About the Abortion Controversy

PureX · Jun 26, 2022

Valjean said:
So what criteria entitle a human to a right to life, but not a cow? Is it simply species? Wouldn't that be simple speciesism? How would that be any different from using race as a moral claim determinant?
How about a Martian from a flying saucer? Clearly not human, but would you afford him a right to life?

"I" don't afford a right to life. "I" don't determine whether abortion will be legal or not. These are decisions that we humans, and we citizens of a given nation, make collectively. By our biological structure, and by our spiritual nature, we afford all human beings a right to live. We do not ALL agree to this, of course, but enough of us do that it has become a "universal ideal". An ethical imperative that then determines what is to be considered moral and immoral behavior.

Valjean said:
And here's the rub; is the fœtus actually a person? Is personhood simply a matter of genetics? If that were the case, the Martian wouldn't be a person, and could be butchered and eaten with no moral violation.

So is right-to-life just speciesism; the new racism?

No, it's not "just" biological. As we humans do possess the ability to transcend our biological 'programming' when we choose to, and when it's important enough to us to choose to do so. I strongly suspect we humans would afford an intelligent alien species the right to live based on the fact of their (almost certainly superior) intelligence. Because we are not making that determination based on biology alone, but more-so on respect for 'cognitive agency'. The thing that makes us, us.

Sand Dancer · Jun 26, 2022

PureX said:
I am wondering what you all think of my observation that the folks who want to keep abortion illegal seem to have another agenda that is so important to them that they neglect to posit their most logical, reasonable argument. And that because that "other" agenda seem to involved a lot of unnecessary judgment and animosity toward other people, and toward women in particular, it mostly only serves to discredit them and their position.

I ask because this is a serious concern in determining my own position on abortion. The animosity being displayed by the people that want to keep abortion illegal, and my desire to see that it does not find expression in civil law or policy, weighs heavily, for me, on the side of allowing everyone to decide for themselves (keeping abortion legal). Does anyone else feel this way? And if so, what do those of you who want to keep abortion illegal have to say about it?

I think those that are against abortion are those that see people as naturally evil, so they need to be punished for not being good people. The OT is perfect for doling out punishments for many things. Of course they only jump on the "sins" that they themselves are unlikely to commit. They see no grey area with others though.

amorphous_constellation · Jun 26, 2022

PureX said:
That's because the problems you are eluding to are not actually being addressed by allowing or disallowing abortion. Bad parents will be bad parents whether they are afforded the option to abort a pregnancy or not. The world will be over-populated and abused by we humans whether we allow humans to abort unwanted pregnancies or not. Human ignorance, selfishness, fear, and stupidity are universal characteristics that would not be mitigated even if humans never procreate, again. Until we died of, we would still be what we are. So to my thinking, there is no logical connection between the abortion question, and the conditions you are worried about. And I suspect others think similarly, which is why it has not otherwise come up in this conversation.

My sense of it, is that this a strong causal chain that I am trying to describe. But you and the others can believe as you will. I believe that the qualities that you point out are in fact mutable, but I think that hard materialists and Christians (the former arguing more for immutability of material, and the latter stressing a renewed spiritual plane of existence) do not generally think they are mutable

amorphous_constellation · Jun 26, 2022

PureX said:
I am wondering what you all think of my observation that the folks who want to keep abortion illegal seem to have another agenda that is so important to them that they neglect to posit their most logical, reasonable argument. And that because that "other" agenda seem to involved a lot of unnecessary judgment and animosity toward other people, and toward women in particular, it mostly only serves to discredit them and their position.

That well could be. I mean think of it, woman in our culture couldn't even vote until a century ago.

Heyo · Jun 26, 2022

PureX said:
I am wondering what you all think of my observation that the folks who want to keep abortion illegal seem to have another agenda that is so important to them that they neglect to posit their most logical, reasonable argument. And that because that "other" agenda seem to involved a lot of unnecessary judgment and animosity toward other people, and toward women in particular, it mostly only serves to discredit them and their position.

I ask because this is a serious concern in determining my own position on abortion. The animosity being displayed by the people that want to keep abortion illegal, and my desire to see that it does not find expression in civil law or policy, weighs heavily, for me, on the side of allowing everyone to decide for themselves (keeping abortion legal). Does anyone else feel this way? And if so, what do those of you who want to keep abortion illegal have to say about it?

I have a suspicion that for many the main reason to support one or the other position is tribalism. I see it in the form they present their arguments (talking points), how they react to counterarguments (deflection) and how willing they are to compromise or admit errors in their thinking.
Look at the other threads and you'll find it en mass. I appreciate that it hasn't happened here (too much).

PureX · Jun 26, 2022

Thirza Fallen said:
I think those that are against abortion are those that see people as naturally evil, so they need to be punished for not being good people. The OT is perfect for doling out punishments for many things. Of course they only jump on the "sins" that they themselves are unlikely to commit. They see no grey area with others though.

Yes. Judgment and punishment are ultimately about control. I think these people just want to be in control more than they want to find a logical, reasonable, functional solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. And that's unfortunate, because it means they constantly neglect that fact that there is a logical argument to be made, and there are some solutions that could be proposed and supported. But they do neither. Because all they really want is to be in control. This is what I'm seeing.

Sand Dancer · Jun 26, 2022

PureX said:
Yes. Judgment and punishment are ultimately about control. I think these people just want to be in control more than they want to find a logical, reasonable, functional solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. And that's unfortunate, because it means they constantly neglect that fact that there is a logical argument to be made, and there are some solutions that could be proposed and supported. But they do neither. Because all they really want is to be in control. This is what I'm seeing.

Many think that they are supposed to set up a theocracy before Jesus comes. Scary stuff.

PureX · Jun 26, 2022

ideogenous_mover said:
My sense of it, is that this a strong causal chain that I am trying to describe. But you and the others can believe as you will. I believe that the qualities that you point out are in fact mutable, but I think that hard materialists and Christians (the former arguing more for immutability of material, and the latter stressing a renewed spiritual plane of existence) do not generally think they are mutable

I'm not saying they are not mutable. But I am seeing no logical evidence to think that abortion will do anything to bring that change about. Fewer people doesn't mean the people that remain are any less flawed than had there been more of them.

PureX · Jun 26, 2022

Thirza Fallen said:
Many think that they are supposed to set up a theocracy before Jesus comes. Scary stuff.

Not very many, honestly. They may be the loudest and craziest voice in a small room, but they are by no means a critical mass.

Valjean · Jun 26, 2022

PureX said:
"I" don't afford a right to life. "I" don't determine whether abortion will be legal or not. These are decisions that we humans, and we citizens of a given nation, make collectively. By our biological structure, and by our spiritual nature, we afford all human beings a right to live. We do not ALL agree to this, of course, but enough of us do that it has become a "universal ideal". An ethical imperative that then determines what is to be considered moral and immoral behavior.

But we're not talking about legality. What's legal constantly changes, and is different in different jurisdictions. We're talking about moral principles, or an ethical imperative, if you prefer.
So what qualities determine a right to life, or moral consideration? Social consensus?

No, it's not "just" biological. As we humans do possess the ability to transcend our biological 'programming' when we choose to, and when it's important enough to us to choose to do so. I strongly suspect we humans would afford an intelligent alien species the right to live based on the fact of their (almost certainly superior) intelligence. Because we are not making that determination based on biology alone, but more-so on respect for 'cognitive agency'. The thing that makes us, us.

So intelligence is the prime determinant? Wouldn't that entail a hierarchy of moral consideration, and a greater right to life for the clever?

Subduction Zone · Jun 26, 2022

Wildswanderer said:
If you " know" that, it's impossible to interpret it correctly.

Why jump to that faulty conclusion? If one knows that then can interpret the Bible far more properly. One can understand what the writers believed and why they wrote it. One can also be generous and put an interpretation on it that does not immediately refute the Bible. For example if one interprets the Flood myth of Noah as a morality tale it does not immediately refute the religion as believing that it actually happened does. The writers may have believed the Flood myth, even though scholars can see that there are two different flood myths that were combined to make one. By viewing it as a morality tale one gets rid of all of those self contradictions since they no longer matter. The lesson is still there.

Sand Dancer · Jun 26, 2022

PureX said:
Not very many, honestly. They may be the loudest and craziest voice in a small room, but they are by no means a critical mass.

I wasn't sure what percentage actually think this, but it does help me to understand their way of thinking. Besides that, I can't grasp it. I didn't have that view when I was Christian, even though I was conservative for most of my Christian life.

Wildswanderer · Jun 26, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
Why jump to that faulty conclusion? If one knows that then can interpret the Bible far more properly. One can understand what the writers believed and why they wrote it. One can also be generous and put an interpretation on it that does not immediately refute the Bible. For example if one interprets the Flood myth of Noah as a morality tale it does not immediately refute the religion as believing that it actually happened does. The writers may have believed the Flood myth, even though scholars can see that there are two different flood myths that were combined to make one. By viewing it as a morality tale one gets rid of all of those self contradictions since they no longer matter. The lesson is still there.

The Bible from start to finish is about God's work in the universe. If you don't believe in God it's impossible to interpret it correctly. You will always be redefining what is actually going on according to the text.

Subduction Zone · Jun 26, 2022

Wildswanderer said:
The Bible from start to finish is about God's work in the universe. If you don't believe in God it's impossible to interpret it correctly. You will always be redefining what is actually going on according to the text.

No, you only believe that. When tested it fails. When a person is overly literal, such as most fundmentalists one cannot interpret it properly.

Wildswanderer · Jun 26, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
No, you only believe that.

The Bible " believes" that. You can't even agree with the first verse in scripture. You are the last person qualified to interpret the text.

Subduction Zone · Jun 26, 2022

Wildswanderer said:
The Bible " believes" that. You can't even agree with the first verse in scripture. You are the last person qualified to interpret the text.

NO, the Bible cannot believe anything. It is just a book written by largely ignorant men. It is not their fault that they were ignorant. That was all that the information they had at the time. So they believed in an immoral God that screwed up his creation. They believed in a magical boat. But we know that those things did not happen.

Wildswanderer · Jun 26, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
NO, the Bible cannot believe anything. It is just a book written by largely ignorant men. It is not their fault that they were ignorant. That was all that the information they had at the time. So they believed in an immoral God that screwed up his creation. They believed in a magical boat. But we know that those things did not happen.

You know less than nothing about God. And yet you think this qualifies you to understand his Word!?
You are just stung because you know you were totally wrong on the meaning of the numbers passage.

Subduction Zone · Jun 26, 2022

Wildswanderer said:
You know less than nothing about God. And yet you think this qualifies you to understand his Word!?
You are just stung because you know you were totally wrong on the meaning of the numbers passage.

Really? It appears that you know even less about him since you have self contradicting beliefs.

And no. I do not have to jump through hoops of "maybe this" and "maybe that". I can read the passage and understand it. It really makes no difference in the big picture to me. But it does to you. If you don't believe your false version your house of cards collapses.

amorphous_constellation · Jun 26, 2022

PureX said:
I'm not saying they are not mutable. But I am seeing no logical evidence to think that abortion will do anything to bring that change about. Fewer people doesn't mean the people that remain are any less flawed than had there been more of them.

Well I do believe in behavioral sink, and that behavior is probably a reaction to space in a lot of cases, however there is not only that. For instance, the law may force people with extremely unstable lives, no matter where they live, to have children. That does seem like it would perpetuate issues, unless you believe that such a level of privation might be good for children

PureX · Jun 26, 2022

Valjean said:
But we're not talking about legality. What's legal constantly changes, and is different in different jurisdictions. We're talking about moral principles, or an ethical imperative, if you prefer.
So what qualities determine a right to life, or moral consideration? Social consensus?
So intelligence is the prime determinant? Wouldn't that entail a hierarchy of moral consideration, and a greater right to life for the clever?

Not intelligence so much as cognitive agency. We’re more than biological actors. We’re metaphysically self aware.

About the Abortion Controversy

Veteran Member

Crazy Cat Lady

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Crazy Cat Lady

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Crazy Cat Lady

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member