? There cannot be a backlash that relaxes abortion laws in the US since the US already essentially allows abortion under all circumstances. There is literally nothing to lose.
You and I know that. The Democratic base does not. And the Roberts Supreme Court is not going to overturn Roe v Wade.
Democrats will learn. Ginsburg is gone and ACB is now presiding. I agree that Roberts will vote for the status quo, but that side is now outnumbered.
There are politically viable restrictions that can be passed that are not blanket bans,
I don't know anyone that is proposing a federal 'blanket ban' on abortion. Once Roe is overturned, each state will pass laws. Maybe some day in the future an amendment will be passed to end the disenfrancisement of the unborn just like the slaves.
Even if Christians are the only ones with the moral courage or the intellectual honesty to admit that abortion is the death of an unborn human life, it is not inherently a religious position, despite leftist propaganda to the contrary. No battle required.
I wonder how you came to the conclusion that the leftists will not fight for 'separation of church and state' in this case but will fight to the death and win against any law restricting abortions. Leftists are firmly in control of Public school curriculums pushing their idea of 'sex education' now and have been for decades. The battle is on their turf. And if you think it's obvious that leftists don't think being against abortion can only be defended from a theological standpoint I'll ask you to review Victor's discussion with me.
Do you think, for example, an atheist ought to oppose abortion, based on evidence available to all?
The battle for getting pro-life instruction into America's public schools will be 100x more difficult than states passing laws to put restrictions on abortions.
bmiller,
Most of your last post to me would fall under an "agree to disagree" situation, but there at the end you state:
And if you think it's obvious that leftists don't think being against abortion can only be defended from a theological standpoint
I know there are unintelligent leftists and atheists who believe the pro-life position is inherently religious in nature, despite the simplicity of defending it based purely on two things - basic knowledge of reproductive biology and the premise that human life has value. The latter is science, and if the former is religious in nature, then what does that tell you about leftists and atheists?
They would be forced to demonstrate to the courts how "an organism's life begins at conception" is a religious position. I would love to hear it. Or perhaps they would have to argue that schools should not teach that human life has value. I suppose a better argument could be made there, but it would certainly be bad optics. Though I will concede that historically Republicans and conservatives seem to routinely screw up simple answers.
The battle for getting pro-life instruction into America's public schools will be 100x more difficult
Depends on the form it takes. Obviously the merit of abstinence should be highlighted, but it should also include instruction on obtaining and using birth control, messaging on the damage that teenage pregnancy causes, the risks of STDs, and of course education on the development of the fetus that demonstrates its clear humanity. I've seen too many instances of pro-life organizations only wanting to teach abstinence, and that simply will not work without generations of cultural shifting away from glorified promiscuity.
Most reasonable people would not mind their children being taught this.
Oops, in my previous post it should be "the former is science". My former fell down the latter, as it were.
Kevin,
I know there are unintelligent leftists and atheists who believe the pro-life position is inherently religious in nature, despite the simplicity of defending it based purely on two things - basic knowledge of reproductive biology and the premise that human life has value. The latter is science, and if the former is religious in nature, then what does that tell you about leftists and atheists?
School boards and PTA's are not courts of law, but are predominately populated by the public school establishment so you can expect a less than fair fight there. Even so, you have seen it argued here that 'something of value is lost during an abortion' but not a 'person'. You have been told that your insistence that the unborn are 'persons' is either wrong, only a speculation or a religious commitment.
The only way it would end up in a court is if someone sues and then guess what? You lose because of Roe.
Most reasonable people would not mind their children being taught this.
My argument is that 'reasonable people' are not in charge of the public school curriculum. Leftists are. And if you sue them you will lose.
Wealthy parents can send their kids to private schools to avoid this, but the less wealthy can only escape if there are legal charter schools...which the left wants to get rid of.
There has been a war going on for decades wrt abortion but it is amazing to me that this is the hill that the left is willing to die on. It seems diabolical. I also notice that once you started saying that you opposed laws against abortion, suddenly your opponents told you how reasonable you were. It was stark. You were no longer someone standing in their way and now you are their friend.
For my part, it just doesn't make any sense to oppose laws against the killing of innocent human beings, if that's what I think it is. If one can come up with reasons for justifying that, then what can't one come up with reasons to justify?
I also notice that once you started saying that you opposed laws against abortion
I think some context has been lost here. Back on the 7th One Brow and I were talking and I was asked my position on legality in light of my beliefs on the subject. I said that abortion was ending a human life and, based on our analogies, would be at the very least akin to involuntary manslaughter if the only factor was the abortion itself. In other words, a blanket ban on abortion except for true self-defense, etc. Then I explained why I don't find that position politically attainable.
This is why I have been differentiating between laws restricting abortion and laws outright banning all abortions or punishing the mother. Conceptually I support abortion being illegal except for a tangible threat to the mother's life, but politically and culturally this country is not prepared for such a thing, and I firmly believe pursuing that position in the current climate is not only ineffective but also counterproductive. This is the major problem. I've never opposed overturning Roe v Wade, not only due to its destructive effects but also the fact that it's simply bad law.
I advocate making the situation where abortions occur as rare as possible while also opposing leftist propaganda that seeks to ignore the life being ended in an abortion.
Perhaps your more optimistic view of people's potential reactions is the correct one, but my observations lead me to a very different prediction. I'm not interested in praise from either side here, just stating my beliefs.
Hi folks!
Long time no see, nice to see so many familiar names... Victor of course but also bmiller, unkleE, One Brow, Starhopper, Hal... I think only Kevin is new since the last time (September 2009!) I read/wrote here, but he sounds exactly the same as others I have had discussion with, on the topic of abortion, which happened to be the same we discussed over a year ago! (Someone mentioned that funny thing about putting contraception pills in water fountains before, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s actually just someone we met previously under a different name? Doesn’t matter anyway...)
Here's what's “new” though, who's explaining the position from the left and/or atheist side here?
I thought One Brow might but he mentioned abortion is evil? I am not sure I understood completely... Or Hal perhaps from an atheist perspective, no? But he only commented on the nicely written comment by unkleE on why demonising others sucks, which was definitely worth praising!
So anyway, let me start with this; Kevin said...
“I know there are unintelligent leftists and atheists who believe the pro-life position is inherently religious in nature, despite the simplicity of defending it based purely on two things - basic knowledge of reproductive biology and the premise that human life has value. The latter is science, and if the former is religious in nature, then what does that tell you about leftists and atheists?”
I disagree on these two so-called simple things. The first one is indeed simple; we understand reproductive biology so well. However, I interpret it completely differently: you have to have religious reasons to assign any kind of value to a fertilized egg. Because that’s what it is, just an egg, which started to self-replicate because some spermatozoid added a bit of DNA to it... why does this have more value than the egg on its own 30 seconds before? Or 5 minutes before? Or 5 days before? Or... well... that’s when we get to the second one, which isn’t simple at all in my mind. When does that valueless egg start to have value, when does it become a human life we should try to save at all cost? It’s somewhere between week 0 and week 40, but I don’t see how we can draw a clear line. Therefore, I prefer to let women and their doctors make the tough call as to when it's ok to terminate pregnancy or not, to jump to the conclusion quickly.
Interesting coincidence... 30 minutes after posting here on the topic of abortion, I ran into this:
"On October 26, 2020, a healthy baby girl named Molly Gibson was born in Knoxville, Tennessee. Molly was conceived … in 1992."
https://www.thedeep.life/blogs/conversations/is-all-life-truly-sacred?_ke=eyJrbF9lbWFpbCI6ICJodWdvcGVsbGFuZEBnbWFpbC5jb20iLCAia2xfY29tcGFueV9pZCI6ICJLVDhwN2oifQ%3D%3D
Hugo,
Love your globe/tree profile image!
"I thought One Brow might be the one explaining the position from the left and/or atheist side here, but he mentioned abortion is evil?"
The two are not necessarily contradictory. The smartest, most intelligent atheist I have ever known was Bill Patterson (author of the authorized biography of Robert A. Heinlein and devoted follower of Ayn Rand). He was also a ferocious enemy of abortion on purely medical grounds.
(Bill passed away a few years ago from a heart attack. We disagreed on almost everything, from politics to religion to our taste in movies, but remained to the end the best of friends. To this day I haven't found another sparring partner worthy of his stature.)
"Love your globe/tree profile image!"
Haha thanks, I did not realize this would show up here; it's my startup's logo!
"The two are not necessarily contradictory. The smartest, most intelligent atheist I have ever known was Bill Patterson (author of the authorized biography of Robert A. Heinlein and devoted follower of Ayn Rand). He was also a ferocious enemy of abortion on purely medical grounds."
Yes for sure; nobody (or almost) actually claims that abortion is great, especially later ones. It's tough on the woman both physically and emotionally. But calling it 'evil' is not quite the same... but again, I did not fully understand One Brow's original point.
Hi Hugo, nice to hear from you again, long time as you say. Thanks for your kind comment about what I wrote. I don't think we end up agreeing on a lot, but let's celebrate when we do!!! :)
Haha thanks, I did not realize this would show up here; it's my startup's logo!
I bought a brand new computer and brought it home, first time I turned it on it said "Hello Kevin". To this day I have no explanation for how it knew that. Wasn't hooked to internet, wasn’t set up by the store. Good stuff.
I bought a brand new computer and brought it home, first time I turned it on it said "Hello Kevin". To this day I have no explanation for how it knew that.
Did it sound like this? If so, I think I know what the problem is.
Bill Patterson was an opponent of abortion on moral grounds but opposed legislation against abortion. He was an anarchist. So, technically he was pro-choice. He is my favorite example of how the moral and legal questions of abortion have to be distinguished.
I'm not interested in praise from either side here
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were. I just noticed that suddenly more people noticed how smart your arguments were once they perceived you weren't arguing for doing anything about it (apparently). It's like they refused to allow rational discourse till the threat of having it taken away was gone.
He is my favorite example of how the moral and legal questions of abortion have to be distinguished.
I don't see how someone who is against all laws is a good example of distinguishing between legal and moral questions. Doesn't that just mean there is no distinction?
'Haha thanks, I did not realize this would show up here; it's my startup's logo!'
Kevin said...
I bought a brand new computer and brought it home, first time I turned it on it said "Hello Kevin". To this day I have no explanation for how it knew that. Wasn't hooked to internet, wasn’t set up by the store. Good stuff.
Well, just to be clear, startup was referring to the company I started!
Looking forward to your comments on the topic at hand if you're interested... especially what you called the 'simple' scientific part, which we interpret differently!
Cheers
unkleE said...
Hi Hugo, nice to hear from you again, long time as you say. Thanks for your kind comment about what I wrote. I don't think we end up agreeing on a lot, but let's celebrate when we do!!! :)
Indeed, it's great to find people who we both disagree with and agree with; just agreeing is quite boring.
Besides the god question though, I don't recall disagreeing with you on anything really so perhaps we're not that different. But it is a really big one for you so maybe it does make a big difference, I don't know... Frankly, I also do recall finding it extremely annoying to chat with you on your blog because of what I see as a contradiction: belief in god and claim it's rational.
I.E. I personally find nothing wrong with the belief on its own, it's how it's applied that matters and, much less importantly, the reasons 'why' someone believe. I just find it dishonest to claim it's rational; it's not, and that's ok...
" I just find it dishonest to claim it's rational; it's not, and that's ok..."
I knew it wouldn't take long until we disagreed! :)
Right! But it's just that 1 thing... but again, I think it's super important for you so perhaps it counts as a lot? I don't know...
they perceived you weren't arguing for doing anything about it (apparently)
That wouldn't have been an accurate assessment of what I was saying, so their praise would have been misplaced regardless.
especially what you called the 'simple' scientific part, which we interpret differently!
Stripping away all the legal terminology stuff (person) and just looking at what is objectively true, a human is the exact same thing as a human organism. Scientifically and by logical definition, from the moment a human comes into being until the moment they die, they are the same organism throughout their existence, moving through various developmental stages of the human life cycle.
Rewind the life cycle and observe a life in reverse. They become alive again and begin to de-age. Their hair goes from grey to brown. Their skin tightens up. Then they hit the teenage years and goes through reverse puberty, losing all the primary sexual markers of a mature adult. Still the same organism though!
Then they begin losing coordination as they gets younger, along with their brain processes becoming much more self-centered. Then they lose the ability to walk and talk. Then they loses the ability to do much more than cry and wiggle and look around. Still the same organism!
Then they plug in the umbilical cord and arrive in their mother's womb, continuing their reverse development. Organs become less specialized and simpler. The brain begins to simplify. Still the same organism though!
Then these organs eventually vanish as the specialized cells continue to combine. Ultimately they wind up a zygote, the first cell of a new organism that is not a cell of either the mother or father. Still the same organism, but if you rewind any further then the zygote breaks up into a sperm and an egg, cells of the parents. The organism has ceased to exist at that point.
That's why I say the science is straightforward. I'm not aware of any biology source that denies a zygote is the first stage of an organism's life. And it is the exact same organism as the adult it later develops into. It is literally a human life, distinct from the mother or father.
Hugo said...
I thought One Brow might but he mentioned abortion is evil?
Legally/politically, I see the issue as being one of competing evils. Embryos have the rights to grow and develop, women have the right to refuse to have their bodies used in this effort. I have mentioned before that I would support a "remove alive" bill for viable fetuses.
However, as I have also pointed out, there is a lo of human life that we don't respect in this way (warts, cancer cells, etc.). It's not just that embryos are human life, it's that they also are a continuation of our species.
bmiller,
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were. I just noticed that suddenly more people noticed how smart your arguments were once they perceived you weren't arguing for doing anything about it (apparently).
You are confusing appreciation and agreement.
Kevin, One Brow,
The biology aspects are clear, sure; there is indeed no doubt that the second an ovum gets fertilized, we now have an independent living human organism, or even the more contentious term ‘new human life’.
But here’s why I say it’s contentious though, and what I think you have no rational answer for: why does this thing have any value to you? The only people it could, perhaps, have value to is the father and especially the mother. And even then, I would disagree but, whatever, it’s in her body. But why does it have value to YOU, or anybody else?
There are a few answers already up here of course, and I heard a few before:
- Continuation of our species
- Potential to be a full grown human
- It’s a human life
(Please add more as needed...)
But I would just say… so what? Does this thing really have tremendous value just because it continues our species and/or has the potential to become a human? And calling it a ‘human life’ just to claim it has value is an argument by definition, a kind of false equivocation, where you just call the thing you consider has value the same name as something else we all agree as value just to make your point... So, what am I missing in your view?
Hugo,
But here’s why I say it’s contentious though, and what I think you have no rational answer for: why does this thing have any value to you?
There are no rational values. Every time we try to create them, we found them on other preferences. It's turtles all the way down.
I have a personal belief in and commitment to the life and quality of life of every human.
One Brow,
On the one hand, sure, ascribing value to things is purely subjective so we can't always justify the reasons. But it's not like we can never justify either.
Therefore, OTOH, I find it intellectually lazy, for lack of better words, to just make that kind of blanket statement and apply it here in that specific case:
We're looking at an ovum and everybody agrees that this thing has no special value; women are born with thousands of them and release/waste one every month for a big chunk of their lives.
But then, we look at it a few seconds/minutes later when a much much smaller spermatozoid added some bits of DNA to it, kickstarting an automatic chemical reactions, self-replication, and now it's somehow completely different! And because you have a personal belief in and commitment to the life and quality of life of every human, this now-fertilized human egg deserves human rights, like every other human, as if it were itself a human just like any other fully developed human...
Is that really it?
Hugo,
On the one hand, sure, ascribing value to things is purely subjective so we can't always justify the reasons. But it's not like we can never justify either.
It's that the justifications, or their justifications, always turn out to be subjective.
But then, we look at it a few seconds/minutes later when a much much smaller spermatozoid added some bits of DNA to it, kickstarting an automatic chemical reactions, self-replication, and now it's somehow completely different! And because you have a personal belief in and commitment to the life and quality of life of every human, this now-fertilized human egg deserves human rights, like every other human, as if it were itself a human just like any other fully developed human...
Is that really it?
As long as we mean the same rights, and not superior rights, yes. For example, the zygote does not have the right to borrow into uterus of the woman against the woman's will.
One Brow,
But then, we look at it a few seconds/minutes later when a much much smaller spermatozoid added some bits of DNA to it, kickstarting an automatic chemical reactions, self-replication, and now it's somehow completely different! And because you have a personal belief in and commitment to the life and quality of life of every human, this now-fertilized human egg deserves human rights, like every other human, as if it were itself a human just like any other fully developed human...
Is that really it?
As long as we mean the same rights, and not superior rights, yes. For example, the zygote does not have the right to borrow into uterus of the woman against the woman's will.
I have to ask because I am curious to know whether the ‘yes’ here really meant ‘yes’ to the question I was asking. I honestly find it hard to believe that it does because you specified ‘as long as it’s the same rights’, which is irrelevant. The question here is: why do you draw the line there? That’s why I put that part of my paragraph above in bold. Why do you conclude that this is now something completely different? Why draw the line at conception for jumping from no-value-no-right to full-on-human-life-with-rights?
And again, in case that’s helpful, I don’t personally think there is such a line. Just like there is no such instantaneous moment when a child becomes an adult, even if we collectively place arbitrary numbers such as 18 years old for voting rights et al.
Oh also, can't help but comment on this:
For example, the zygote does not have the right to borrow into uterus of the woman against the woman's will.
It's quite bizarre frankly to me to talk about a purely automatic chemical/biological reaction as not having the right to proceed against the woman's will... especially since she (except in cases of rape) initiated the process herself.
A very imperfect analogy would be this: I eat a steak, it's now being digested in my stomach, and I claim that the cow doesn't have the right to use my stomach to decompose itself...
Hugo,
Why do you conclude that this is now something completely different?
I don't. Don't confuse philosophical and legal positions. We are all part of the continuum of human life for millions of years, part of the continuation of fish for eons.
Why draw the line at conception for jumping from no-value-no-right to full-on-human-life-with-rights?
Legally, the line must be drawn somewhere.
Hugo,
A very imperfect analogy would be this: I eat a steak, it's now being digested in my stomach, and I claim that the cow doesn't have the right to use my stomach to decompose itself...
Unless you're bulimic, the purpose of eating the steak is to allow the decomposition. People regularly have sex without the intent of conception.
why does this thing have any value to you?
People get killed all over the world every day that do not cost me any sleep. We are all this way. If we literally cared about every single human life, even complete strangers, we would have long ago gone extinct as a species via suicidal depression.
That said, we do care on a conceptual level (most of us). I don't break down emotionally when a tsunami wipes out thousands, but if you asked me my opinion on the deaths, the answer would range along the lines of how awful it is, would help out if I could, prayers for them, donations, etc. It's not that I'm personally vested in their lives, but rather a personal value of mine is that a human life has intrinsic worth, whether I know them or not.
Biologically, the zygote is a new human life. Does this single cell in fact have intrinsic value of the sort that makes me desire to protect it and wish for its continued well-being? Well, almost everyone agrees that a newborn has that worth. Most agree a third trimester fetus does. When is the point at which this organism acquires worth?
Some offer various developmental milestones as the criteria for value, such as brain activity. A couple problems with that. First is the uncertainty of when these milestones are reached. If you truly place value on the fetus so long as he or she has a particular feature, but that standard is not objectively quantifiable in all cases, then there are fetuses with those features who will get killed. So the obvious practical solution would be to set the bar at a place where it is impossible to kill a fetus with brain activity, for example. Yet many / most abortion proponents oppose bans on abortions after six weeks, which guarantees such protection. This means brain activity does not translate into value.
The other problem is the inherent selfishness of placing value on something so long as it closely resembles us. All of us were zygote and all of us are here because our mother didn't abort us, yet we decide it's simply dandy for other existing lives to be ended before they get a chance to obtain legal protection. They will never see the world because of our moral failure. That is pretty sorry.
The only standard that protects every human life has to include human life at every stage. Otherwise that value is completely arbitrary.
One Brow,
Don't confuse philosophical and legal positions.
Well I don’t think either of use is confused on that front. What I am confused about is this:
Legally, the line must be drawn somewhere.
Not really; lots of legal things don’t have a specific ‘line’ and use language such as ‘reasonable’. So, again, why do you draw it at conception? Why not birth? Or even some less precise line like viability around 22 weeks? There are several options...
Unless you're bulimic, the purpose of eating the steak is to allow the decomposition. People regularly have sex without the intent of conception.
The point of the analogy was not so much about that; the part about consent was secondary. Ironically, what you quoted was actually what was more relevant, but that you did not address: it was more about the fact that the pieces of steak in the stomach are nothing like the cow, and that it would be absurd to talk about their rights, or lack thereof. I.e. The cow has some kind of minimal animal rights; not to be tortured say. However, once the piece of cooked and chewed steak is in the stomach, how can we even talk about that cow still having any kind of rights, or not? I see fertilized embryos the same way, but the other way around; it hasn’t been granted any rights yet. What does work well in this analogy though is that I honestly think that the steak having rights, or an embryo having rights, are just as absurd.
Kevin,
Biologically, the zygote is a new human life. Does this single cell in fact have intrinsic value of the sort that makes me desire to protect it and wish for its continued well-being? Well, almost everyone agrees that a newborn has that worth. Most agree a third trimester fetus does. When is the point at which this organism acquires worth?
I have answered that ya. It’s tough; it’s some gray area that I don’t want to decide for anybody else.
First is the uncertainty of when these milestones are reached
Indeed, very uncertain but…
The only standard that protects every human life has to include human life at every stage. Otherwise that value is completely arbitrary.
Now you go wayyy too far, because ‘every stage’ includes conception. And that’s what I am asking about.
Basically, on the one hand you’re saying it’s hard to decide, and I agree, but then you seem to just throw up you hand in the air and conclude that since it’s hard let’s just go crazy and put every stage, every single stage, under the exact same ‘human life’ umbrella, thereby granting a single cell the same rights and (similar?) value as a newborn.
Hugo,
Not really; lots of legal things don’t have a specific ‘line’ and use language such as ‘reasonable’. So, again, why do you draw it at conception? Why not birth? Or even some less precise line like viability around 22 weeks? There are several options...
My legal line is at viability. When the fetus is old enough to survive and capable of flourishing without the womb, any removal should be of a live fetus. That's different from my moral position.
The cow has some kind of minimal animal rights; not to be tortured say. However, once the piece of cooked and chewed steak is in the stomach, how can we even talk about that cow still having any kind of rights, or not? I see fertilized embryos the same way, but the other way around; it hasn’t been granted any rights yet. What does work well in this analogy though is that I honestly think that the steak having rights, or an embryo having rights, are just as absurd.
Good for you. The idea of "not tortured" depends on the ability of the cow to feel pain. I reject any position based on the notion that a human's rights are based on their current mental abilities.
One Brow,
"My legal line is at viability. When the fetus is old enough to survive and capable of flourishing without the womb, any removal should be of a live fetus."
Ya I also think that this makes a lot of sense and it's pretty much what we have already.
As a side note, I am not sure what you see as different from right now, when you said a "remove alive" bill for viable fetuses, as this is what we already do, no? If a woman has to have an abortion passed the 30-week mark, say, because her life is in danger, they will try to save the baby. And nobody (happy to be proven wrong and disgusted) chooses to have an abortion that late. Something like 95% are before the 12 week mark anyway. And even later, when getting close to the 40th week, it's just a c-section like a normal delivery. We don't call it 'abortion' but that's what it is... it aborts the pregnancy.
"That's different from my moral position."
Ok, which is what I have been curious to know about, after you called it evil, but in the legal context I guess. So, I am not sure what your position here is then, except that you said something about being subjective and thus not justifiable? Looks like I asked a lot of wrong questions...
"I reject any position based on the notion that a human's rights are based on their current mental abilities."
Ya it was not about that at all either... again, the very-imperfect analogy was about how cells are so different from fully grown organisms. Looks like it just confuse you a lot so definitely a bad choice from my part.
@Kevin
By the way, not sure you saw my other comment... I realized you are actually the same person who was going under Legion of Logic. Did I miss the explanation as to why you made that switch sometime over the last 1+ year?
The Endowment for Human Development has a free educational video HERE.
Pretty remarkable intra-uterine footage and 4D ultrasound of what is really happening.
@bmiller
Thanks for sharing that! Really well made and interesting. I did not know the details about yawning and handedness for instance. I was also happily surprised to see that the organization behind it has a Policy of Bioethical Neutrality and is thus not showing this to shame/guilt-trip people via emotional arguments. ( Unlike you? :p )
How are abortions performed at different stages? "Vacuum Aspiration", "Dilation and Evacuation" and "Dilation and Extraction"
Surprisingly, one can find all sorts of videos online of all types of surgery but hardly any of these common procedures.
Post a Comment