[RD] Thoughts on Abortion (split off from Very Many Questions XXXII)

[Senethro]

I get it. You don't understand what that term means. Then what is worse...you expose such extreme bias that it is clear bigotry about Christians and political representation.

Basically no Christian could even speak about abortion as their central understanding on abortion is based on theology.

Their theology should govern their own actions, not other peoples.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Their theology should govern their own actions, not other peoples.

Yes! That is what the majority of Roman Catholics and Protestants think in America.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I get it. You don't understand what that term means. Then what is worse...you expose such extreme bias that it is clear bigotry about Christians and political representation.

Basically no Christian could even speak about abortion as their central understanding on abortion is based on theology.

Welcome to a brave new world where only antitheists get political representation on abortion. The very basis for natural rights theory is that either Nature or God granted these by virtue of being created. So it is completely cattywampus to claim only those who deny God can debate the topic!

If God doesn't exist and Nature is not personfied, then in reality...no one has natural rights. Then the entire political structure is predicated on a fallacy. Thus no one could claim a right to an abortion.

Nor the 1st Amendment!

The persecution complex is strong

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Well by your own words Christians don't have 1st Amendment protection! One gathers that Buddhists from some schools of thought, Deists, Muslims, Hindus, etc would just have no political representation on abortion.

How creepy this would be. It would simultaneously destroy the foundation for Locke's theory and create a tier system of aristocracy ignoring the preponderance of the People.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What is even worse is the weird tactic of not capitalizing God when discussing spirituality that you disagree with.

For me the reason is that it's a concept not a name. I can see why Christians would capitalise it because they have the connotation of faith behind it. I don't. It's also to indicate I do not value the Christian concept of god over the Hindu's 33 million gods. You guys don't have exclusivity on the concept, so would I capitalise it, I would deem that unfair to anyone who believes in a different god than Christianity's.

I hope that makes it less weird. I don't do this to offend, rather to acknowledge that the Christian god is not the only religion which lays claim to the concept of one or more gods.

edit: for clarity, if it had been named Derrick, I would have capitalised of course.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

For me the reason is that it's a concept not a name. I can see why Christians would capitalise it because they have the connotation of faith behind it. I don't. It's also to indicate I do not value the Christian concept of god over the Hindu's 33 million gods. You guys don't have exclusivity on the concept, so would I capitalise it, I would deem that unfair to anyone who believes in a different god than Christianity's.

I hope that makes it less weird. I don't do this to offend, rather to acknowledge that the Christian god is not the only religion which lays claim to the concept of one or more gods.

That logic is compelling. I don't like it as it is not standard practice. It would be nearly rude to discuss the actual name of what Orthodox Jews believe in and not capitalize it. It presumes nonexistence.

It would be inflammatory to do this with Muslims.

Christians find it irksome and silly.

But I completely understand your logic and it is persuasive. Doing so in a university level class on spirtuality would be wrong unless the professor is openly hostile to spirituality...which indicates such bias as interfering with teaching it.

If you do this in dialogue with the pro-life folks, you halt dialogue. The point of political discourse on abortion is to value the opposing view and create pragmatic solutions based on diplomacy and compromise.

 

[Farm Boy]

The only lie here is yours, in ignoring the practical reality of mothers and fathers not being capable of giving their child up for adoption, or availing safe havens, due to the overwhelming emotional cost of doing so. That the option to extinguish parental rights exists in no way obviates the ongoing burden of child care to parents as a competing interest. That's "real." Pretending that there aren't costs there is most decidedly not "real" at all, rather it strikes me as extraordinarily fanciful and wrong. The adequacy (or lack thereof) of foster and adoption services has nothing to do with it. Nor does the existence of bad parents.

You, literally, just quoted me saying those same costs are truthful, significant, and alltogether on their own sufficient to justify the necessity of allowing abortion so as not to render women into livestock. What. The. Hell.

 

[onejayhawk]

Onejayhawk is but a single voice on the pro-life side. You could make the argument that my thought process is theologically unsound since it facilitates "making a brother stumble". I of course disagree as America is not a theocracy but a republic. Thus we "render to Caesar what is Caesar's".

His position makes douching illegal and honestly standard birth control pills.

I'm not pro life. In fact, my own position never came up. I am just pointing out inconsistencies in your position.

Because one side of this debate is completely incapable of acknowledging nuance and shades of grey in the issue. That's your side, btw.

IYou are the one insisting that wants are needs.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No it's you! lol this is fun

 

[Cassius Critzer]

I am reminded what Alan Combs who is very liberal and used to say frequently that guys discussing abortion is pretty boring.

There is no inconsistency. While I am conservative on most matters, even arch conservative and that means diametrically opposed to many things which today has been lost on goofy RINOs.

I am moderate on social matters like abortion but would never consider it as an option within my own family. But why would anyone with even an inkling of theology claim that therefore Christians can exceed their authority and impose morality. What a dusty old chestnut.

Even God believes in Free Will. Christians have no right to bypass Free Will.

I specifically discussed the medical history and the political history. The protofeminists, who were outgrowths of the temperance leagues, taught their members to douche as it was nearly impossible to acquire a barrier form of contraception (early ill fitting diaphrams).That is emergency after the fact contraception. It is no different than RU486 and mechanism of action in pharmacology and efficacy.

While hardly authoritative, this link discusses temperance, suffragettes, and contraception as all arising from the temperance leagues.
https://womensmuseum.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/history-of-womens-movement-part-i/
Roe v Wade came out of this early impetus to acquire equal rights that were inextricably linked to control of reproduction.

The bulk of these members were Christians. The leadership wasn't necessarily.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I am reminded what Alan Combs who is very liberal and used to say frequently that guys discussing abortion is pretty boring.

Oh no you're taking away my first amendment rights!

 

[Cassius Critzer]

You see how some are clueless? Declaring guy's irrelevance as boring is spun into a restriction and gatekeeping.

One wonders if it's an issue with comprehension. This doesn't merit being an interrogative as it is painfully obvious.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You see how some are clueless? Declaring guy's irrelevance as boring is spun into a restriction and gatekeeping.

One wonders if it's an issue with comprehension.

I thought we already covered the fact that I'm stupid?

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Why would I ever resort to your ad hominems? Your own words reveal you don't comprehend your post that denies 1st Amendment rights by Christians and blissfully ignores Locke's foundation theory which is reliant upon God.

Compared to my benign statement which doesn't gatekeep whatsoever. It is though you don't understand fundamental ideas yet want to irritate those who want to discuss abortion. It is very strange.

Practically everything I have mentioned would routinely come up in a history or philosophy class especially the bioethics of abortion.

It is though you want a very low brow nondiscussion where only your automatic acceptance of Roe v Wade is dogma.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Anything left to say on, you know, the subject?

 

[metalhead]

You, literally, just quoted me saying those same costs are truthful, significant, and alltogether on their own sufficient to justify the necessity of allowing abortion so as not to render women into livestock. What. The. Hell.

As these costs and the actual, physical costs of bearing children are the only costs I was talking about, I am then likewise confused as to what, originally, you had said I was "lying" about. You're now saying you agreed with all of what I originally laid out, but before you called it a lie so, er. Yeah. OK?

 

[Cassius Critzer]

You see? When they can't debate why being pro-choice is correct, they use personal attacks of ridicule.

It is tragic. I could easily argue the merits of abortion even using theology albeit the worst kind of being a devil's advocate.

It would very simple to point out that the Supreme Court already decided, no matter how flawed the decision is, and then debate the merits. But no...that is too hard.

If that came up, Plessey v Ferguson would also be raised.

 

[Borachio]

If you judge my post as a "personal attack of ridicule", I would just like to point out that I think you're mistaken.

My post was well-intentioned, if nothing else.

Your intentions seem rather obscure to me.

 

[Farm Boy]

As these costs and the actual, physical costs of bearing children are the only costs I was talking about, I am then likewise confused as to what, originally, you had said I was "lying" about. You're now saying you agreed with all of what I originally laid out, but before you called it a lie so, er. Yeah. OK?

I was talking about money. I said money and specifically addressed financial concerns. It's what I had been talking about with Hobbs, or trying to, then moved onto the perpetual conflating of newborn adoptive and foster care samples. Not the same people, not the same kids, only one even theoretically related to abortion, unless back to "everything is linked," and now all the way back to the original post in the sequence.

If you recognize that "there won't be enough money to properly raise this child(when it's a child)" isn't actually relevant to the discussion on whether or not to kill it pre-emptively, because there is money, and you're disagreeing, then you're disagreeing with things that I am not saying, have not said, and am unlikely to decide to say.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't speak for them, but I would imagine that your own state sanctioning the deliberate killing of people would be an atrocity that trumps anything else.

Potato potado. In nearly all cases it is exactly the same people decrying one 'state sanctioning the deliberate killing of people would be an atrocity' and demanding a different 'state sanctioning the deliberate killing of people would be an atrocity'.

If those people are so insistent that 'killing the baby is wrong!', why are they also so insistent on killing baby?

I mean, if they actually voted to, I don't know, maybe not killing the baby? Then maybe they'd have a moral point. But they don't. A vote for a conservative is a vote to kill the baby. The difference between pro-choice and pro-'life' is that with pro-choice the baby has a much better chance of living.