BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: DavidGYoung on May 22, 2023, 03:22:43 PM
-
What are your thoughts on the following suggestions?
The anti-abortion camp will significantly improve their chances of being listened to by the other side if they remove all religious components from their arguments.
The pro-abortion camp will significantly improve their chances of being listened to by the other side if they remove the 'You must not express an opinion if you are a man' component from their arguments.
Both sides will make more of a positive impression if they stop comparing the other side to the Nazis.
-
The anti-abortion camp will significantly improve their chances of being listened to by the other side if they remove all religious components from their arguments.
I don't know what religious component is being introduced. Isn't it simply a matter of saying "life begins at conception"?
Both sides will make more of a positive impression if they stop comparing the other side to the Nazis.
Yeah this is never going away. It's also a soft form of Holocaust denial, but nobody cares about that. Do they?
-
By religious components I mean placards with Bible quotes, any reference to God in debates, holding up icons in protests and so on. The abortion debate takes place in the secular context of politics and the anti-abortion side won't make much headway if they come across as theocrats.
-
As far as I know there isn't any reference in the Scriptures about abortion. I could be wrong.
-
As far as I know there isn't any reference in the Scriptures about abortion. I could be wrong.
The same Scripture they throw at me. David; being fearfully and wonderfully made, etc.
-
Bible verses never need to be in context in order to find their way onto a placard.
-
As far as I know there isn't any reference in the Scriptures about abortion. I could be wrong.
I know of no Scripture that specifically prohibits abortion, but there is a passage in Exodus worth considering:
If men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands and as the court allows. 23But if a serious injury results, then you must require a life for a life— 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22-25)
Two things worth noting: 1). God sees what is in the womb as a child, not an unimportant fetus. 2). If that child dies as a result of the altercation described, recompense is due, up to and including "a life for a life." That baby, even in the womb, is viewed by God as a human being deserving of the full rights accorded a human being, and to justice under the law.
After some reflection, in the foregoing context, I suppose there is a prohibition against abortion in Scripture: "Thou shalt not kill."
-
What are your thoughts on the following suggestions?
The anti-abortion camp will significantly improve their chances of being listened to by the other side if they remove all religious components from their arguments.
The pro-abortion camp will significantly improve their chances of being listened to by the other side if they remove the 'You must not express an opinion if you are a man' component from their arguments.
Both sides will make more of a positive impression if they stop comparing the other side to the Nazis.
I don't think the religious aspect is in any danger of being removed from the discourse because it is so dang important to so many people, and because invoking God is like the highest ground you can take in some circles. Outside of that though I do think a significant amount of work has gone into making secular pro-life arguments, so i'm not sure that there is a pressing need to get rid of the religious rationale because why not use both?
I'm not sure how greatly the 'You must not express an opinion if you are a man' (in so far as it exists as stated) is negatively affecting the acceptance of the pro choice side of things, That is to say is there really a significant population of Pro-Life men that hold that stance merely because it is the only opinion that they feel they are allowed to have? So, i'm not sure how much pressure there is to put in significant work to eliminate it. I think the "it's not men's choice to make for women" is a similar, but more central idea, and is closely related to the "It's not anyone's else's place to make that choice for the affected individual(s)" and I don't see those going anywhere as they are kind of essential to the argument as a whole.
Anyway interesting questions, what do you think?
-
I know of no Scripture that specifically prohibits abortion, but there is a passage in Exodus worth considering:
If men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands and as the court allows.
snip
Two things worth noting: 1). God sees what is in the womb as a child, not an unimportant fetus. 2). If that child dies as a result of the altercation described, recompense is due, up to and including "a life for a life."
I think the implication is that the baby is born preemie and dies. This is the bronze age after all. No NICU or modern medicine. Otherwise why punish the assailant?
That's certainly how Jews understand it.
The fatality in the next verse is understood to be the mother.
Edit to add: Ellicott's (Christian) commentary observes the following:
A personal injury peculiar to women--a hurt producing miscarriage--is here considered. The miscarriage might cost the woman her life, in which case the man who caused it was to suffer death (Exodus 21:23); or it might have no further ill result than the loss of the child. In this latter case the penalty was to be a fine, assessed by the husband with the consent of the judge
and further
And yet no mischief follow--i.e., no further mischief--nothing beyond the loss of the child.
Similarly, the "Pulpit Commentary" (also Christian) observes-
Verse 22-25. - Assault producing miscarriage. Retaliation. Women in all countries are apt to interfere in the quarrels of men, and run the risk of suffering injuries which proceed from accident rather than design, one such injury being of a peculiar character, to which there is nothing correspondent among the injuries which may be done to man. This is abortion, or miscarriage. The Mosaic legislation sought to protect pregnant women from suffering this injury by providing, first, that if death resulted the offender should suffer death (ver. 23); and, secondly, that if there were no further ill-result than the miscarriage itself, still a fine should be paid, to be assessed by the husband of the injured woman with the consent of the judges (ver. 22).
After some reflection, in the foregoing context, I suppose there is a prohibition against abortion in Scripture: "Thou shalt not kill."
It says "do not murder" actually.
-
Warfare, capital punishment, meat eating, abortion...
If I had a zloty for every time I saw "Thou shalt not kill" on a protest sign, I could buy Wrocław.
Replacing "murder" with "kill" is surely the worst mistranslation in the Bible. "Young woman" turned into "virgin" is probably in second place.
-
Most participants in the abortion debate choose one of the five as the point where they say human life begins:
Conception,
Implantation,
First detectable foetal heartbeat,
Viability outside the womb,
Birth.
In theory, they reason from this position and end up with where they stand on the ethics and legality of abortion.
How fair is it to say that a large number of activists on both sides start with their position on abortion and work backwards from there to decide where they view the start of human life?
-
Most start at the opinion and then back up from there
Starting with biological science makes much better sense
-
Most participants in the abortion debate choose one of the five as the point where they say human life begins:
Conception,
Implantation,
First detectable foetal heartbeat,
Viability outside the womb,
Birth.
In theory, they reason from this position and end up with where they stand on the ethics and legality of abortion.
How fair is it to say that a large number of activists on both sides start with their position on abortion and work backwards from there to decide where they view the start of human life?
I think it's pretty fair to say that lots of people are starting with a conclusion regarding the ethics of abortion first, then they form arguments that confirm and/or justify what they already believe. I wouldn't say that this is an issue that is specific to or is uniquely characteristic of the abortion debate, it's kind of a habit with folks in general. To be fair, we all end up with tonnes of beliefs that we pick up during our development that couldn't have realistically come through analysis and deep academic and philosophical understanding of a subject because in all likelihood we were youths and these ideas were handed down via social/cultural authorities and the like. I'm not defending the idea of cultivating your beliefs through confirming your biases, just saying that the order of operations aren't always up to us and is part of the reason that we are so vulnerable to it.
-
Most start at the opinion and then back up from there
Starting with biological science makes much better sense
I definitely agree that starting with biological science puts a person in a good position to be able to explore these questions as objectively as is possible. Do you want to explain a little bit about the path that you believe leads from biological science to your conclusions?
-
I would call into question the way the term 'biological science' is used here.
Scientific method could establish whether an entity's development is before or after any of the five points that people regard as the start of life. It would not, however, establish which one is the best to choose. Scientific consensus, on the other hand, may well come down firmly on one of those. Would you call both scientific method and scientific consensus in the realm of biology 'biological science'?
By way of analogy, chemistry can be used to determine whether a stretch of waterway is a river, an estuary or the sea. Scientific measurements obtain the salinity. If it is below level A, it is a river. If it is above level B, it is the sea. If it is between A and B, it is an estuary. Having said that, deciding what values to give A and B are by convention, not by the application of any form of scientific method.
-
To quote Humpty Dumpty, "words mean what I say they mean."
I could care less about so-called "scientific consensus." Consensus has nothing to do with truth. Consensus has to do with opinion based on other factors than purely observable fact. In your analogy, it's about arbitrarily determined standards. Which is the point at which much of what is called "science" is really "faith."
Biology tells us that a fertilized egg has a unique DNA profile, but that unless that fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall within "x" hours, it will not continue to process of growth as it has no external energy source and is discarded by the body. That's not life. Furthermore, fertilized eggs are capable of zygomatic twinning, a complete twinning that occurs prior to implantation in the uterine wall. That is not one life suddenly become two.
Biology tells us that once the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall and begins to receive external energy, aka nourishment, from the uterine wall, then, in my mind, that's life. I believe that life begins at that point -- not sooner, not later -- and that such a moment is the instant at which that implanted fertilized egg is endued with an immortal spirit.
And yes, that is faith.
-
To quote Humpty Dumpty, "words mean what I say they mean."
I could care less about so-called "scientific consensus." Consensus has nothing to do with truth. Consensus has to do with opinion based on other factors than purely observable fact. In your analogy, it's about arbitrarily determined standards. Which is the point at which much of what is called "science" is really "faith."
Biology tells us that a fertilized egg has a unique DNA profile, but that unless that fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall within "x" hours, it will not continue to process of growth as it has no external energy source and is discarded by the body. That's not life. Furthermore, fertilized eggs are capable of zygomatic twinning, a complete twinning that occurs prior to implantation in the uterine wall. That is not one life suddenly become two.
Biology tells us that once the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall and begins to receive external energy, aka nourishment, from the uterine wall, then, in my mind, that's life. I believe that life begins at that point -- not sooner, not later -- and that such a moment is the instant at which that implanted fertilized egg is endued with an immortal spirit.
And yes, that is faith.
Well, I think to be fair to professional science persons, your characterization of "scientific consensus" surely occurs, but it is not the process that would be described as the ideal praxis. Ignoring or dismissing fact based observations and arbitrarily determining standards is not recognized as the process for reaching scientific consensus, and I would in fact argue that such practices would be described as bad science even by scientists who have engaged in those practices. Peer review, analysis & debate among subject matter experts, replicating experimental results, Assimilating new information and so on would be accepted methods for working toward scientific consensus. So while there are many examples of bad science and bad scientists engaging in bad methodology, Its doesn't seem reasonable to wholesale dismiss scientific consensus instead of engaging in good practice for yourself by reviewing the methodology and literature of consensus items in order to to determine if they are using good methods or not.
Alright with that out of the way, I cannot help but wonder if you yourself may have fallen into the quagmire of bad practices when developing your position. Particularly I wonder if your assertion that an un-implanted egg is not life isn't itself an example of an arbitrarily determined standard? Would you mind explaining the reasoning behind that conclusion, that is why does Twinning and implantation preclude livingness?
-
Part and parcel of scientific methodology is the ability to replicate test results. Much of what goes on in the world of "science" in today's post-modern world is interpretation, not evaluation of replication. So no, I don't give a rat's rear for the concept of "consensus," which is nothing more than the democratization of observable differences when testing is not replicated.
Consensus is often very, very wrong, as it is subject to subjective interpretation and outside pressures. Just as Galileo and Capernicus.
A fertilized egg is like a self-contained diving suit. It has so much internal energy for mitosis. It has no onboard means for increased supply of energy. The law of entropy requires that when it runs out of energy, it ceases the biochemical process of mitosis... unless it gets an outside energy source -- implantation.
But, as much as scientific consensus would disagree, human life in not merely a biological process. Human life includes the entire world of metaphysics, which the scientific community rejects. So for me, any discussion that excludes that vitally human factor is meaningless.
I really don't care to debate or even discuss this stuff. It's just pissing into the wind.
There are much more important things to which I need to be giving my attention.
-
Part and parcel of scientific methodology is the ability to replicate test results. Much of what goes on in the world of "science" in today's post-modern world is interpretation, not evaluation of replication. So no, I don't give a rat's rear for the concept of "consensus," which is nothing more than the democratization of observable differences when testing is not replicated.
Consensus is often very, very wrong, as it is subject to subjective interpretation and outside pressures. Just as Galileo and Capernicus.
A fertilized egg is like a self-contained diving suit. It has so much internal energy for mitosis. It has no onboard means for increased supply of energy. The law of entropy requires that when it runs out of energy, it ceases the biochemical process of mitosis... unless it gets an outside energy source -- implantation.
But, as much as scientific consensus would disagree, human life in not merely a biological process. Human life includes the entire world of metaphysics, which the scientific community rejects. So for me, any discussion that excludes that vitally human factor is meaningless.
I really don't care to debate or even discuss this stuff. It's just pissing into the wind.
There are much more important things to which I need to be giving my attention.
Well, I'm not asking you to debate science or scientific consensus, the futility of that discussion with you was immediately clear. I was asking for you to explain a bit more why you believe that an un-implanted egg is not life, could you walk me through your reasoning?
-
Probably not
-
Probably not
Well okay, if you figure out how to explain your belief that an un-implanted fertilized egg is not life and why that conclusion logically proceeds from biological science then I'd be happy to hear it. Bonus points if you can explain why your ideas regarding the metaphysical and immortal spirits being rejected by science is something you criticize science for while simultaneously maintaining that it is bad science to draw conclusions and consensus from observations & experimental results that have not been or cannot be analyzed or replicated. I suppose that as you have long since investigated and digested these issues you've transcended them and find them tedious, but boy if one day you could deign to pull some of us up out of the dark quagmire of ignorance with your profound understanding of science, biology and metaphysics it would really be appreciated.
-
In a country like Poland or Malta, the government's position is this:
"Abortion involves the termination of a human life."
From that point onwards, the debate is whether certain conditions should permit the termination of a human life, rather than whether the government's position is correct.
Would that starting point make the resulting for and against campaigns resort to more intelligent lines of argument?
-
There is little, if any, intelligent life in the United States.
We prefer screaming from the periphery to actual thought and conversation and analysis.
Part of the American persona.
Bill Clinton tried to argue "safe, available, and rare," but both the right and left shouted him down.
-
In a country like Poland or Malta, the government's position is this:
"Abortion involves the termination of a human life."
From that point onwards, the debate is whether certain conditions should permit the termination of a human life, rather than whether the government's position is correct.
Would that starting point make the resulting for and against campaigns resort to more intelligent lines of argument?
Governments have been taking positions on things since time immemorial. Sometimes these positions have been in agreement with reality and sometimes not. Sometimes the citizenry generally agree with the position and sometimes not. The government taking an official position can settle debates and/or cause them, It can unify the citizens and/or deepen divisions, it can prompt any number of reactions or none, and any of these states can change into one another or interact in any number of ways over time. It is difficult if not impossible to predict the effect of an official government position, but in America whether the ideas are top down or bottom up I can all but guarantee that it will cause arguments however I do not think that the main factor driving the intelligence of a debate is not whether or not a government takes an official position. I would probably place more importance on how well the population understands the subject of debate and how well educated/trained they are in critical thinking as a driver of intelligent debate. However when the item of debate is emotional, moral, spiritual or is even perceived to have anything to do with children then the debate is prone to deteriorating into something that favors emotional arguments over dispassionate rational ones. Abortion is practically tailor made to make people act and think emotionally so smarting up the debate is truly an uphill battle government dictates or not. I do not think that abortion is a simple thing to consider nor is it easy to conclude the correct answers. I think that ultimately the only thing that is going to bring us any peace regarding abortion is to address the issues that lead to abortion, with empathy, reason, love, ingenuity and most of all actual focused long term consistent hard work. Legalizing it or criminalizing it does nothing to address the underlying issues, and so long as that is the central focus of the "debate" and the entirety of the solutions space there is little hope for an increase in the intelligence of the debate much less getting anything truly useful done for the human beings that have to live with the realities that lead to it...and by that I mean everyone, we all have to live with the antecedents and consequences.
TLDR no, people are not going to take the government's word for it that this is where the debate starts, nor should they. The truth cannot be tamed by manipulating the starting point of an argument, at least not forever because eventually folks will challenge it as they should.
-
I'm not suggesting that people should take the government's line.
I am suggesting that people who happen to be in agreement with the 'It's a human life' position are capable of mounting an intelligent argument both on the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion side. However, each argument would, if presented consistently, have serious ramifications in other areas of ethics or politics. This might be why it is less likely that we would hear either one.
-
I'm not suggesting that people should take the government's line.
I am suggesting that people who happen to be in agreement with the 'It's a human life' position are capable of mounting an intelligent argument both on the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion side. However, each argument would, if presented consistently, have serious ramifications in other areas of ethics or politics. This might be why it is less likely that we would hear either one.
I mean, I guess it could be the case that many people hold this position, but avoid talking about it because they either cannot or will not face the ethical consequences of their opinion....I don't know where to go with thet beyond , yeah could be I suppose. In my expirience, failing to maintain a consistent ethical framework across all their beliefs rarely stops people from holding or espousing a belief ...and that is if they even realize that there is a conflict which is not remotely guaranteed.
-
Starting with "Abortion is an act of homicide against an innocent human", here are two arguments.
Anti-abortion:
Property owners have to tolerate criminal damage from squatters and other trespassers with no recompense because the human rights of the criminals take priority over the rights of the law-abiding citizen. If physically manhandling a criminal in order to stop them from doing something illegal is wrong, so is committing homicide so that a pregnant woman can be happier. If a property owner has to put up with year upon year of wating for the crime of trespass to end, a pregnant woman can put up with nine months of pregnancy.
Pro-abortion:
Whatever reason a woman wants an abortion for is acceptable, even if it is simply to make her happy. That means there are circumstances when an innocent life may be taken without going through court after court, injunction after injunction in order to get the desired outcome. It therefore follows that you may no longer have legislation requiring a property owner to tolerate the violation of trespass any more. Allow the use of force, lethal if necessary, to stop a criminal immediately, not several years later, and you have at a case for abortion.