Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 441 (836890)
07-23-2018 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
07-23-2018 6:37 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
You say you aren't for abortion, but you also aren't against it so that's what I keep responding to.
The issue is not limited to two positions. As I pointed out and as you acknowledged before Roe v Wade abortions happened in the US but were often not done under hospital conditions or even by licensed doctors. No records were kept and there is absolutely no why to know whether more or fewer abortions were performed in the US pre versus post Roe v Wade.
The issue is that if abortion is once again criminalized there is NO evidence it would decrease the number of abortions and overwhelming evidence it would increase the risks to the woman.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 07-23-2018 6:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 441 (836899)
07-24-2018 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by ringo
07-23-2018 6:54 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
The man's owning the child does not make it less than human, and those men often passionately loved their children. And their wives: Isn't it also true that a wife was considered to be her husband's property? Did that make her less than human?
No, I regard the unborn child as human at every stage of development from conception to birth, as human as a three month old, a two year old, a fifteen year old or a ninety year old. I'm just not interested in the hairsplitting legal questions, but OK it's not LEGALLY "murder," it's more like manslaughter because the woman usually doesn't think she is killing a child.
Amazing how people get called dishonest around here for having a different point of view or making an incomplete statement or saying something awkwardly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 07-23-2018 6:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by DrJones*, posted 07-24-2018 9:20 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 07-24-2018 12:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 48 of 441 (836913)
07-24-2018 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
07-23-2018 4:39 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
NoNukes writes:
You skipped some steps. You just argued that a growing embryo is a potential human life and then jumped to a conclusion based on not ending a human life.
As I said, the details of thinking through these issues change with each attempt, and I never arrive at any definite answer. Feel free to add steps. It gets even more complicated when you begin adding questions about the rights of the mother.
The point is that there are far more questions than answers. The question mark character appears 18 times in my post.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 07-23-2018 4:39 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 49 of 441 (836914)
07-24-2018 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
07-24-2018 12:27 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Isn't it also true that a wife was considered to be her husband's property? Did that make her less than human?
yes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-24-2018 12:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 441 (836915)
07-24-2018 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
07-23-2018 5:09 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
So when does human life begin?
The only point in the process we can name as a definitive start point of human life is conception.
This doesn't answere the questions I posed concerning this particular point that appear somewhere above the single question you did quote. It just declares an answer.
At that point we know a full human will emerge if everything goes to plan.
I had questions about this point, too.
The rest is rationalisation.
It seems to me more like sincere attempts at rationally thinking one's way through complex issues.
The details of thinking through these issues change with each attempt, and I never arrive at any definite answer.
I think that's because there is no 'answer', if we're honest, we know we're rationalising to make us feel better about something we know in our guts is a wrong.
I asked questions about this too, essentially about why where human life begins varies across individuals. Also, that some people's thinking is in different places than our own doesn't mean issues of honesty are at stake.
Here's another question: If I understand your position correctly, you probably consider miscarriage a loss of human life. If that's true then why are there no birth or death certificates, same as with abortions?
Declaring what you believe true is much easier than explaining why what you believe is true.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 07-23-2018 5:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2018 12:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 441 (836916)
07-24-2018 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
07-23-2018 4:19 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
We can only have concern for what we know,...
That is definitely untrue. We didn't know the causes of disease, but we were very concerned about it.
...and that is that a growing embryo will become a full fledged human being if we don't kill it.
We know other things, too, and you're ignoring my questions about them.
We can't be concerned about something at the level of a just-fertilized egg. Yes it is a practical matter.
Repeating what I said above, it was a practical matter that we didn't know the causes of the disease, but we were still concerned. Why shouldn't those who believe conception marks the beginning of life be equally concerned about all fertilized eggs, not just those that implant.
Yes I'm sure they are human life but probably flawed, deformed, would probably be stillborn if they implanted and grew.
There are many factors affecting implantation. Genetic abnormalities is only one of them.
When a miscarriage occurs after enough time in a wanted pregnancy to anticipate the birth of a baby, then the parents are pretty sad about it.
Yes, of course they are, but why is there no birth or death certificate?
None of this justifies willfully taking its life.
As you've been reminded several times now, evangelicals did not used to think this way not so many years ago. And just declaring it a human life doesn't make it so.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 07-23-2018 4:19 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Coragyps, posted 07-24-2018 10:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 52 of 441 (836919)
07-24-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
07-24-2018 9:48 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
In the great state of Texas, we have a law that requires a funeral to be conducted for fetuses that are aborted or miscarried, but only if the abortion/miscarriage takes place in a hospital. You can start trying today to put that into a rational frame of thought, but I don’t think you’ll suceed in this century. The law appears to be based purely on emotional appeal to conservative voters, not on anything related to logical thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 07-24-2018 9:48 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 53 of 441 (836921)
07-24-2018 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
07-24-2018 12:27 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
The man's owning the child does not make it less than human...
Of course it does.
Faith writes:
Isn't it also true that a wife was considered to be her husband's property? Did that make her less than human?
Of course it does. Second-class. The fetus would be third-class or lower because its value to the owner was less.
Faith writes:
... it's more like manslaughter...
We're talking about a premeditated act here, which is certainly not manslaughter if the fetus is human.
Faith writes:
... because the woman usually doesn't think she is killing a child.
So you're saying that the "crime" is less if the woman doesn't think she's killing a child?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-24-2018 12:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 54 of 441 (836933)
07-24-2018 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
07-24-2018 9:24 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Percy writes:
This doesn't answere the questions I posed concerning this particular point that appear somewhere above the single question you did quote.
It does for me. All the other points you have answered yourself with either a no or a yes and I agree with them. Your remaining question...
A fertilized egg that does implant in the uterus is...what? Human life or not? Does implantation determine when human life begins? That seems an odd criteria. Why should implantation be the determination? Shouldn't it be fertilization? But in that case why the lack of concern about an unimplanted fertilized egg? Is it just a case of practicality because of the difficulty of knowing when there's an umimplanted fertilized egg? But if practicality governs our level of concern for human life at this stage, why not at other stages? Is it the unknowability that justifies our lack of concern about the human life that is an unimplanted fertilized egg? Is it something else? Are we wrong to have no concern for an unimplanted fertilized egg?
..is probably the wrong question.
A better question to my mind is what right do we have to prevent the development of a fertilised egg? One that would, if unimpeded, turn into a baby human. I think that's really, really difficult.
There's a gradient of discomfort with preventing a birth that goes from mildly queasy but only if you think about it - in the use of the coil (IUD) which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting - to unhappy - early stage abortion - to very unhappy - late stage abortion - to outright horror - murder of a new born.
What's common to all, with the possible exception of the IUD, is the gut knowledge that this is a wrong.
It seems to me more like sincere attempts at rationally thinking one's way through complex issues.
Ok, it's a sincere rationalisation.
Here's another question: If I understand your position correctly, you probably consider miscarriage a loss of human life.
Yes, and so does my wife, that's why we planted a tree.
If that's true then why are there no birth or death certificates, same as with abortions?
Certificates are legal constructs designed to help us lead organised lives - they mark definitive legal moments. A birth and a death after birth are definitive. What we're talking about here is morality which is not so clear cut. Even so, it's illegal to perform abortion beyond a defined term and it's illegal for anyone but a qualified doctor to do it. So we know that the law considers it a harm, the gravity of which depends on the circumstances.
Declaring what you believe true is much easier than explaining why what you believe is true.
Sure. That's why we both struggle with it. But I suspect we both know that deliberayely ending a pregnancy is some degree of a moral wrong. It might be justified by some argument or other, but it's still a wrong.
Btw, couldn't post this earlier beacuse of 503s. Just sayin' :-)

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 07-24-2018 9:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 07-25-2018 9:16 AM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 441 (836971)
07-25-2018 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tangle
07-24-2018 12:46 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
This doesn't answer the questions I posed concerning this particular point that appear somewhere above the single question you did quote.
It does for me.
Many think they have answers.
All the other points you have answered yourself with either a no or a yes and I agree with them.
Given that my post was almost all questions and almost no answers (my post had 18 question marks and only 8 periods, and none of those 8 concluded an answer) I don't see how that's possible.
Your remaining question...
A fertilized egg that does implant in the uterus is...what? Human life or not? Does implantation determine when human life begins? That seems an odd criteria. Why should implantation be the determination? Shouldn't it be fertilization? But in that case why the lack of concern about an unimplanted fertilized egg? Is it just a case of practicality because of the difficulty of knowing when there's an umimplanted fertilized egg? But if practicality governs our level of concern for human life at this stage, why not at other stages? Is it the unknowability that justifies our lack of concern about the human life that is an unimplanted fertilized egg? Is it something else? Are we wrong to have no concern for an unimplanted fertilized egg?
..is probably the wrong question.
It's a bunch of questions. They're all wrong? Whichever ones are wrong, why?
A better question to my mind is what right do we have to prevent the development of a fertilised egg? One that would, if unimpeded, turn into a baby human. I think that's really, really difficult.
That's a different question, not a better question. An answer might begin by considering the rights of the woman.
There's a gradient of discomfort with preventing a birth that goes from mildly queasy but only if you think about it - in the use of the coil (IUD) which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting - to unhappy - early stage abortion - to very unhappy - late stage abortion - to outright horror - murder of a new born.
I understand your thinking, and certainly I share much of it, but the question of when sperm and egg become human life remains open.
What's common to all, with the possible exception of the IUD, is the gut knowledge that this is a wrong.
Do you really believe you can speak for everyone?
It seems to me more like sincere attempts at rationally thinking one's way through complex issues.
Ok, it's a sincere rationalisation.
Rational thinking and a rationalization are not the same thing.
If that's true then why are there no birth or death certificates, same as with abortions?
Certificates are legal constructs designed to help us lead organised lives - they mark definitive legal moments. A birth and a death after birth are definitive. What we're talking about here is morality which is not so clear cut. Even so, it's illegal to perform abortion beyond a defined term and it's illegal for anyone but a qualified doctor to do it. So we know that the law considers it a harm, the gravity of which depends on the circumstances.
Right, the birth/death certificate thing is just one inconsistency, there are the others you note. Our laws and procedures only inconsistently capture our feelings, which vary greatly.
Declaring what you believe true is much easier than explaining why what you believe is true.
Sure. That's why we both struggle with it. But I suspect we both know that deliberately ending a pregnancy is some degree of a moral wrong. It might be justified by some argument or other, but it's still a wrong.
If I agreed that ending a pregancy was always "some degree of moral wrong" I would be posting answers instead of questions.
Btw, couldn't post this earlier beacuse of 503s. Just sayin' :-)
I'm in hell.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2018 12:46 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 07-25-2018 4:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 56 of 441 (837016)
07-25-2018 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
07-25-2018 9:16 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Percy writes:
Given that my post was almost all questions and almost no answers (my post had 18 question marks and only 8 periods, and none of those 8 concluded an answer) I don't see how that's possible.
It's a bunch of questions. They're all wrong? Whichever ones are wrong, why?
That's a different question, not a better question.
It's because I don't think asking those kind of almost legalistic/technical questions help. I think you have to start thinking about harm and simple rights and wrongs.
An answer might begin by considering the rights of the woman.
Well no, that's not where I'd start, it has to be in considering whether there's a harm here - whether other rights are involved follows that. If no harm then the question of balancing rights doesn't arise.
Now it's my view that it's impossible to conclude that deliberately ending a potential human life is not a harm. The harm may vary according to circumstances but it's a harm nonetheless. I think that's pretty clear too in our legislation and our history of dealing with it.
Rational thinking and a rationalization are not the same thing.
In this case I think it is. I think what we're doing here is rationalising harm then making excuses - often good ones - for what we're doing. I'd don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to do, i just think we should know we're doing it.
If I agreed that ending a pregancy was always "some degree of moral wrong" I would be posting answers instead of questions.
If you didn't think there was a harm here somewhere, I doubt you'd have the questions you have. Am I wrong?
I'm in hell.
So soon? Faith will be pleased.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 07-25-2018 9:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 07-26-2018 8:09 AM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 441 (837051)
07-26-2018 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tangle
07-25-2018 4:39 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Tangle writes:
It's because I don't think asking those kind of almost legalistic/technical questions help. I think you have to start thinking about harm and simple rights and wrongs.
But we're different people. To me those questions seem precise, focused and to the point, and they help me see how complex the answers are, if indeed answers exist. Your approach of keeping things simple ignores important details, right down to your subjective views of right and wrong.
Well no, that's not where I'd start, it has to be in considering whether there's a harm here - whether other rights are involved follows that. If no harm then the question of balancing rights doesn't arise.
You're declaring your position correct without any rationale: baby's rights first, mother's rights second. Why that order? Also, why do you only mention harm to the baby but not the mother?
Now it's my view that it's impossible to conclude that deliberately ending a potential human life is not a harm. The harm may vary according to circumstances but it's a harm nonetheless. I think that's pretty clear too in our legislation and our history of dealing with it.
And I described inconsistencies in the way people view this, in our laws, and in our procedures, and these inconsistencies raise a great many questions.
Rational thinking and a rationalization are not the same thing.
In this case I think it is.
No, definitely not. You can argue I am rationalizing rather than thinking rationally (you didn't argue it, you simply asserted it), but they are not the same thing. Look them up. I was not making a "sincere rationalization." I was asking questions. You purport to have a way of looking at things that should satisfy everyone, but as I've shown, it only generates more questions.
I think what we're doing here is rationalising harm then making excuses - often good ones - for what we're doing. I'd don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to do, i just think we should know we're doing it.
If it feels to you that that's what you're doing then I believe you. It does not feel to me that I'm doing the same thing.
If you didn't think there was a harm here somewhere, I doubt you'd have the questions you have. Am I wrong?
If I had already reached as many conclusions as you then I wouldn't have so many questions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 07-25-2018 4:39 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 07-26-2018 8:42 AM Percy has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 58 of 441 (837058)
07-26-2018 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
07-26-2018 8:09 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Percy writes:
If I had already reached as many conclusions as you then I wouldn't have so many questions.
Maybe it would help if you clarified something for me. I can't conceive (sorry) of any circumstances where it is not a harm - of whatever level - to have an elective abortion. We are quite obviously destroying a potential life which must be a harm, surely?
Even if it is the case that the baby must die to save the mother, I say that it's still a harm, a justified harm but a harm nonetheless.
It seems to me that society feels the same and although I've not discussed this with many women, those that I know have had an abortion never forget it and always have regrets - though none would go back on the decision.
Do you think otherwise? That there's no harm here?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 07-26-2018 8:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2018 4:55 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 07-26-2018 5:39 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 07-27-2018 2:37 PM Tangle has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 441 (837084)
07-26-2018 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tangle
07-26-2018 8:42 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
We are quite obviously destroying a potential life which must be a harm, surely?
I am going to assume here you mean destroying a potential human life.
I don't agree that destroying potential life must be a harm. There are certainly some examples where I would agree. But potential life is a term that would extend even to points prior to conception. For example, a device which prevents sperm from contacting an egg interrupts a potential fertilization ending what was potentially life.
Secondly is the question of whether it is desirable to avoid all harms at all costs. I don't believe that to be the case so there is of necessity the requirement to balance. That necessity to balance exists even in cases there is no issue of the mother's death due to the unborn baby.
So I think you are asking the wrong question, or at least not asking all of the needed questions. If you want to define ending a potential human life as harm, you can do so. But even if we grant that, it does not follow that the harm should always be avoided.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 07-26-2018 8:42 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 60 of 441 (837089)
07-26-2018 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
07-23-2018 5:09 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Tangle writes:
I think that's because there is no 'answer', if we're honest, we know we're rationalising to make us feel better about something we know in our guts is a wrong.
I don't think that is the case. I don't know of any woman who continually checks if she passed an embryo that didn't implant. Even in our guts we don't think it is even worth checking. We certainly don't have funerals for embryos that don't implant, and we feel no need to, even in our guts.
The more human something looks the more value we put on it. That seems to be what our guts work off of.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 07-23-2018 5:09 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 07-26-2018 5:56 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024