Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1 of 441 (836060)
07-09-2018 6:26 AM


A recent article in Salon magazine describes When evangelicals were pro-choice and the NRA was pro-gun control: A history of hypocrisy. About evangelicals and the abortion issue it says:
quote:
For evangelicals (rather than Roman Catholics), the entire premise of the moral crusade against Roe is utterly bogus. Here’s how Jonathan Dudley, author of "Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics," explained it on CNN’s Belief blog in 2012:
quote:
In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:
God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22—24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.
The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult. And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.

So evangelicals were once pro-choice. The change in position is reported here by Max Blumenthal:
quote:
"What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation."
...
As evangelical leaders formed common cause with Catholics on topics like feminism and homosexuality, they began re-interpreting the Bible as teaching the Roman Catholic position on abortion.
Falwell’s first major treatment of the issue, in a 1980 book chapter called, significantly, The Right to Life, declared, The Bible clearly states that life begins at conception. (Abortion) is murder according to the Word of God.
With the megawatt power of his TV presence and mailing list, Falwell and his allies disseminated these interpretations to evangelicals across America.
In other words, evangelicals flipped their beliefs in the 1980's, adopting the Catholic view on abortion and becoming anti-abortion.
Faith and Belief, please.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Shorten title to what was originally intended - the beginning of the message body somehow became appended.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 07-09-2018 7:15 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 17 of 441 (836604)
07-20-2018 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
07-19-2018 6:26 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Here's something by Jonathan Dudley that I quoted in Message 1 (Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics):
quote:
God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22—24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.
Genesis 2:7 says:
quote:
Gen 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
This implies that life begins at the first breath, not at conception.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clean up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 07-19-2018 6:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 10:51 AM Percy has replied
 Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 07-20-2018 10:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 21 of 441 (836621)
07-20-2018 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
07-20-2018 10:51 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
All this attempt to make the unborn child into something unhuman...
Not unhuman, just not yet a living human being.
...is self-delusion,...
In other words, you have no counterargument, just name calling. Why not just deal with the arguments and leave the derogatory comments aside?
...since you know very well that if it is left to grow and develop it will become a person...
No one would dispute that.
...and if you kill it you are killing a human being.
You can't kill something not yet alive, and until born a fetus is not yet a living human being.
And again I point out that the ultrasound at twelve weeks shows a living baby with all its parts intact, even sometimes sucking its thumb. To use sophistry to pretend it isn't ought to eat at your conscience.
No one's pretending what can be seen on ultrasounds at twelve weeks doesn't exist.
The only one exhibiting sophistry here is you, since to argue against straw men is sophistry. Why can you never engage in discussion without casting accusations against the other side? Next you'll be telling us all how poorly you've been treated when the personal charges began with you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 10:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 2:52 PM Percy has replied
 Message 117 by Heathen, posted 07-30-2018 9:19 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 24 of 441 (836627)
07-20-2018 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
07-20-2018 2:52 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
It's a living human being and it is self-delusion to deny it.
It's not a living human being and it is self-delusion to deny it.
Now what? Could I suggest a fact based discussion at far remove from your personal animosities?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 2:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 28 of 441 (836648)
07-20-2018 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
07-20-2018 5:34 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
I gave a couple of quotes showing that the Bible recognizes us as persons even in the womb.
You provided a couple quotes about Jesus and about while Mary was pregnant with Jesus, who evangelicals believe existed even before conception. Those quotes are not about non-godhead people.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 5:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 5:57 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 30 of 441 (836707)
07-21-2018 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
07-20-2018 5:57 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
Percy writes:
You provided a couple quotes about Jesus and about while Mary was pregnant with Jesus, who evangelicals believe existed even before conception. Those quotes are not about non-godhead people.
What ARE you talking about? Nobody says John the Baptist existed before conception and he's the one who leapt in the womb.
Didn't he leap in reaction to Jesus in the womb? Luke isn't specific about when the holy spirit came over Mary, and it always seemed to me that it must have been sometime during the journey to visit Elizabeth, who when she arrives seems very certain that Mary will bear a child, something you wouldn't normally say to someone not pregnant.
And if God says He knew Jeremiah in the womb...
Actually he says the same thing about Jeremiah that he does about Jesus, that he knew him before conception: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee." I don't think you can reach any conclusions about normal conceptions by quoting scripture about people God knew even before they were conceived.
At best the Bible is equivocal about when a fetus is a human being, saying different things in different places. But the earliest reference, and therefore certainly the most reliable, is where Genesis says taking a breath defines life.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 5:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 6:12 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 33 of 441 (836867)
07-23-2018 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
07-22-2018 6:12 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
All that is just sophistry to rationalize killing a developing human being. By your standard it's OK to kill the child minutes before birth because it hasn't yet taken its first breath.
It isn't my standard. I'm not a Bible believer, remember. I'm just citing where the Bible says that life begins with the first breath. As I just said in the message you replied to, at best the Bible is equivocal about when a fetus is a human being, saying different things in different places. But the earliest reference, and therefore certainly the most reliable, is where Genesis says taking a breath defines life. If you disagree take it up with the Bible, not me. My responsibility ends at keeping you from ignoring certain Biblical passages and pointing out that the what the Bible says is not unequivocal.
I've been arguing the highly ambiguous Bible position because you're a Bible believing Christian. I have not been arguing my own personal beliefs which are not taken from the Bible.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo, plus add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 6:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 34 of 441 (836868)
07-23-2018 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tangle
07-22-2018 6:27 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Tangle writes:
I'm not anti-abortion and I don't call it murder, but we are intentionally ending a life. It's just something we have to live with ourselves over and not try to fool ourselves that it's ok for some semi-arbitrary reason like a 12 week date.
I've never figured out an answer myself. My thoughts run generally along these lines which only raise more questions:
  • A sperm is not human life. Why? Just because it hasn't yet fertilized an egg?
  • An egg is not human life. Why? Just because it hasn't yet been fertilized by a sperm?
  • A sperm and egg on the verge of fertilization is not human life. Why, since in another instant the egg will be fertilized.
  • A fertilized egg that does not implant in the uterus is...what? Human life or not? We certainly have no concerns about it as it is washed away, so since we're so concerned about human life this implies that an unimplanted fertilized egg is not human life.
  • 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?
  • A fertilized egg embedded in a uterus plus a placenta plus a containing human female plus nine months of gestation is definitely a human life.
So when does human life begin?
The details of thinking through these issues change with each attempt, and I never arrive at any definite answer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2018 6:27 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 07-23-2018 4:19 PM Percy has replied
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 07-23-2018 5:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


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: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 69 of 441 (837140)
07-27-2018 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tangle
07-26-2018 8:42 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Tangle writes:
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?
I still mostly have questions. Is there a continuum from "not human life" to "potential human life" to "human life"?
Or are they step functions that happen at instants in time? Is a sperm or egg "not human lie" or "potential human life"? Are a sperm and egg about to unite "potential human life", or only after they unite? When does "potential human life" become "human life"? Is harm to "potential human life" the same type of harm as to "human life"? Is "potential human life" the right term, or should it be "unborn human life"?
I understand the flip side of the coin, too. Is it murder to kill a baby about to be born? Few would answer no. Is it murder to kill a baby hours before it is born? Few would still answer no. Is it murder to kill a baby weeks before it is born? The majority would still answer no, but not as large a majority as before. Are those who changed their answer wrong? As you recede along the continuum to earlier and earlier stages of development and more and more people say that it isn't murder, including saying that "murder" and "kill" are no longer the correct terms, what does this say about the appropriateness of attempting to use the single term "harm", since its meaning necessarily changes with context? And should harm include elements outside strict biology, such as what harm is done bringing an unwanted baby into the world?
I don't have answers to these questions, and I don't believe there are unequivocal answers, which is why I don't have answers. My only answer is that abortion is a personal decision.
I know you believe these are the wrong questions, but your line of argument appears to be that if I ask your questions and accept your answers then I'll agree with you, and this is undoubtedly true. The reverse, you accepting my questions and my lack of answers causing you to agree with me, is also true. But why should I accept your questions or you mine without any persuasive element. My lack of answers leaves me unarmed for a persuasive effort.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 07-26-2018 8:42 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2018 2:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 07-27-2018 6:13 PM Percy has replied
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 07-27-2018 8:02 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 07-28-2018 2:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 74 of 441 (837162)
07-28-2018 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
07-27-2018 6:13 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
It isn't a potential human life until conception...
Why isn't a sperm or an egg potential human life?
...and, if it's healthy and we don't interfere with it, from conception it will continue to grow to become a full fledged human being,...
Yes, that's very likely.
...so it is morally wrong to terminate it at any time from conception to birth.
Why is it morally wrong? Is it equally morally wrong to terminate at any point after conception, or is there a scale of increasing morally wrong from conception to birth?
Once it's underway and developing it is a potential human life so that if we kill it we know we are killing a potential human being and we know at some level this is wrong.
At what level do we know it is wrong, and why? Is "kill" the right term, or is it really just interrupting a process?
I would prefer to call it simply a human being at different stages of life because the term "potential" distances us from its inherent humanness. All the concern to label each stage separately is just a way to obscure the fact that it is a human being at some stage or other of life.
Well, yes, of course, you'd like to adjust your terminology and rhetoric toward maximum emotional impact.
Tangle is not arguing specifically against abortion, he's arguing that we shouldn't deceive ourselves that it is not a human life, but should be aware that if we choose abortion we are killing a potential human life, a life that is inexorable and inevitable if we don't kill it
"Harm" was the term Tangle used, not "kill".
I would argue against abortion myself except where the mother's life is threatened, and as Tangle pointed out, it would still be a "harm" even for that reason.
Given the multiplicity of contexts across which Tangle is applying the word "harm," is that really the right term?
You posted a second reply to my message, Message 73, but it's mostly the same argument, so I won't reply.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 07-27-2018 6:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 07-28-2018 10:21 AM Percy 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