Apparently there is a split in the pro-choice camp. Some
reject the idea that they are pro-abortion, others
embrace it. Apparently to be truly pro-abortion, it implies that you see the fetus as outside the range of moral consideration, so that abortions are morally equivalent to other kinds of medical procedures. Someone who is merely pro-choice, I take it, opposes efforts on the part of the state to outlaw abortion, but believe that nonetheless, the fetus's life is valuable and that abortions can certainly take place of immoral reasons. I heard of a case in which a woman got an abortion because she didn't want to appear fat in her wedding pictures. To refrain from disapproving of that, you would really have to be pro-abortion and hold an strict interests view of the value of the fetus's life (the fetus is not valuable because it is not well-enough developed to have an interest in its own survival).
One could make the case that the President and Vice-President are split on this matter, although Harris has never, to my knowledge, indicated whether she considers some abortion to be immoral, or not. Biden I know thinks they are pretty much all morally unacceptable, in spite of his pro-choice politics. Harris just throws out pro-choice rhetoric when the issue comes up.
For those who are pro-life, should this matter? Pro-choice or pro-abortion, the legal outcome is the same. But there is another abortion debate, the debate occurring in the minds of pregnant women who have to decide whether to get an abortion. And the difference comes there.
93 comments:
We don't want botched self-abortions or Mexican abortions or abortions done by some back alley quack
Daily Koz is racist.
"I heard of a case in which a woman got an abortion because she didn't want to appear fat in her wedding pictures."
Please provide substantiation of this story? My understanding is that a woman's decision to have or not have an abortion is one of the hardest and most traumatic decisions she will ever make.
In such a difficult area as women's reproductive health care, I would say the legal standing of Roe V Wade has demonstrated without doubt and proven to have struck the absolute right balance. The legal argument has held strong for 50 years despite decades of egregious white-anting at local and State level by the utterly disingenuous and underhanded who in reality just don't give a damn about the health and well-being (psychologically, physically, economically, emotionally) of the family and the mother having to make that decision, cynically pushing to prove a point.
I say, 'How about those who continue to peddle this nonsense sleaze back under the rock from which you came.'
Papalinton! I haven't seen you here on DI for a geologic age now. Hopefully, you're doing OK.
Starhopper, I feel great. Even though I don't live in the US, the last four years has been as equally harrowing and frightening a time for those of us around the world, as for you poor souls who had to bear the brunt of the nightmarish day-to-day lived experience in realtime.
I assiduously watch news from the US direct and am right now so at peace with the radical normalcy of the Biden administration.
And as with all strains of dangerous nonsense, the QAnon conspiracies, Trumpism, fake rigged elections, Republican morality and ethics, the treasonous storming of the Capitol, the time is now for US citizens to 'seize the day' and completely route out the diseased metastatic canker that is deeply embedded in the Republican body politic. The policy of appeasement doesn't work. Biden, Schumer et al has learned the hard lessons from McConnell and the GOP, and he and Congress will not be duped again.
So too, should Victor learn the lessons of history and put paid to the nonsense that anything new remains that has not already been said and debated about the issue of women's reproductive rights and health mandates.
I hope he is amenable to heeding sound and prudent advice.
And leftists think they are the normal ones.
Papalinton,
I think that for the first time ever, we agree 100% on something. I need to go outside and check to see whether the Moon is still in the sky! (Although I'm not likely to see anything, since they're predicting we're going to get a foot of snow here in the next 48 hours.)
Leftists also dislike debates.
bmiller,
Leftists also dislike debates.
Debates are great for determining who is the better speaker or has better rhetorical flourishes.
One Brow may be onto something there. I can't think of anyone who's been convinced to change their mind about anything because of what they've heard in a debate. If anything, debates tend to confirm what one already believes and strengthens a person's convictions. People generally listen to debates to find reasons to dislike opposing opinions rather than to embrace them.
Now discussions are another matter entirely. The best example of this I can think of is the amazing series of "Science vs Religion" conversations between Rabbi Sacks and Richard Dawkins. Oh, if only every discussion about opposing beliefs/opinions/worldviews could be conducted like these. What a wonderful (and more peaceful) world this would be.
What I meant was that leftists get so offended by opposing beliefs that they want to shut down positions altogether.
I think debates are useful and I've changed my mind while listening to them. At the minimum I get to learn the beliefs of the debaters and often get new information to check out. They're also motivational to study what are good arguments and what are bad arguments.
Definition of a good argument: One you agree with.
Definition of a bad argument: One you disagree with.
Thanks for giving the definitions from the Leftist's Dictionary.
bmiller,
What I meant was that leftists get so offended by opposing beliefs that they want to shut down positions altogether.
Much like many Christians get so offended by other beliefs that they try to shut them down.
But I think the right is adopting some of the worst characteristics of the left. They are developing their own form of cancel culture. Just ask Liz Cheney. Intolerance has no political affiliation.
But can we pay attention to the question I asked. Should it matter to people who are pro-life whether or not pro-choicers are pro-abortion, or just pro-choice?
What Whopping Whataboutism.
Leftists are calling for the silencing and re-education camps for 75 million people of the opposing party. But look over there! Republicans are trying to discipline their own.
The reason I brought it up here is that you have 2 leftist commenters here that want you to stop talking about abortion when all they had to do was ignore your post.
Regarding your question, I took it as rhetorical for the pro-life side. The debate you pointed out is between people who want abortion to be legal. You might as well ask Christians to opine on the Muslim Shia vs Sunni debate.
"you have 2 leftist commenters here that want you to stop talking about abortion"
Uh, which two were those? I can find no comment here asking Victor to stop talking about anything.
So, the central issue for you is whether abortion should be legal. Whether such people believe that it is never moral, or sometimes moral, or always moral, simply does not matter. Your comparison between the Sunni and Shia positions suggests just this. But in that case, both Sunnis and Shi'ites can fall into, or avoid, the kind of extremism that is likely to do harm. I would think someone who is pro-life might look at these two kind of pro-choicers the way a Christian would look at an atheist who thinks that there are reasonable Christians and that atheism is not rationally mandated, as opposed to an New Atheist who thinks that all religious people are delusional and that it is a good idea to stop being so nice and do everything you can to stamp out theism. Of course I disagree with the atheism of both, but I vastly prefer the atheism of the late William Rowe or Erik Wielenberg to the atheism of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
An excessive focus on laws forces the abortion issue into the realm of politics, and I think that actually takes away from moral discourse on the matter. I am making a case that if you, like me, are one of those people who believe that the number of babies aborted should be as close to zero as possible, it is much preferable to have people around who are opposed to abortion even if those people are not pushing laws prohibiting it. A baby saved is a baby saved, and so far the pursuit of abortion laws in America has saved few babies. I can't imagine thinking that the difference between the pro-abortion position and the pro-choice but (largely) anti-abortion position is trivial. A pro-lifer can, and does, disagree with both positions when it comes to legal restrictions, but to say that the difference is trivial is to completely ignore the fact that, laws or no laws, thousands of women are making decisions every day as to whether to carry their pregnancies to term or not. If we can prevent abortions from occurring by strengthening the safety net so that women can afford to have and raise their babies, or by moral persuasion within or outside of the Church, why is that prevented abortion any less significant than an abortion prevented by laws prohibiting abortion or in other ways restricting access to abortion. Why? This is simply beyond my comprehension.
Victor,
I believe our views on this subject are nearly identical. I can think of nothing to add to your clear thoughts as expressed above. How many times have I said that the solution to abortion (which is, no argument, an intrinsic evil) is education, not legislation. I am on record as to this.
It causes me to suspect that the true goal of many self-described "pro-lifers" is not ending abortion, but rather preserving the current power structure (with them, of course, being in control).
Victor,
I am making a case that if you, like me, are one of those people who believe that the number of babies aborted should be as close to zero as possible, it is much preferable to have people around who are opposed to abortion even if those people are not pushing laws prohibiting it.
I know why most people commenting on this blog hold the moral positions they do on this subject even if I disagree with those positions. I don't know yours. You've never stated that you think intentionally killing innocent humans beings is wrong in all circumstances or even told us what circumstances you think it is morally acceptable. I don't care if you aren't pushing laws prohibiting abortion, but you are very actively arguing against such laws. Why would someone who is against intentionally killing innocent people do that? Doesn't make sense to me.
A baby saved is a baby saved, and so far the pursuit of abortion laws in America has saved few babies.
Why are you calling them babies now? You've always called them fetuses before.
A pro-lifer can, and does, disagree with both positions when it comes to legal restrictions,
Yes, which was my point.
but to say that the difference is trivial is to completely ignore the fact that, laws or no laws, thousands of women are making decisions every day as to whether to carry their pregnancies to term or not.
Which was something I didn't say.
If we can prevent abortions from occurring by strengthening the safety net so that women can afford to have and raise their babies, or by moral persuasion within or outside of the Church, why is that prevented abortion any less significant than an abortion prevented by laws prohibiting abortion or in other ways restricting access to abortion. Why? This is simply beyond my comprehension.
It's apparent you don't read my posts addressed to you. I am for all of the above. However, all of the above includes discouraging the intentional killing of innocent babies (your words now) by making it illegal. Just like it's illegal to kill other innocent people.
Starhopper,
You told us you were never going to comment on this subject ever again. Yet here you are. I'm not surprised, but this was especially nasty:
It causes me to suspect that the true goal of many self-described "pro-lifers" is not ending abortion, but rather preserving the current power structure (with them, of course, being in control).
Who knew? Pro-lifers are in control. Please obey me...please?
bmiller,
What Whopping Whataboutism.
What ignorant bleating.
Leftists are calling for the silencing and re-education camps for 75 million people of the opposing party.
Not a major figure of the Democratic party is calling for any such thing. If you want to pin that on "the left", first own up that, as a member of "the right", you belong to the group of insurrectionists who wanted to tie up members of Congress. If you can distinguish yourself from them, you can distinguish politicians from crazy people on the left as well.
Even then, re-education camps are still not as bad as burning people at the stake, which is how Christians have historically treated heretics.
The reason I brought it up here is that you have 2 leftist commenters here that want you to stop talking about abortion when all they had to do was ignore your post.
This is a flat falsehood. I see no comment asking Dr. Reppert to not discuss abortion. the closest would be one saying that Dr. Reppert hasn't learned these discussions produce more heat than light (which I don't necessarily agree with).
Regarding your question, I took it as rhetorical for the pro-life side. The debate you pointed out is between people who want abortion to be legal. You might as well ask Christians to opine on the Muslim Shia vs Sunni debate.
Unless you are trying to build a coalition to reduce unwanted births by non-abortion methods, I agree there seems to be little point to the discussion. However, if Dr. Reppert finds value in it, I support his being able to discuss it.
My interest in the abortion issue has largely to do with the fact that it raises a number of difficult questions. This is not true for a lot of people, who are comfortable as pro-life or pro-abortion extremists. I think abortions are bad--tragic at best and wrong at worst. The difference between badness and wrongness is that in the case of badness, a moral loss in inflicted, but there may be no alternative action that would have been preferable. Thus, for example, lying is always bad, but not necessarily wrong (Think of the people sheltering Jews from the Nazis, who are asked by the SS "Do you have any Jews here?") Part of this is based on my theological view of the world, pregnancy is the natural process by which new human life is created. It is not a biological accident coughed up by the blind watchmaker. And part of it has to do with the biblical identifications between persons and their prenatal selves in both the Old and New Testaments. But I think there are reasons for people regardless of religious belief to think of the loss of a fetus as a genuine loss. A person is pro-abortion is they believe that there is no loss inflicted by abortion, putting morally in the category of other medical procedures like nose jobs or appendectomies.
Nevertheless there do seem to be differences between fetuses and infants that I cannot dismiss as irrelevant. One is the role of the woman in physically providing life support for nine months, a condition I have never experienced and cannot experienced. The other is the fact that for most of pregnancy the fetus, apparently, does not have, and has never had any experiences. Even the Bible, in one place, treats the killing of a fetus differently from the killing of a person, and fails to impose penalties associated with other violations of the Sixth Commandment.
With respect to laws, I think the laws we can reasonably expect to get are the laws that are supported by the majority of the people, since that is how our system works. I don't think it makes sense for laws on abortion to vary by state--that seems too much like allowing laws concerning slavery to vary by state, and we know how that worked out. Besides, having it vary by state would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. If we lived in a more Christian society, maybe different laws might be possible, but under the circumstances only a minority of people believe in the pro-life position in the full sense. As a Christian, for example, I would ideally prefer some requirements for divorce rather than the no-fault system we currently have, but we in America we should stop pretending to be the moral majority. We are not the moral majority.
The Right opposes abortion, but has consistently opposed measures, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, and SCHIP children's health insurance, the existence of which would make it more feasible for women to carry their pregnancies to term. Universal health care will also make live birth more of a live option for women facing economically difficult pregnancies. Whenever you suggest something that might tend to make live birth more of a live option, people on the Right say "Oh, we can't do that. That would be socialism." So, what's more important, saving fetuses, or avoiding socialism? More later.
In Paragraph 41 of his letter Christus Vivit, Pope Francis writes "[People] do not want to see a Church that is [...] always battling obsessively over two or three issues."
Take a guess as to which "two or three issues" he was referring to.
Victor,
Thanks for your detailed reply so far. I'll wait for your comments to come for a complete response.
I think your first couple paragraphs are the most interesting to me since the reasoning of the following paragraphs flow from the first (with some caveats).
It seems to me that you are reluctant to explore what is actually being destroyed in an abortion.
Stardusty has pondered the question and has concluded that the unborn are non-human before a certain point in development so it's OK to destroy them. One Brow thinks they are fully human and normally deserving to live unless the mother decides they are invading her personal bodily autonomy and then they can be destroyed. Hal thinks they are fully human, but since they are named non-persons (because they don't have adult capabilities) they can be destroyed. Starhopper says he agrees with the Catholic Church that the unborn deserve all the rights as every other person, except (departing from Church teaching) they should not be protected by the law. Kevin thinks that since they are as fully human from the beginning and are fully human through all their life, they deserve the same protection all their lives (although I assume there is a religious component also).
My position is very similar to Kevin's. I would appeal to his argument with non-religious people, but with Catholics I can appeal to the Church and with other Christians I can point out that if they allow for abortion in theory, that they will have allowed for the abortion of Christ in theory. If Christ returns in a similar manner, they will have approved of His death.
That's why I was asking about your faith. Not because I wanted to tell you that you were a bad Christian, but to understand what you would dismiss out of hand.
It seems that you are foggy on what the unborn actually are and I think that is key to the other 2 issues you are foggy on. For instance if I thought the unborn were not humans the same as all other humans, but instead part of a human or some other organism that radically changes what type of protection they deserve. I think this would be a fruitful area of discussion since I think we can leave out your political inclinations and as well as mine from being part of the discussion.
"except (departing from Church teaching) they should not be protected by the law"
That is NOT my position, which is that abortion should not necessarily be a priority when there are multiple issues at stake. For instance, if Candidate A is "pro-life" and intent on invading India while Candidate B "pro-choice" and opposed to invading India, it would be perfectly moral (and correct) to vote for Candidate B.
My position is also that overemphasis on laws in the absence of overwhelming public support is both counter-productive and a waste of time and resources.
Recall how things turned out for us in Vietnam when the USA departed from winning over "hearts and minds" in favor of basically flattening the country. Hint: Not Well.
My stance is in perfect harmony with the statements of Pope Francis.
Starhopper,
they should not be protected by the law
How many times have I said that the solution to abortion (which is, no argument, an intrinsic evil) is education, not legislation. I am on record as to this.
You've told us you were not going to comment on this subject anymore and you did. You told us you were on record as opposing legislation, which I pointed out, and you told me I was wrong. Are you now for laws to protect the unborn?
You don't have to answer that. I understand how leftist cultists operate.
"Are you now for laws to protect the unborn?"
I am neither for them nor against them. They are irrelevant, useless, and a waste of time that could be much better used.
But I wouldn't lift a finger to repeal any such laws. I meant what I said when I called them irrelevant.
The Church is for laws to protect the unborn. You're not and you're so opposed to Catholic teaching that you're arguing to convince people to stop trying to pass laws. That's more than just passive disinterest (which itself is a sin). And that's not to mention your argument that laws increase abortions so they shouldn't be passed.
But OK. I understand you're a leftist. I'll change it to this:
Starhopper says he agrees with the Catholic Church that the unborn deserve all the rights as every other person, except (departing from Church teaching) no one should actually try to pass laws to protect the rights of the unborn
One Brow thinks they are fully human and normally deserving to live unless the mother decides they are invading her personal bodily autonomy and then they can be destroyed.
Technically, that would be "destoyed only when there is no chance to live outside her body". I would support laws requiring the live removal of any fully viable fetus.
Noted.
"Yet here you are."
Hey, cut me some slack. I've been in total solitary confinement for some time now, having been exposed to individuals with the Trump Virus. I am starved for human contact, even if it means attempting to educate the likes of you.
I've been in total solitary confinement
God has finally placed you where He wants you. Praise be to God.
Well, let me assure you, it stinks! I'm pretty much a people person, and isolation is soul destroying. (I am getting a lot of reading done, however. I've even started re-reading Dante's Divine Comedy for about the 10th time. And to balance things off, I'm deep into the twelve volume) collected Pogo comics. Plus at least 3 other books.)
Purgatorio doesn't only happen after death.
Perhaps you are making a down-payment for your unpleasantness now.
"your unpleasantness"
Moi? Why, I'm the nicest guy I know... Now don't make me go all St. Paul on you!
Since you're in solitary, you're also the only guy you know.
But I can sympathize. I'd go crazy too if I couldn't escape you.
"Half of the time we're gone, but we don't know where... and we don't know where." (Paul Simon)
Since Victor hasn't responded yet I'll make an observation:
It seems that you are foggy on what the unborn actually are and I think that is key to the other 2 issues you are foggy on.
I think I'm wrong in thinking that Victor has not made up his mind what the unborn actually are. I think he's told us the various things he evaluated before reaching his conclusion that the unborn deserve no rights at all. He's concluded that the unborn are not humans, the Bible allows for their killing and that men are not capable of using reason to evaluate the morality of the situation in any case.
If he was undecided, then it wouldn't make any sense for him consider the morality of abortion at all. Yet he posts about it all the time.
I'm happy for him to correct me.
Victor says: "The Right opposes abortion, but has consistently opposed measures, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, and SCHIP children's health insurance, the existence of which would make it more feasible for women to carry their pregnancies to term. Universal health care will also make live birth more of a live option for women facing economically difficult pregnancies. Whenever you suggest something that might tend to make live birth more of a live option, people on the Right say "Oh, we can't do that. That would be socialism." So, what's more important, saving fetuses, or avoiding socialism?"
A factually true statement. But this comment only demonstrates how problematic it is to overlay a wretchedly tired and ill-fitting medieval christian perspective over today's multicultural community. It just does not work and makes little sense to continue flogging a dead dog. It also demonstrates how utterly useless christianity really is as a guide in establishing right from wrong, good from bad. Christian interpretation has always been about who or which group is strongest to impose the 'right' exegesis. Christian belief is a smorgasbord depending on the sect, the group or even the local church. Indeed people shop around, church hunting, seeking to 'find' the teaching that best reinforces their particular predilection. And so it is with the Christian Right as outlined in Victor's paragraph above.
The utterly sad irony here is the false choice that only their christian education could have them arrive at; "....what's more important, saving fetuses, or avoiding socialism? ..." One could find no better proof or damning evidence of the utter bankruptcy of religious belief as a guide for living in today's society. Any right-minded thinking person should put paid to the relic of christianity as easily as they already reject islamic or hindu thought in shaping our laws, be it women's reproductive health or otherwise.
Oh, Papalinton,
Don't make me regret welcoming you back! This latest posting of yours shows astonishing ignorance, on the order of that displayed by Trump supporters in this country. You write "Christian interpretation has always been about who or which group is strongest to impose the 'right' exegesis." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, that statement is the polar opposite from reality.
I know you've read the Bible. Has it somehow escaped your notice that from its first pages to its last lines, it is a condemnation of those in power, and a voice for the lowly and oppressed, the powerless and the persecuted? Just look at Moses, the champion of an enslaved race, taking on the greatest superpower of his time (Egypt). All the Hebrew prophets, from Elijah to John the Baptist, spoke, as we say nowadays, "truth to power", often at the cost of their lives. Jesus Himself resisted attempts to make Him a king, and willingly went to His crucifixion, rather than engage in a power struggle against Rome.
The great saints throughout Christian history are heroes of the resistance to power, from Thomas Becket to Sir Thomas More, from the martyrs of the Roman persecutions to the anonymous victims of anti-Christian violence in the past 2 centuries, from Dorothy Day and Martin Luther King to Daniel Berrigan, Archbishop Oscar Romero, and the Kings Bay Plowshares 7.
The history (and contemporary reality) of Christianity is an unbroken story of the "preferential option for the poor" and of steadfast resistance to injustice and oppression.
He's concluded that the unborn are not humans, the Bible allows for their killing and that men are not capable of using reason to evaluate the morality of the situation in any case.
So given all of this, then what is bad or wrong or tragic about the decision?
Also,I can't figure out the example about the Nazi knocking at the door. Sure, lying is a sin, but killing someone is a greater sin and so presumably Victor thinks it's OK to lie to save people's lives. But the only one in danger of dying during an abortion is the unborn, not the one initiating the abortion. So what is the greater evil here involving someone's death if you believe the unborn are not human?
Starhopper says: "You write "Christian interpretation has always been about who or which group is strongest to impose the 'right' exegesis." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, that statement is the polar opposite from reality."
Then, what's your response to Victor's keen observation about the christian far right; 'Whenever you suggest something that might tend to make live birth more of a live option, people on the Right say "Oh, we can't do that. That would be socialism." So, what's more important, saving fetuses, or avoiding socialism?"'
What is very interesting is that I have just watched a report of the insurrection at the Capitol and one of the selfie videos was posted by a pastor who had broken into the building, a Trump loyalist, saying [paraphrasing] "I may be fired from my job as a pastor for doing this but it was worth it." What value christian morality and christian ethics?
You'll probably say, he's not a real christian. But it simply substantiates my case that christianity is no more a useful model for morality, ethics or behaviour as he truly believed as did all the other christians that invaded the Capitol wanting to hang Pence or put a bullet in Pelosi's brain.
As I affirm, this pastor could not be a better representation that "Christian interpretation has always been about who or which group is strongest to impose the 'right' exegesis."
He did it for Trump and Jesus.
"Then, what's your response to Victor's keen observation about the Christian far right?"
My response would be the words of Him who is the ultimate authority on what is and is not Christianity:
Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" And then will I declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers."
(Matthew 7:21-23)
My point in the above posting is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian, is one. This is especially true today of the so-called, self-described "Christian" right, which is anything but. This group, whose actions and ruling philosophy is antithetical to practically every word in the New Testament, has forfeited any right to call themselves followers of Christ.
Bottom line: I could not agree with you more in condemning the words and actions of those participating in the January 6th insurrection, but their invocation of Christianity as their motivation is a total fraud, born either of ignorance or else a willful distortion of the Faith.
He's concluded that the unborn are not humans, the Bible allows for their killing and that men are not capable of using reason to evaluate the morality of the situation in any case.
So if a man cannot rationally understand the morality of the issue of abortion because of his sex, then why should we expect women to rationally understand the morality of other issues that perhaps only men have access to? Or perhaps morality is not rational or neither sex has access to objective morality.
Maybe Paul was right. Paul Simon that is:
God only knows
God makes his plan
The information’s unavailable
To the mortal man.
Starhopper: "Bottom line: I could not agree with you more in condemning the words and actions of those participating in the January 6th insurrection, but their invocation of Christianity as their motivation is a total fraud, born either of ignorance or else a willful distortion of the Faith."
Words. Just words. Useless words. Words without content, words without meaning or consequence. Oh how easy it is for christians like you to simply turn off the tap to God's grace when christians don't not conform to their brand of christianity. Is any religious institution going to disbar them from their church? Is there going to be any move by religious authorities to censure them before their congregation? Will the catholic church excommunicate these brutal rogues? We all know what the answer is to all these questions. Nothing. Nada, Nyet. Zilch.
"Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" And then will I declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers."
(Matthew 7:21-23)
This is utter bullshit with no practical merit. And you know it. Again, useless, useless words. Of utterly no consequence.
You know full well these idiots only have to say a few confessory words on their deathbed and the closed gates of heaven will disappear as if they weren't even there. I'm sorry, Starhopper, the quoting of meaningless word salad is just that. Do you think the conscience of this pastor or any of the followers of jesus participating in the insurrection is going to be pricked one jot by invoking this quote? I can only take what you write as little more than a joke. It has about the same level of deep conscious thought as the three nuns that were raped walking through a park one night. One says to the others,"Oh! my God! Oh! My God! How are we going to tell Mother Superior that we've been raped twice? One of the others says, "What do you mean, twice?" "Well we're coming back this way, aren't we?"
No Starhopper, a meaningless Matthean quote from the bible does not an answer make. Just a couple of synonyms to make very clear what I mean about the value of the quote; incoherent, senseless, foolish, absurd, fatuous, vacuous, worthless, nugatory, barren.
Sorry Dude, I cannot, no matter how hard I try, take what you have written with any intellectual seriousness.
"Sorry Dude, I cannot, no matter how hard I try, take what you have written with any intellectual seriousness."
Sorry, Mate (and I say this with love), you cannot do so, because there's not a shred of intellectual seriousness within you.
It's a pity that you are so blind to the hatred that prevents you from taking seriously the purest expression of Love in all of history. If you could only step back from yourself, you might (with some horror, I would hope) discover that you sound no different than those conspiracy theorists who stormed the US Capitol. Because the mark of a true cultist is to dismiss any and all information that threatens or contradicts one's worldview as " incoherent, senseless, foolish, absurd, fatuous, vacuous, worthless, nugatory, barren."
(I do appreciate "nugatory" however. Had to look it up. Must use it sometime.)
Australia!
I too say it with love, Starhopper. Indeed, I couldn't agree with you more about love. But I do it because I want to express that love, unequivocally, unconditionally, without having to qualify it by saying, 'I do it because that's what God teaches me is a good thing to do.'
No. I'm not blind to hatred. That's not me. What you take for hatred is what is my deep sadness of your total immersion into what 'appears' to be ...."the purest expression of Love in all of history". And in all that 'love' christians continue to besmirch that belief by their dogged determination to overturn Roe v Wade, to deny women the right to decide what kind and level of reproductive health care is best for their psychological, mental and emotional well being, to throw transgender people out of the military because of a quirk of genetics, no fault of their own, to continue to rail against LGBTQ people, again another quirk of nature, with utterly stupid, hurtful claims that what they do is not 'natural' because the bible tells it so, and to pillory them in the public square, in the media, on Christian TV, to vent their bile against those in our community who simply want to get on with their lives, to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with, be they the same sex or otherwise.
I am and do good for goodness' sake alone, without recourse to some silly notion of 'someone' in the sky looking over and judging me 24/7. To imagine some disembodied non-corporeal agency out there who helps you win the lottery, or cure your cancer by the flick of HIS omnipotence is very much the thinking of a child in delayed maturity.
My worldview is shaped by what I know and can be proved, demonstrated and established. I don't default to 'God's mysterious ways' as an explanation. You see worldviews are formed through an explanatory framework, and it is the choice of which explanatory paradigm best explains us, our relationships to each other, the world and the universe, that is important. It is a matter of competing explanatory paradigms. The explanatory framework that best expresses my perspective is encapsulated by Dr David Eller, one of today's foremost anthropologists of international standing:
"Let us be clear. Religions do not and cannot progress the way that, say, science can progress. When science progresses, it abandons old and false ideas. Once we discovered oxygen and the principles of combustion, we stopped thinking that there was a substance called phlogiston. Once we discovered that the earth is round, we stopped thinking that it is flat. Science and reason are substitutive or eliminative: new ideas replace old ideas. Religion is additive and/or schismatic: new ideas proliferate alongside old ideas. For instance, the development of Protestantism did not put an end to Catholicism, and the development of Christianity did not put an end to Judaism. With science we get better. With religion, we get more. Since there are so many religions - and more every day - that are not only different from but contradictory to each other, it makes no sense to talk about better or true religion. The only thing that makes sense is to talk about local religion, the religion that people follow in one place or time as opposed to someplace or sometime else."
So the choice is; an explanatory model based around science or an explanatory model based around theism. Either way, we can be good or bad. I make no pretence of that. A good person will do good. A bad person will do bad. But for a good person to do bad that takes religion.
But for a good person to do bad that takes religion.
That's one of the stupidest assertions to come out of the New Atheist movement, and it had stiff competition. It takes less than one second to think of counterexamples.
Hey Starhopper,
Here's an article that's pertinent to the insurrection of June 6:
https://newrepublic.com/article/160922/capitol-riot-revealed-darkest-nightmares-white-evangelical-america
I was particularly taken by the photo of a flag inscribed: 'Jesus is my saviour. Trump is my president.'
An interesting juxtaposition, no?
Kevin says: "That's one of the stupidest assertions to come out of the New Atheist movement, and it had stiff competition."
The original statement was coined by none other than one of the greatest scientists of all time, Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate. And with good fortune is still with today. Weinberg stated his views on religion in 1999:
"Frederick Douglass told in his 'Narrative' how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion." [Wiki]
You've just stepped into deep doodoo, Kevin.
On this very subject, C.S. Lewis wrote "It’s not out of bad mice or bad fleas you make demons, but out of bad archangels." But it would still not follow from the existence of demons that all archangels were evil - only the fallen ones. Alternatively, there is the popular proverb "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."
And the idea that "for good people to do evil - that takes religion" is utter nonsense. I'm sure that Leon Trotsky was a "good person", yet he committed great evil, and he was an atheist. I'm fairly certain that Trump believes in absolutely nothing (which is how John Loftus defines an atheist), yet he is easily the most evil political figure in American history.
You've just stepped into deep doodoo, Kevin.
Not really. If indeed they borrowed it instead of coming up with it themselves, then I would simply say it is one of the stupidest assertions that the New Atheists routinely employed.
It's ultimate source doesn't change its stupidity.
yet he is easily the most evil political figure in American history
He can't even tie Bush's shoes in that regard.
Well thanks to the attack of the gasbags the combox is now a litterbox and I now don't expect a response from Victor....again.
Didn't mean Kevin.
Kevin,
I would debate you on Bush. Although I believed (and still do) that the invasion of Iraq was probably the stupidest American foreign policy action ever, Bush struck me as a well meaning person. Wrongheaded, yet sincere. For that reason, I can't label him as evil, just totally out of his depth.
As was Jimmy Carter, possibly the most good hearted yet least qualified president of the last century.
Kevin,
That's one of the stupidest assertions to come out of the New Atheist movement, and it had stiff competition. It takes less than one second to think of counterexamples.
Agreed. People that want to do bad things will find justification in any source they wish to see it in, religious or otherwise.
Papalinton,
"Let us be clear. Religions do not and cannot progress the way that, say, science can progress. When science progresses, it abandons old and false ideas.
Ellis is right, but not in the way he means to be. Religions do progress (as any reasonable take on any particular Christian organization will reveal) and do discard what they consider to be old and false ideas. They do it a different way from science.
Papalinton,
Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate.
He was a physicist. He has no more insight to history or human nature than any typical bricklayer or computer scientist, and probably less than most bartenders and garbage men.
"Religions do not and cannot progress the way that, say, science can progress. When science progresses, it abandons old and false ideas."
The Jewish religion has progressed remarkably over the ages. You can see it even in the Hebrew scriptures. Yahweh was originally seen as God of the Hebrew people only (witness the attitudes in the Book of Ruth), and may have even been thought of as a greatest amongst equals (The Psalms, in numerous passages). It wasn't until after the Babylonian exile that God became associated with Wisdom. And of course Judaism advanced beyond believing animal sacrifices were efficacious in removing guilt.
"Old and false ideas" abandoned along the way: Provincialism, polytheism, the idea that God's will is arbitrary, and animal sacrifice.
Bmiller, let me get back to the question of what is destroyed in an abortion. It seems to me that there are two concepts of a person which have some legitimacy. One is the career of a biological unit, and that goes from conception to death. The fetus has a DNA code, which is what it has a conception and still has at death, and there isn't anything physical that stays with a person from birth to death (you trade out all the physical particles every seven years, so I am told. A human fetus is homo sapiens, not canis familiaris or felis domesticus. But we can also see the life of a person as a series of experiences or mental events. These seem, to the best of my knowledge (Unplanned and the Silent Scream to the contrary) to begin late in preganancy. These is also the issue of the extent to which a woman provides a life support system for the fetus. It's something I never can or will experience. Pro-abortionists completely reject the biological perspective as completely morally irrelevant, and impose no standards for ending a pregnancy or even securing the death of the fetus. It is, to them, no different from getting your tonsils out. On the other hand, the strict pro-life position wants to insist on applying the Sixth Commandment to the fetus from the moment of conception, and having very tight requirements for justifiable homicide--requiring some kind of guilt on the part of anyone whose death through homicide is justified. I'm not sure that's true either. There is a burden that should be, from a moral standpoint, met if someone acts to terminate the life of any species member, if that is a knowable effect of one's action. But does that burden differ depending on whether the member of the species homo sapiens has ever had an experience, or has never had an experience? I think there is a morally relevant difference. But I strongly suspect that the vast majority of actual abortions fail this standard and are not morally acceptable. And where abortion might be acceptable I believe it is due to tragic conditions in this fallen world that we should do everything we can to alleviate. And it would not surprise me to find out that a perfect saint would choose the nonabortion in all situations not lethal to the life of the mother.
My views on abortion tend to satisfy no one. But that to me is something in their favor.
Victor,
A couple questions:
It's something I never can or will experience.
Does this mean that you consider morality subjective depending on one's sex or experience?
There is a burden that should be, from a moral standpoint, met if someone acts to terminate the life of any species member, if that is a knowable effect of one's action. But does that burden differ depending on whether the member of the species homo sapiens has ever had an experience, or has never had an experience? I think there is a morally relevant difference.
I have to assume you mean adult mental experiences because obviously metabolism, growth and self preservation are all experienced. So the question I have is: on what moral objective principle should the mental stage of development of a normally developing human enter into the calculus of whether they can be killed or not? Maybe it's less evil to kill a mentally deficient human than a smart human? Is that the morally relevant difference?
Victor, sorry for my part in the off-topic kerfuffle. I'll refrain from that going forward.
A couple of things about your comment @ 12.35am.
Your two concepts of a person is clichéd at best and a little trite. Life in the physical and life in the mental are inextricably linked, and go hand-in-glove. Even I understand this. Life as we know it is not a dichotomous proposition. One can live physically without a brain, anencephaly, with little or no cognition of a lived experience or mental events. One can live, even after suffering encephalopathy, the condition causing changes the way your brain works or a change in your body that affects your brain, through disease or physical brain trauma which alters your series of experiences and mental states and events. Altered mental states are a function of altered physical states. The brain is what the brain does. When the brain dies, the mental events die, the lived experiences cease to exist. All perfectly explainable in natural terms without the overlay of any affected religious rationale.
Peoples' lived experiences and mental events can and are every day catastrophically and permanently changed by either physical or mental trauma. God doesn't need to play a part in this fact. In fact God is irrelevant even in this explanation. We don't need a God to explain that when someone sustains a head injury or brain tumour their lived experience and mental events are permanently altered. In fact God is irrelevant in every aspect of the explanatory framework in which humans operate. To pretend that the physical nature of the body is Caesar's for the taking while the mental events and experiences are God's domain, is patently wrong-headed and risibly mischievous.
It is equally, amusing, that a christian can hold two fundamentally conflicting and contradictory ideas simultaneously, a belief in 'justifiable homicide' [that can and should only be invoked after birth, apparently] to be morally acceptable, but that the fetus is inviolate. It is a ludicrous belief to claim life, be it a zygote, fetus or a baby is sacrosanct before birth, but as soon as you're born, 'you're on your own kiddo, subject to justifiable homicide'. The difference, founded only on the emotive nature of the circumstance, is really an unsustainable and indefensible position.
It never ceases to amaze me how god gets a pass when he murders countless fetuses and babies through miscarriages and stillbirths every moment of the day, far, far more than any other cause for not carrying to term. Of course christians will have contrived or concocted any number of reasons to justify the circumstance and to relieve the guilt in their compartmentalised minds of God's capricious nature.
This is where religious thought gets it so wrong.
You say: "Pro-abortionists completely reject the biological perspective as completely morally irrelevant, and impose no standards for ending a pregnancy or even securing the death of the fetus."
This is complete religious apologetical bunkum, an egregious mischaracterisation of those who have resolved that decisions about a woman's reproductive health, be it abortion or not abortion or otherwise, is properly placed into the hands of the woman making the decision and her family; just as Roe v Wade sets down. I'm pro-abortion, but not on the premise you outline. This is an appalling lie. And I utterly reject your assertion that moral irrelevancy and having no standards in this matter is the sum of my being. But I suspect throwing red meat like this to feed christians is not seen as immoral or reprehensible. It goes with the territory, Right?
I think your thoughts on abortion should be kept private because they do not contribute in any meaningful way to how we as a society can address the existential challenges going forward.
ictor,
OK, I re-read your post paying closer attention to your "experiences" view of a person. I plead insufficient coffee for not connecting the first sentence regarding "experiences" with the later paragraph. I'm still interested in the subjectivity question though.
The mental experiences you are concerned about come late in the pregnancy, so cannot be adult mental experiences but maybe something like physically detected brain activity.
The other view of the human person is of the biological unit that begins at conception and ends at the death of that person.
There is a burden that should be, from a moral standpoint, met if someone acts to terminate the life of any species member, if that is a knowable effect of one's action.
OK, there should be a burden.
But does that burden differ depending on whether the member of the species homo sapiens has ever had an experience, or has never had an experience? I think there is a morally relevant difference.
OK 2 different burdens depending on whether the unborn has had an experience.
But I strongly suspect that the vast majority of actual abortions fail this standard and are not morally acceptable.
OK. What is the burden for these morally unacceptable abortions? These are humans that have met the standard of having had experiences so do they have the same right to life as you?
And where abortion might be acceptable I believe it is due to tragic conditions in this fallen world that we should do everything we can to alleviate.
You said there should be a burden, but clarified there should be 2 different burdens based on experience but here it seems there should be no burden and instead it is morally acceptable. Are the 2 different burdens actually some burden and no burden at all?
My views on abortion tend to satisfy no one. But that to me is something in their favor.
You are satisfied with your views and I'm not worried about changing them. Only understanding them and hence my questions.
I have long wondered (as a pro-life Catholic, by the way) how people can insist that the Church has always held that human life began at conception, when as late as the 14th Century, we find such things as this:
When the articulation of the brain has been perfected in the embryo, then the First Mover turns to it, with joy over such art in Nature, and He breathes a spirit into it, new, and with power to assimilate what it finds active there, so that one single soul is formed complete that lives and feels and contemplates itself.
(Dante, Purgatorio, Canto XXV, lines 68-75)
Keep in mind that the Inquisition went over The Divine Comedy with the finest of fine toothed combs, searching for anything even the least bit heretical or contrary to Church teaching, and found nothing.
Starhopper,
You don't care what the Catholic Church teaches even when you're shown the official teaching, so it's contemptible to assert that poets who write about roaming around Hell with Virgil are teaching doctrine.
Are you and the gasbag atheist really the same person?
The "gasbag atheist", although very possibly demon possessed (as I wrote one or two years ago), is still a person I would far more enjoy meeting in person (and perhaps even having a beer with) than just about anyone else on this site.
In fact, once this pandemic is over, I may just travel to Australia for the purpose of have a face to face with Papalinton.
Then it will be a true enactment of a WWI air battle.
Two opposing gasbags coming face to face" in an endless loop repeating the same things forever.
Well, THIS has long been one of my favorite war movies ever.
With William Beery as the Battling Blowhard of the Balloon Brigade
Yes, I see why you are attracted. But couldn't you do that on another thread? One that is not about the subject you swore you would never engage in again?
Starhopper: "In fact, once this pandemic is over, I may just travel to Australia for the purpose of have a face to face with Papalinton."
That would be nice. Come and stay with us for a couple days and Sally and I will show you around Canberra and environs. Canberra, ACT is Australia's equivalent to Washington, DC. 😎
Canberra, ACT is Australia's equivalent to Washington, DC
You mean it's the one place in Australia that everyone would cheer if a meteor struck and erased it off the map?
Kevin if that is how you feel about your own Capital is it any wonder that such a deep existential societal malaise blankets the US right now. You people have so much potential and yet you are intent on self-destruction, imploding on your own kind, eating each other. We watch with incredulity and are aghast at how you as a country have not only managed the pandemic but how you are about to protect a constitutional killer and let him off scot free. As on this site how can one talk grandly, philosophically about being pro-life when people, particularly the weakest and indefensible in your community, are treated with such disdain, with such base indifference, that almost a 1/2 million people are now dead through unmitigated negligence. Why? What has happened to you as a society?
I guess humor works differently down under.
Oops! I've been distracted again. Sorry, Victor.
Kevin, no. I have to tell you the humour's the same. I had a choice: go with the humour and brush it off or comment on a situation that is indeed very worrying for those of us watching on unable to help.
Cheers
Papalinton,
The political situation here in the USA is dire indeed. We dodged a lethal bullet by defeating Trump's reelection bid, but nevertheless our social order is badly wounded by the former president's full on assault on democracy and on truth itself. 30 percent of Americans are no longer able to tell the difference between facts and lies. Conspiracy theorism of the most bizarre and fantastical variety runs rampant.
Despite decades of professionally studying the Soviet Union as an intelligence analyst, I never really comprehended Stalinism and the Cult of Personality until observing with my own eyes the MAGA Hatters in the country I live in. I now unfortunately understand all too well in my very bones how a people can blindly follow a megalomaniac leader to national disaster. Biden's term in office (I suspect he will not run for reelection, but will pass the baton on to Harris.) will go a long way toward repairing much of the damage suffered in the past 4 years, but it will require a generation of education and hard work before we can feel confident about our future once again.
We dodged a lethal bullet
What lethal bullet? Precisely what would have happened had Trump won? Be specific, and explain in detail how the country would have been destroyed in four years by one man in one branch of government.
You can't say stuff like that, then immediately start in on the MAGA idiots who thought that Trump would single handedly "save" the country in a term or two. You're just the flip side of their "thinking" if you are sincere and not using hyperbole. Trump was a lying selfish idiot who thought he was the best thing ever, and there were some who agreed (though everyone I know who voted for him agreed he was personally a piece of crap), but he did not have the power to kill this country any more than he had to "save" it.
Biden will heal nothing, because whatever wounds exist pre-date Trump. They pre-date Obama and Bush. Unless Biden intentionally bucks his own party and gives Republicans and the conservative half of the country things that they want, the divide will only worsen and Republicans will simply run on undoing whatever Biden and Democrats do in the next four years. That's where we are at these days, each side promising their base that they will heal the country from the damage the other side is doing while promising some utopia that leaves out the other half that didn't vote for them.
"Healing" will mean both sides learning to cooperate and compromise again while ignoring the most vocal and extreme elements of their bases. Even if Biden wanted that, he doesn't have the leadership chops to convince congressional Democrats to do the same, let alone Republicans. People didn't love Biden, they hated Trump.
You want specifics? OK. The idea that "no man is above the law" would have been dead, dead, dead. The independence of the Justice Dept., already on life support, would have been ancient history. The right to peaceably assemble to redress grievances would have been teargassed into oblivion. Our national wildernesses and places of natural beauty would have been sold off to the highest bidder, to be stripped of fossil fuels in the service of further destroying the environment. Our public education system would have been given the "Post Office" treatment (starve it of funds, then complain it's not working). Voting rights would have been dialed back to pre-1964 levels, disenfranchising minorities and urban voters in favor of gerrymandered conclaves of reliable rural whites. The US Federal Workforce would have been politicized to a degree not seen since the 1870s. All government employees would be required to support the person in power politically. Trump was openly and actively opposed to the concept of peaceful transfer of power between administrations following an election. Had Trump won, I seriously doubt there would even be a 2024 election. He would have managed by then to declare himself "President for Life", as he said was "a good idea" to Chinese president for life Xi.
That'll do for now, but I'm just getting started.
And by the way, I never "hated" Trump. I pitied him, and still do. I would hate to be him, however. He seems a pathetic, small-souled man, hopelessly trapped in his egomania and narcissism. I did hate what he was doing to this country.
Really?
Can't you do this bloviating on the other thread that is actually about politics?
You're burying the discussion that is actually about the OP.
bmiller can't stand it when anyone talks about anything other than abortion, because that is the only thing in the entire universe that he cares about. He's not even "pro-life", because if he were, he'd be equally concerned about:
capital punishment
the defense budget
health care for all
climate change
the homeless
gun control
the arms trade
US support for dictators and strongmen abroad
mass incarceration
nuclear weaponry
euthanasia
clean water
the disenfranchised
a living wage
compassion for refugees and migrants
etc., etc.
Dude.
This post is about abortion. You can post your deluded conspiracy nonsense on the other thread.
You know.
Abortion.
One of the 2 topics you were never going to discuss again?
The other topic being Trump?
Do you wonder why no one believes lefties now?
The problem is... You can't handle the truth!
Victor,
I have to assume since you've been a teacher all of your life that you are better at getting your point across than most people. So I find it hard to understand all the imprecision in the expression of your position.
At a high level, you've asked me to consider that I have more in common with "pro-choice" people than with "pro-abortion" people and therefore I should have a common cause with the "pro-choice" people. That's because the "pro-choice" people presumably feel some sort of guilt because they think they are doing something wrong while the "pro-abortion" people don't think they are doing anything wrong at all.
With just this much information, wouldn't the "pro-choice" (PC) people be more morally culpable than the "pro-abortion" (PA) people? The later just don't know they are doing evil while the former people actually know it.
Even so, the PC person in the linked article doesn't actually hold the position that abortion is evil at all. If you look at her comments, she says she doesn't think abortion is either good or bad. Whether it is good or bad depends on the woman's own personally subjective view of the matter and that other people shouldn't force their own subjective moral views on others. So it seems the "pro-choice" of the matter is whether if you choose to feel guilty or not. The only overarching moral consideration is not to judge other's morality.
As I mentioned, I think the crux to the consideration of the morality of the abortion question is "what is being destroyed?" The objective answer we give to that question sets the stage for all other considerations.
Let's look at from the perspective of how a PA person might getting an abortion:
1) If PA people are right, then it is the same as a nose job.
2) If PC people are right, then everyone gets to choose whether to feel guilty or not about getting a nose job, but in the end society should not condemn anyone choosing to get a nose job.
3) If Victor's version of PC is right, then everyone should absolutely feel guilty about getting a nose job because God intended for you to have that nose. But, after all, in the end, it's only a nose job.
4) If pro-life people are right, then it's not a nose at all, but another innocent human being.
The PA person might argue with the pro-life person about whether it was a nose or actually another human like me, but I'd be pretty annoyed (if I were him) at someone agreeing with me that it was indeed a nose but then scolding me for getting a nose job because he thought it was a sacred nose.
The PC position is based on moral relativism. It is moral or not depending on what the mother thinks is moral. Furthermore it seems that what we can do to the unborn, morally, depends on his changing abilities rather than his humanity.
But from the perspective of a pro-lifer, they all vote for abortions to continue and fight against those who vote to limit abortions. So regardless if a PA person may not be a moral relativist and the PC person clearly is they both agree that the unborn are completely different things than they themselves are and so end up fighting pro-lifers.
So it's apparent that "what is being destroyed?" is the question that needs to be settled. Philosophers need to address this first and foremost before any other if they wish to persuade people with anything other than force.
So Victor frames this as 2 different views of the developing human being. The view of biology and the view of experiences. From reading his view of the biological side of things, it's not clear to me why this thing composed of human cells and arranged according to a unique DNA should have any moral significance. But he certainly sees a moral significance in a view of mental experiences.
But we can also see the life of a person as a series of experiences or mental events. These seem, to the best of my knowledge (Unplanned and the Silent Scream to the contrary) to begin late in preganancy.
I'd like to know what mental events qualify a human being to be exempt from being killed. I think Silent Scream showed the abortion of a 12 week old human being but apparently Victor thinks it portrayed something that was not true. So apparently there was some assertion(s) in that film that, if true about the development of humans, would cause Victor to judge the abortion of 12 week old humans as homicide.
So why should we allow the abortion of 12 week old human beings? What defect do they have that we should allow it?
Would it help the discussion if Victor views this video and indicates which week of development that a worthwhile human being comes into existence? I've been told by abortion proponents that it is unbiased.
A worthwhile human being exists at conception. Countervailing justification is required for any abortion. When someone is already born, the standard for justifiable homicide is very high, though we can argue about how high it should be. (What if someone is innocent, but a threat to life and limb--for example, someone forcibly hypnotized into trying to harm you). At earlier stages in pregnancy, certain features are missing that, to my mind, lower the burden of justification for justifiable homicide. (Here I am defining homicide as killing a member of homo sapiens).
Yet we don't know what features you think lower the burden for justifiable homicide of worthwhile humans.
Those missing features would make for a worthwhile discussion.
Are they missing a soul?
Post a Comment