Abortion is wrong, plain and simple.

Post Reply New Topic

And, of course, there is reasonable possibility that He doesn't implant anything.

Well, it is a discrepancy. Whether it's based on mainstream christian ignorance or a desire by mainstream anti-abortion groups to hold their fire against a popular procedure. I've seen fire and brimstone preachers rail against in vitro but that just hasnt translated to mainstream opposition.

It's not a discrepancy. A 2006 pew research survey says that 24% believe abortion is morally wrong in nearly all circumstances -- a number that matches your 2007 76% supporting in vitro exactly. The exactness of the match is pure coincidence, but their being in the same ballpark probably is not.

You're treating Christians as if we're a single monolithic group that all believe the exact same thing. That's not the case. I think if you looked at it closely, you'd find that your category #2 and category #3 correspond to two different groups among Christians.

I'm sure 24% are only those who won't consider the health of the mother. So the statistic is far less valuable that you suggest. Most people who oppose abortion want an incest/rape/life of the mother clause. I saw a poll that had opposition to abortion but for those at 71%. Gallup has that illegal with exceptions bit at aroun 47%.

That there are christians who have different opinions isnt exactly a news flash but there does seem to be an additional disconnect on the subject of in vitro. Maybe they are ignorant as you say. Or maybe the national anti-abortion orgs arent so interested in opening up another front at the moment. I dont follow them enough to say.

The catholics are a bit better with coordinating a message as theyve recently issued some harsh remarks about in vitro. But the major problem is that most people don't really understand that pregnancy isnt just flipping a swtich. They probably don't even know what they mean by "conception". Coupling religious rhetoric to a messy biological process generates about as much confusion as you would expect.

Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you Ancalagon, it was a busy weekend. Now I'll take the time to respond.

(In regards to abortion serving the greater good).

Ok, I wasn't actually clear on your position, I did say "might". The important thing is to recognize that those who are pro-choice would hold this opinion, just as many would agree that certain wars serve the greater good. Whether you or I agree doesn't really matter.



Again, it is not our place to say that someone has "earned" the death penalty, I think that is incredibly arrogant. The laws are in place, and many are convicted and then killed based on those laws. If you agree with that or not, again, not really important, but for someone to say that another person has "earned" their death is, to me, and incredibly grotesque statement.



I appreciate this argument. You have the death penalty to protect life, I understand that thought process. However, to me, looking at case by case scenarios, it would not seem that we are valuing life. There have been a number of prisoners that have reformed to a remarkable degree, and in their case, I think forgiveness would go a long way, death seems very punitive and petty.

You then have the alarmingly high number of death row inmates that have been freed due to DNA evidence. It has been clearly shown that this system is fallible, and letting a guilty man off with life in prison seems a much smaller travesty than the death of an innocent.



I don't have sympathy for serial killers. I'm just not convinced that killing them supports a view that "life is sacred". You've made a decent argument showing that it could support that view, but I am not convinced.

My statement was that if you value the sanctity of life, you would value the life even of those that work in abortion clinics. You should not sympathize with those that bomb abortion clinics, you should abhor their actions. Understanding their mindset and sympathizing with their actions are two very different things.



Granted. I probably won't be convincing those that hold this viewpoint otherwise. To me, it just seems like a double standard. Perhaps this goes back to my Unitarian Universalist upbringing. I've never viewed Jesus as the son of God, and I never bought into the idea that God created us in his own image. If there is a God, I prefer the image of a loving deity that values all of his creations.



I never really made that statement. My point was that if you view abortion as a horrible waste of life, you should also apply that view to war. Not that one is worse than the other, but that both would be viewed as horrible, or you would be using a double-standard.



Oh now, I certainly can justify saying that. In fairness, it's not just the US, but they are the major player. And it's not the whole world really, we're mostly talking about Central and South America. The argument could also be made in regards to Africa, but on a smaller scale, that burden is on most of the industrialized world.

I would highly suggest you read two books, to properly understand the past, present and future of American policy.


Amazon
Wiki


Amazon
Wiki



I'm not naive, and my argument does not ignore such things. My argument is that if you are to be crusaders against abortion because you value life, you should also be crusaders against US imperialism. There are many missionaries who would agree with me on this.



Fair enough. Again, my argument is not dealing with the greater good. If a policy creates needless death, which in my view the drug war does, an appreciation of the "sanctity of life" would hold that the policy needs to be changed.



Granted (the first sentence). I'm not ignoring the good done, but in my estimation, the amount of good is much smaller than you likely believe. For me, ignorance and intolerance are the two greatest factors contributing to the evils of the world. I know you won't appreciate this, but I view most Christians as ignorant. For me, a critical view would show the underpinnings of Christianity as being utterly absurd, and that to arrive at a place where you believe shows that you have an absurd thought process. If there was more intelligent, kind people in this world, we would not have near the amount of suffering that we now have.



I recognize that the Bible does not specifically state that money is the root of all evil, as you have just shown. However, I personally think that it is, and I also think others should hold this viewpoint. If we lived in a world where people cared for the well-being of others, there would be no need for money. There are enough resources on this planet to provide for food, health care, education, etc without the existence of money. It would seem that money only exists to create haves and have-nots. As such, I see money as an inherently evil creation of man.



It might seem that way, but I don't see that as the case. It is certain that my views will affect my definition of "valuing life", but that can't be helped.



I got a touch reactionary here, which was the result of your last post. I did not appreciate the tone your post took, with the rolling eyes, telling me to "make sense", etc. I've tried to keep it civil in this post though.

That number is only 8%.
Here's the link if you want to look at the other numbers. I couldn't find the exact same page I was using before, the one on this page gives 29% instead of 24%.

According to this page, the number that think it is more important to protect embryos than to conduct research (with reference to stem cells) is 35%. That's quite similar to in vitro, at least the aspect we're looking at.


Catholics also have a second objection to in vitro -- it goes against the same views that make them anti-contraception.

No problem.


I don't understand why you think that. I especially can't see why you think it's arrogant.


There may be some, but how would you tell between those who really repent and those who are faking it? Do you think apparent repentance should be a get out of jail free card?


I don't understand why you would object to a punishment for being punitive. And I can't see giving, for example, the BTK killer the death penalty as being in any way petty.


I actually do have sympathy for them (some of them at least). Many of them have mental problems of some kind or other, or went through a horrific childhood.

That doesn't excuse them at all, though, and I have more sympathy for their victims.


Of course. Except that I think it is reasonable to sympathize with the bombers as people.

And I wouldn't have said "even clinic workers", as if to say that they are less valuable.


I don't think pro-lifers (myself included) view war as anything other than awful -- but in justifying it (or not) you have to look at the consequences of not going to war as well. Sometimes the consequences of not going to war are worse than the war itself.


Objecting to US imperialism is different from objecting to the US.


Granted. That I likely wouldn't believe it.

You mentioned missionaries -- do you know how many languages are known solely by being documented by missionaries?


I think it's malice from the bad people, and inaction from the good people.


Most people of all types are ignorant. Ever watched the Jay Leno show, where he walks around and asks random people a simple question (like, "Who was the first president?"), and most of them don't have a clue? Did you know that 11% of Americans still think Obama's a Muslim?


You appear to have defeated a strawman version of Christianity in your own mind. That doesn't imply that actual Christianity is either wrong or easily beaten.


"Child of the kindly West, I have come to know, if more of us valued your ways - food and cheer above hoarded gold - it would be a merrier world. But sad or merry, I must leave it now. Farewell." --Thorin, from The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkein

Tolkein was a Christian, you know.


Money is a medium of exchange, without which bartering becomes even more tedious than it already is. I play a fairly old computer game (Diablo II) online, and it has a very primitive economy. It's basically a straight barter system, partially supplemented by relatively valuable items that only take up one inventory space. It's a major pain, and often results in making trading much harder than it needs to be.

Money only represents value, it doesn't create it. You can have greed, power, haves and have-nots, and trade -- all without money.


Given that your argument is about what pro-lifers should think if they value life, the definition of valuing life should be essentially that of the pro-lifers -- killing people = bad. If you want to take another definition for it, fine, just keep in mind that if you do you're demolishing your original argument.


They were bulging eyes, not rolling eyes; and I was only telling you to make sense because you weren't. The list you originally presented didn't have any supporting argument, without which it made little sense.

I've been trying to keep it civil as well, although the comments about Christianity didn't make it easy.

(In regards to the statement "they have earned the death penalty")

I would have no problem with the statement "I think they deserve the death penalty." Changing a few key words makes this statement fair. First, by including "think", you make it into an opinion, as opposed to a factual statement. Also, changing "earned" to "deserve" takes away the tone I found arrogant.



Actions speak louder than words. Just look at their actions during their time in jail. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to see intentions in action. I haven't even suggested they should be let out of prison, just that perhaps their sentence should be changed from death to life in prison. If they have some good to do, even in jail, why not let them do it?



I don't think we should have jails to punish people. I think we should have jails to rehabilitate them. We should send them to prison because they have acted outside the realm of socially acceptable behavior, and in doing so, hope to turn them into people that will act inside of this realm.

I could even agree somewhat with the idea that removing this unwanted element from society is beneficial, regardless of what we do with them once they get to jail. However, the idea that we send people to prison as punishment seems vengeful, a wrathful judgment if you will.



Working within the idea of bettering society, it is incredibly petty. Flipping the switch might very briefly bring some relief to the victim's families, but that will be fleeting, and does nothing to better society. We should be studying serial killers to better understand what causes them to do what they do.



Although I can see why you might, I think it is wrong to do so. To me, these people are incredibly hypocritical. They abhor what they see as murder to such a degree...that they murder. You might say they are acting to prevent future murders, but of course killing one abortion doctor will not stop an abortion that would have been performed at that clinic from being performed elsewhere.

I'm pretty sure you don't explicitly sympathize with their actions, but as far as sympathizing with them as people, I don't think you should. They took what they think of as love and compassion and turned it into the complete opposite.



I would hesitate to apply this to all pro-lifers. I've met a number of pro-lifers that were not just pro-war, they actually relished the deaths of our "enemies".



To me, this statement shows a general misunderstanding of why we go to war. The United States has never gone to war for any reason that did not involve economic interests. This includes The Revolutionary War, The Civil War, and both WWI and WWII. Now, I hesitate to suggest we should not have entered The Revolutionary War or WWII, but I understand that we did not do so for some principled idea of the greater good.



Granted, but I haven't heard much from the pro-life movement with regards to objecting US imperialism.



I don't believe there is such a thing as a "good" person or a "bad" person. It's all just people to me. I think certain beliefs, certain actions, can be viewed as positive or negative, informed or uninformed, smart or stupid, but I will not concede some moral absolute of "good" or "bad".



Of course there are people of all belief systems that are ignorant, just as there are people of all belief systems that are well-informed and intelligent. What I'm getting at is a general idea that, if you looked at a good mix of Christians (proper sample of denominations, races, sexes, ages, etc) and compared it to a similar sampling of Atheists/Agnostics, you would find that the Atheists/Agnostics are dramatically more informed, and have higher IQs, than the sampling of Christians.



With regards to many Christians, including the poster I was originally responding to, I disagree that I have constructed a straw man. In fact, I would say that you are likely the exception to the rule, when it comes to rationality.



I'm saying that in a world of rational, kind human beings, not only would there not be any form of currency, there would be no form of bartering. Everyone gets what they need, and everyone works towards the betterment of their fellow man.

I realize this goes against our very nature.

Perhaps it would be better to say "human nature is the root of all human evil".



This statement confuses me. The first sentence is reflective of what I was doing, taking the pro-lifers views and showing the inherent double-standards. I was not implementing my own definition for anything, I was using that given by the pro-lifers.



Practically the same thing.



This statement is arrogant. Say "I didn't think you were making sense", not "you weren't making sense". It turns out logic is not limited to your realm of knowledge.



The list wasn't really an argument. I argue with people that are capable of arguing back. When someone like the poster I was responding to comes in and pulls a "JESUS CHRIST IS OUR SAVIOR, ABORTION IS A SIN AGAINST GOD, REPENT OR YOU WILL BURN IN HELL", I'm not gonna try to explain to them why I think they're in the wrong, I'm just gonna say I think they're in the wrong.

I believe it's better for a girl to get an abortion than have to try to raise a child when she's not ready. It's better for both the mother and the child that way.

Abortion is a practical way to handle a bad situation. Aborted children might disagree but they rarely have much say in the matter.

Interesting idea.


Didn't we just agree that the death penalty was a very serious thing, not to be applied lightly? How can you call it petty?


We do. That's not incompatible with executing them for their crimes.


Yes.


Yes.


Yes.


Definitely not.


Why not?


If you mean to absolutely every single one without exception, then sure. But if you think it applies to the majority, you're wrong.


Given that they all had multiple causes and reasons, boiling it all down to money is unwarranted.


Probably because they're a pro-life movement, not an anti-imperialism movement.


Then rephrase it as malice from malicious people, and inaction from non-malicious people.

Why not have sympathy for abortion clinic bombers, as people, if you don't believe in a distinction between good and bad people?


Where did you get this idea?


Here's an example:

Gay marriage does not result in deaths or lack of deaths. If you are retaining the "killing people = bad" definition of valuing life, then knowing that someone values life will not tell you anything about whether they should support or oppose gay marriage.

Having an opinion on the value of life and having an opinion on gay marriage are orthogonal -- they do not affect each other.

If you argue that valuing life in a different sense (not "killing people = bad", but something else), then perhaps you can construct an argument in support of gay marriage on top of that. But if you do, then your original argument (that pro-lifers should support gay marriage because they value life) falls apart because now valuing life takes on a different meaning.


Bulging eyes indicate surprise, rolling eyes indicate disdain. Big difference.


Everything's arrogant with you -- unless it's you disparaging the intelligence of christians.


That doesn't match what she said or what you said. You didn't just say "You're wrong", you explained why you thought so (albeit incompletely). What she said wasn't in all caps, and didn't take that tone.