Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion

My case is that it is the *only* stage in the process that we can recognise that a new life will begin if all goes to plan. Neither a sperm nor an egg can mak a baby on their own. The distinction is made above. Such as? My case is that it is impossible to calculate objectively the things we are discussing. You are looking for objectivity where none can exist. Nevertheless we, as a society form conclusions about them that turn into public policy whether on abortion or capital punishment. Those conclusions are based on the feelings of people overall. You can't blame the government for enacting the will of the people - blame the people. It's very, very relevant and it's a point you are consistently missing. Public policy on these matters is reality. That it is based on feelings rather than science is something you have to accept or you'll continue to misunderstand. These are matters that are based on people's feeling and that IS a reality. Ok, so I'll ask you again. Should a woman be able to abort her foetus one hour before its birth? How would you improve on all this? You are totally wrong on this. Just looking at violence in society.
Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence | TED Talk I'm reading your posts. Now where did all that come from? But at least you're now accepting that policy is based on feelings not objectivity. In this case the feelings are, *in our view* very bad ones. But it seems that the majority don't share our values. This too will pass.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Actually, I believe your claims is that it is the earliest point and not the only point. Surely we could point to other indicators that are later than conception. Let's not gloss over what you are actually claiming.The problem is that preventing potential birth is not harm, and the harm is not unbalanced by other harms, particularly when we are discussing points as early as conception. This analysis is a bit better but surely the scale is not linear. One might say that the harm is negligible up to the point of viability. And negligible harms, or even measurable ones may be balanced by things other than a woman's life. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Catholic thinking *is* muddled, but it does help pinpoint a key flaw in your stance. You postulate a continuum from conception to baby and beyond but deny that the continuum also extends in the other direction before conception. Sheer consistency demands that it extend infinitely in both directions. You make this argument yourself at least a little by extending the continuum back just a little before conception to the IUD: But your preferred criteria of harms as a determination of when the harm is okay is still hopeless. There's no way to determine how much harm is done, let alone determine how much harm is too much. There are no objective criteria.
There is nothing that is, using another of your preferred terms , definitive. It is still all based on feelings, mostly on images that tend to create the strongest feelings.Hint: If you're using images of human fetuses to make your judgments you're not likely being objective. Here's one that will wrench your heart: It's fake, of course, but does that matter when the goal is to manipulate feelings, and especially when it works so well? We haven't forgotten your original point, but to use your own qualifier, if you're honest with yourself you'll see that preventing sperm from reaching egg is a harm that we should recognize.When mother and father want a baby then sperm reaching egg is a wondrous thing, but when they don't, when a baby is the furthest thing from their minds, then sperm reaching egg is a crisis. Your theory of balancing harms is just a morass of subjective feelings that provide no real objective answers. I say this not because I seek objective answers but because I know they don't exist. Such questions are unanswerable, even though governments try to answer them anyway.--Percy

You can't pretend NoNukes rebuttals of this argument didn't happen just because I'm not NoNukes. Conception is only one of many distinctions. You're ignoring creation of the gamete producers (parents), gamete production, gamete delivery, implantation, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus. How much harm is associated with any of these stages? Give your reasons. I already looked up the harm principle, maybe you should do the same. Maybe it's been a while for you. It's a simple principle that runs somewhat along the lines of, "Your right to extend your arm ends at my nose." You're pretending the principle applies everywhere, probably inventing trivial and hypothetical harms in your mind. Again, you've got it completely backwards. I've stated that the questions are unanswerable and so could not possibly be looking for objectivity. I don't think it exists on this issue. I think you're grossly in error in calling your reactions to your feelings definitive. I do. I agree with all this except for the part where you expressed a belief that I reject or misunderstand this. Okay, so I'll repeat what I said before, which is a question since you haven't provided enough information: When does life begin? You can't pretend that the unanswerable questions don't exist. It's an Of Human Bondage kind of thing - people are people. They aren't going to change. It's a 20 minute video so I hope you'll forgive me for just reading the one sentence summary. That there's a long term trend of declining violence is well known, even through the bloody twentieth century and the wars in the Middle East. What I said agrees with Pinker, so I don't know why you bothered posting his video, though by the way it's embeddable: What I added is that the declining violence (I actually called it increasing respect for life and freedom) is a reflection of increasing wealth, and that when wealth goes south so will declining violence. Try reading for comprehension so that when someone presents evidence of a lack of moral progress that your response is in some way relevant. You know, there are links that make it easy to trace the discussion back. I was remaking the same point, this time with different examples, that you had completely missed previously. I was originally responding to your comment that "Improvements in our societies are developmental. Enslaving people is another obvious harm that we eventually grew up enough to overturn" from your Message 197.Slavery's still with us, by the way, e.g., Which countries have the highest rates of modern slavery and most victims?:

quote:

---

At least 40 million people worldwide are estimated to be trapped in modern slavery today - more than ever before - as poverty, conflict and crises fuel the growing global slave trade.

---

So please pardon my pessimism. That's what I've been telling you. You're going by your feelings, and your use of terms like "definitive" are not appropriate to the high degree of subjectivity involved. I'm sure many Jews also said, "This too will pass," after Kristallnacht on the eve of WWII. Again, I do not share your optimism.--Percy

You're using it as if there was a clear difference between "harm" and "no harm" when there clearly isn't. But there's no consensus in our laws. They vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The date being semi-arbitrary is the whole point. It's what makes the whole issue fuzzy.

Yup. That's your claim.My claim is that preventing conception is not harm, but preventing a foetus developing from a fertilised egg is. I also claim that there is a continuum of the degree of harm as the foetus develops from negligeable to outright murder. How kind of you to say so! One might, but one would have no real reason for doing so other than to invoke a rationalisation. Additionally, as medical science progresses, viability will slip backwards towards the point of conception. I've said this many times too. My position is not that abortion should not be available but that we should be more honest about the fact that this is not a neutral thing like taking a asprin to cure a headache.

Pragmatism and common sense demands that we do no such thing otherwise we're heading right back to the big bang. No. The IUD works by preventing the fertised egg implanting. It's a very, very early abortion. Yes, yes, I know this. I've said this. I keep saying to you that there is no objective criteria but we still must decide. Is there another way I can say this that will get through? The point of conception is definitive. Aaaaarghh. I know!!! I keep telling you this. Feelings are what we use to make moral decisions. I can't recognise that as a harm as nothing has been harmed. Neither sperm nor eggs are capable of developing into anything if they don't meet. This is not a problem. A man produces 525 billion sperm cells during his lifetime and less than a handful with find an egg. There you go again. Wanting objective answers were no objective answers are possible. Quit blaming governments. They only do the will of the people.And, I note, for the third time you have refused to answer my question about whether a woman should be allowed to abort her foetus one day before its due date.

You keep claiming that IUDs perform abortions, but they in fact do not.Intrauterine Devices (IUDs): Access for Women in the U.S. — KFF IUDs work by affecting the ovum and sperm to prevent fertilization and are more than 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. They do not protect against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). IUDs do not affect an established pregnancy and do not act as an abortifacient.

And I have rebutted his rebuttal. Conception is the first stage at which a baby will be born if no further interventions are made - either by man or nature. There is no earlier point that you can know this. So you'll be able to answer the question I asked of you which was to give a few example of laws that don't either seek to remedy or prevent harm. That is not an answer and you know it. This is not a theoretical excercise, we - society - have to decide. It's your vote, is it yes or no? If you can but notice, that's precisely what I'm not doing. And have not been doing it for dozens of posts. Nevertheless, real life and death decisions have to be made on the knowledge we have. What is your vote? Well it's the human condition and we do make progress. It's also a 2 thick book and I commend it to you. You said you were pessimistic about our future and that we have learned nothing. Pinker's *objective* analysis says otherwise as you would know had you either read the book or watched the video. Do try not to be an arse, we might make more progress. Ffs. Yes I know. Please try to both keeping to the point and assuming a little intelligence on my side. Slavery and many other horrors are still with us but they are no longer universal. People are still human, it's only when we develop our institutions that we begin to regulate their behaviours. Many parts of the world lag behind the West but change is happening. The point of conception is definitive. Scientifically and objectively difinitive. Ok?Whether we say abortion is ok is not is not difinitive, it is based on our feelings. ok? And it did pass. And they got a homeland. And good triumphed over evil. But it was a horror and it likely will happen again. But gradually things are getting better. Well that's just your subjective feelings talking...

Pragmatism, but of course. No need for an argumentum ad absurdum. I'm was just making clear your inconsistency.So what tells you that the continuum must begin at conception and not before? Your common sense? Your feelings? Doh! Sorry, brain cramp. Could I suggest that it might help get through to me if responses addressed what I actually said?So what do you mean "we"? Unless you're referring to the woman then someone else is making decisions for her based on *their* feelings rather than upon objective criteria. I don't believe people have the right to impose their feelings on others. Now if people have objective evidence and arguments for what they want to impose on someone else (for example, vaccinations) then that's another matter. Every time you say "definitive" it implies you have some kind of objective criteria. You don't. All you have is your feelings. If your judgments are based upon your feelings then you should stop using the word "definitive." Your repeated use of that word is the source of my references to objectivity that you keep complaining about. You're the root cause of the very thing you're complaining about. I was mimicking your "if you're honest with yourself" argument. If you're honest with yourself you'll acknowledge the vacuity of that way of arguing. As explained several times already, I don't think objective answers are possible. I'm just pointing out to you that feelings are no substitute for objective criteria, and the fact that "decisions must be made" doesn't give answers arrived at through feelings any basis in fact. Governments do the will of some people and not others. How many people wanted a law with these requirements in Texas:

• Most women must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion, and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
  ​
• Private insurance policies cover abortion only in cases of life endangerment or if the woman's health is severely compromised.
  ​
• Health plans offered in the state’s health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion if the woman's life is endangered or her health is severely compromised.
  ​
• Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases in which the woman's life is endangered or her health is severely compromised.
  ​
• Medication abortion must be provided using the FDA protocol. The use of telemedicine to administer medication abortion is prohibited.
  ​
• The parent of a minor must consent and be notified before an abortion is provided.
  ​
• Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
  ​
• A woman must undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours before obtaining an abortion; the provider must show and describe the image to the woman.

Abortion is available in only 4% of Texas counties. I bet that was the will of the people, too. But I have insufficient information. I keep asking for that information, but you keep refusing to provide it and instead keep repeating your question while accusing me of avoiding yours. I'm not avoiding your question. I'm engaging in dialog. Give me the necessary information: When does life begin? I will, for the sake of discussion, assume your answer is objectively true and use it to answer the question.But that isn't really what you wanted, is it. Your question was actually a rhetorical ploy to force *me* to decide when life begins. I've already told you I don't know, that I have mostly questions and few answers. That hasn't changed.What also hasn't changed is the disparity between your degree of certainty and your paucity of facts, especially given your admission that all you have is feelings.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo, grammar.

Ok I've now repeated myself too many times to hope that more repetition will get through to you. Let's cut to the chase.My position, like yours, is that there is no objective point when life can be declared as life. The conception point is a red herring - it's the definitive start of the development of a human being but that doesn't help us with the decision we have to make.You say that it's the woman's choice, that the government has no role to play. I ask you whether the woman can terminate her pregnancy a day before term. You refuse to answer because you lack information.But life is not like that. We have to have an answer. What is it? There is no ‘don't know’ here, a policy is required. The options are no abortion, woman's choice or some regulated methodology.Edge cases matter because they help us get to the nub of the problem.For what it's worth, because it *is* an obvious harm to abort a foetus - particularly late stage foetuses - I believe it needs to be regulated and I do not believe that a woman has an absolute right to do what she likes with the foetus within her.As to the point at which a termination should not be allowed (without medical necessity) I’ll bow to scientific advice as to when that date should be.

Why do we need an answer? Why can't the answer be different for every instance?Edited by jar, : left out be

I'll ask you the same question. Is it ok for a woman to terminate the foetus she is carrying 1 day, before term?

And I will give you the same answer; I have absolutely no way to know or tell.

Really?Ok, how about 1 minute before birth and 1 minute after?