Saying what we believe, believing what we say

[Jezz]

I started this thread in response to this exchange (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2173314&postcount=151) between Wyzaard and SpinyNorman. I wanted to put it in a new thread (and specifically in this forum) so that it doesn't get over-run with pro-abortionist interjections. So here goes.

One of the biggest criticisms I have of pro-lifers is that we sometimes don't take our own position seriously enough. I want to examine this particular post to point out what I mean (and I hope that SpinyNorman will forgive me for picking on him here - hopefully he will realise that I don't mean to single him out... I should point out that no other pro-lifer in that thread picked up on this either... :smile:)

You and your girlfriend cut off the life of your future son or daughter.

Ahhh... potentiality arguments, can't get enough of those. :ahem:
Wyzaard has a point here (not perhaps the one he thought he was going to make, but nevertheless... :smile:). SpinyNorman's argument is actually framed as a potentiality argument, by virtue of the usage of the word "future".

And this is the whole problem with SpinyNorman's objection it was framed in the form of a potentiality argument, when it should have been framed as an actuality argument.

The basic pro-life principle is that, from conception, the zygote/embryo/fetus is an actual human being (and hence, an actual son or daughter) - not merely a potential future human being (future son or daughter). As such, we should consider them the same way that we would consider, say, a 1-year-old child.

And the problem with what SN wrote becomes immediately obvious if the child in question was not an aborted embryo or fetus, but an aborted 1-year-old child. If a pair of parents killed their 1-year-old child, we would not described their act as "cutting of the life of their future son or daughter" - as if the child was not already their son or daughter! Never in a million years would we say that! We would say, quite simply, "they cut off the life of their son or daughter" (or, dispensing with the euphemism, we would say "they killed their son or daughter").

And so to my main point: If we are to take our basic pro-life position seriously to be consistently pro-life, we must not describe the act of abortion as the killing of a future (ie, potential) son or daughter, but as the killing of an actual son or daughter:

"You and your girlfriend cut off the life of your future son or daughter."

The fact that we sometimes still use language like this means that, at some subconscious level, we are still not quite treating the unborn the same way that we treat the born - not quite human, not quite a son or a daughter, but only potential son or daughter.

One of the female members of this forum I know happened to have two abortions before becoming Christian and pro-life (I preserve her anonymity because I'm not sure if this is general knowledge). When asked if she has any children, she does not say "I would have been the mother of two, had I not aborted..." but "Yes, I am the mother of two children whom I aborted." That's another (excellent) example the kind of consistency I'm talking about.

So please, my fellow pro-lifers: let us think long and hard about what it means to be "pro-life", and what it means to think of the unborn as an actual human being, rather than as a potential human being. Don't treat of their humanity as a potentiality when we ought to be treating it as an actuality.

[dizzle]

Wonderful post. I have said publicly here several times that I am the female member in question who had the two abortions. And my consistent line to women on this issue is that having an abortion does not prevent you from becoming a mother, it simply makes you the mother of a dead child.

I do not have any children in the same sense that someone doesn't have any children because they were murdered by someone. IOW I don't have any living children, but I do have two children (perhaps more than two since I do not know if either of the conceptions were twins)

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Quite right Jezz. I think that potentiality arguments have more going for them then the average flippant pro-choice poster will admit, but if we mean to say that the unborn is NOW human and worthy of protection NOW, that is hat we must say, and unambiguously.

[Spinyn00bman]

I do not agree with you that potentiality arguments have no merit, but your point is observed and certainly taken.

As a much younger, and incredibly stupid younger man, I was in a relationship and my GF became pregnant. When she told me about it the very next words out of her mouth were that she wanted to abort it. She told me everything I wanted to hear. She told me it was her "choice". She told me that since it was her choice, I was thereby absolved of any guilt. I did not fight for that baby. I let her commit the act, heck I even drove her there, all the while telling myself that it wasn't my fault, wasn't my decision. It was out of my hands.

It was my fault...and it was my decision. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had truly been a man...if I had truly done what I knew to be the right thing, that my son or daughter would be alive today. I know I could have talked her out of it. I know part of her WANTED me to talk her out of it. But I didn't..I shut my mouth...I took the cowardly, murderous route, simply to make my life easier.

I was complicit to the murder of my son or daughter. Not a day goes by that I do not think about what I did, what I allowed to happen.

In the smile of my daughter today, whom I would shed every last drop of my life's blood, is the ghost of the smile of my son or daughter who never got a chance to do the same. It is something that will follow me always...as it should.

I appreciate your thoughts. You certainly have a point that is very much taken.

[Amazing Rando]

Wonderful post. I have said publicly here several times that I am the female member in question who had the two abortions. And my consistent line to women on this issue is that having an abortion does not prevent you from becoming a mother, it simply makes you the mother of a dead child.

I do not have any children in the same sense that someone doesn't have any children because they were murdered by someone. IOW I don't have any living children, but I do have two children (perhaps more than two since I do not know if either of the conceptions were twins)

Do you plan on having any more children in the future?

We do, but hopefully God will postpone them until our studies our completed.

[Jezz]

I do not agree with you that potentiality arguments have no merit, but your point is observed and certainly taken.
I didn't mean to argue that potentiality arguments have no merit. In fact, at one point during my drafting of that post I explicitly made the point that I did consider potentiality arguments to be worth something - unfortunately it seems that didn't make the final draft. :frown:

I think though that, while potentiality arguments are still worth something, actuality arguments are always that little bit stronger. While I believe that "there might be someone still in the house!" is a strong enough argument for not bulldozing the house, I believe that "there is someone still in the house!" is just that little bit stronger.

As a much younger, and incredibly stupid younger man, I was in a relationship and my GF became pregnant. When she told me about it the very next words out of her mouth were that she wanted to abort it. She told me everything I wanted to hear. She told me it was her "choice". She told me that since it was her choice, I was thereby absolved of any guilt. I did not fight for that baby. I let her commit the act, heck I even drove her there, all the while telling myself that it wasn't my fault, wasn't my decision. It was out of my hands.

It was my fault...and it was my decision. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had truly been a man...if I had truly done what I knew to be the right thing, that my son or daughter would be alive today. I know I could have talked her out of it. I know part of her WANTED me to talk her out of it. But I didn't..I shut my mouth...I took the cowardly, murderous route, simply to make my life easier.

I was complicit to the murder of my son or daughter. Not a day goes by that I do not think about what I did, what I allowed to happen.

In the smile of my daughter today, whom I would shed every last drop of my life's blood, is the ghost of the smile of my son or daughter who never got a chance to do the same. It is something that will follow me always...as it should.

I appreciate your thoughts. You certainly have a point that is very much taken.
It seems that there are quite a few people in our "Pro-Life" camp who have actually been to the dark side. Thanks for sharing - I pray that your story will give others the strength to speak out.

[dizzle]

Do you plan on having any more children in the future?


No we do not. There are various responsible reasons why not some of which are private and others of which I am quite public about - i.e. I am on several anti-depressant medications without which I could not function and it is not safe to become pregnant or take them while pregnant. Also I have some worsening lower back spinal problems that would likely cause me to be completely bedridden quite early on in any pregnancy. Obviously if something happened and I did become pregnant, abortion is not an option.

[Ryokan]

Here is my thing. I've got in arguements with Teal, I think, over this before, but I cannot help but think of it. If we are really to treat not just embryo's, but fertilized eggs and zygotes as human beings than we are grotesquely and immorally allocating our medical resources. By this line of thinking the great medical crisis, the great destroyer of life, is fertilized eggs/zygotes that fail to implant properly. 2/3 of fertilized eggs do not, and die within week or so of their creation. 2/3 of human beings die this early on. Why does God do this? Why do we not try to help this beings. For these reason I find it hard to accept, despite the very solid theology, life begins immediately at conception. The implications are bizarre and horrible. Or maybe I am wrong. Help me out here.

[Philosophickle]

Here is my thing. I've got in arguements with Teal, I think, over this before, but I cannot help but think of it. If we are really to treat not just embryo's, but fertilized eggs and zygotes as human beings than we are grotesquely and immorally allocating our medical resources. By this line of thinking the great medical crisis, the great destroyer of life, is fertilized eggs/zygotes that fail to implant properly. 2/3 of fertilized eggs do not, and die within week or so of their creation. 2/3 of human beings die this early on. Why does God do this? Why do we not try to help this beings. For these reason I find it hard to accept, despite the very solid theology, life begins immediately at conception. The implications are bizarre and horrible. Or maybe I am wrong. Help me out here.

Well, first off, it must be noted that there is a major difference between God taking a life and you or I taking a life. Further, this does nothing for either side. If a life is being taken during "natural" abortions, then a life is being taken. Does that mean that taking the other third is somehow right or justified? Of course not, and just considering the moral and legal ramifications of such a principle is staggering and worldview shattering.

Further, and on a completely honest note, I have no idea when a life is a life, and when cells become a person. I simply don't. Of course, this doesn't mean that I support abortion, all it means is that I cannot pinpoint the exact time with any certitude. And I think that everyone is in the same boat as I am, unless they have some privileged access to the metaphysical underpants of the universe that I don't. But the position of ignorance is essentially the position of pro-life. I don't know when cells become human, so I don't want them aborted. Just because I am not sure if that is a deer or a person that is making that noise in the bush does not justify me taking a blind shot out of hope that it is a deer. It means that any moral, rational creature will wait until they have this subject untangled, and untangled beyond a shadow of a doubt (because a loss of life is tragic and the loss of convenience is not) before we even consider abortion as a viable issue.
Our willingness to take the shot at that bush is what disgusts me about the human species, and I doubt that God will show mercy to us for this slaughter (the repentant excluded).

[JonLanceBarker]

i have to say that i agree with Phil on just about every point.

i would especially underline the point that God taking a human life is vastly different from a human taking a human life.

simply put, God has that authority; we don't, except where God has decreed that someone should die by our hands.

Hence:

judgment by Flood=ok.

judgment by plagues=ok.

judgment by tribal eradication (Amalekites, Canaanites, etc.)=ok.

judgment by societal rule of death penalty=ok.

now, before someone seriously misrepresents me, i don't think it can be argued in ANY capacity that failure of a dividing fertilized egg to implant in the uterus can possibly be thought of as a judgment for sin.

my explanation would be, first, that it is possible that there was a mutation in the embryo that did not allow it to be viable for very long.

note, this is only one "natural" explanation of many.

now, i simply don't see God stepping in to correct mutations.
apparently He has His reasons for their existence, even if there are individuals that die because of them.
note also that i would say nothing prevents these unfortunate embryos from going to Paradise, if they are indeed considered fully human souls by God.

hope that helps...

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Here is my thing. I've got in arguements with Teal, I think, over this before, but I cannot help but think of it. If we are really to treat not just embryo's, but fertilized eggs and zygotes as human beings than we are grotesquely and immorally allocating our medical resources. By this line of thinking the great medical crisis, the great destroyer of life, is fertilized eggs/zygotes that fail to implant properly. 2/3 of fertilized eggs do not, and die within week or so of their creation. 2/3 of human beings die this early on. Why does God do this? Why do we not try to help this beings. For these reason I find it hard to accept, despite the very solid theology, life begins immediately at conception. The implications are bizarre and horrible. Or maybe I am wrong. Help me out here.

The only inference I see here is this:

1) Many zygotes die naturally because conditions are not conducive to their survival
2) Therefore human life doesn't begin at conception when a zygote forms.

(side note: It's not right to use the term "fertilized egg" here in my view because the egg doesn't really exist after fertilization. We may as well refer to an embryo as a "fertilized and developed egg.")

Obviously this is not a valid inference, and it won't be one unless we add something like 1a, as follows:

1) Many zygotes die naturally because conditions are not conducive to their survival.
1a) If many things in a given group die naturally because conditions are not conducive to their survival, they do not count as human life.
2) Therefore human life doesn't begin at conception when a zygote forms.

The obvious howler here though is that 1a) is obviously false. Observe:

1) Many children who live in drought stricken countries die naturally because conditions are not conducive to their survival.
1a) If many things in a given group die naturally because conditions are not conducive to their survival, they do not count as human life.
2) Therefor children who live in drought stricken countries are not human lives.


This is perfectly valid, and we're granting that premise 1) is correct, but the conclusion isn't true because premise 1a) is not true.

So I think the only way your comments would be plausible is if you could defend the claim that if something has a high mortality rate, then it's not human.

[Jezz]

(side note: It's not right to use the term "fertilized egg" here in my view because the egg doesn't really exist after fertilization. We may as well refer to an embryo as a "fertilized and developed egg.")
Indeed - we might as well refer to an adult as a "fertilised and developed egg". :smile:'

[JonLanceBarker]

yes, yes, my mistake. :blush:

[Ryokan]

Clearly the economist in me aproaches this differently than everyone else. :sigh:

[Darth Executor]

Clearly the economist in me aproaches this differently than everyone else. :sigh:

You'd be much cooler if you dumped the stupid Cowboy Bebop avatars. That show sucks. Pick up Naruto instead. :teeth:

[Spinyn00bman]

Indeed - we might as well refer to an adult as a "fertilised and developed egg". :smile:'



Some are more "developed" than others...

[Ryokan]

You'd be much cooler if you dumped the stupid Cowboy Bebop avatars. That show sucks. Pick up Naruto instead. :teeth:

My new love is Afro Samurai.

[Ryokan]

The only inference I see here is this:

1) Many zygotes die naturally because conditions are not conducive to their survival
2) Therefore human life doesn't begin at conception when a zygote forms.

(side note: It's not right to use the term "fertilized egg" here in my view because the egg doesn't really exist after fertilization. We may as well refer to an embryo as a "fertilized and developed egg.")

Obviously this is not a valid inference, and it won't be one unless we add something like 1a, as follows:

1) Many zygotes die naturally because conditions are not conducive to their survival.
1a) If many things in a given group die naturally because conditions are not conducive to their survival, they do not count as human life.
2) Therefore human life doesn't begin at conception when a zygote forms.

The obvious howler here though is that 1a) is obviously false. Observe:

1) Many children who live in drought stricken countries die naturally because conditions are not conducive to their survival.
1a) If many things in a given group die naturally because conditions are not conducive to their survival, they do not count as human life.
2) Therefor children who live in drought stricken countries are not human lives.


This is perfectly valid, and we're granting that premise 1) is correct, but the conclusion isn't true because premise 1a) is not true.

So I think the only way your comments would be plausible is if you could defend the claim that if something has a high mortality rate, then it's not human.

Basically, the arguemnt, Jack, is that Pro-lifers, by not supporting dramatically increased investment in preventing these types of deaths, are not in fact bahaving in a way consistent with there belief they are people. If a disease or condition or envrionmental situation unconducive to adult life was killing 2/3 of all adults you can bet it would be issue of concern number 1 globally. Clearly saving people who are this young is not. This is not consistent. Additionally it creates a dilemma where on has to ask oneself why God creates 2/3 of his children to die within days. Please address these two points.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Basically, the arguemnt, Jack, is that Pro-lifers, by not supporting dramatically increased investment in preventing these types of deaths, are not in fact bahaving in a way consistent with there belief they are people. If a disease or condition or envrionmental situation unconducive to adult life was killing 2/3 of all adults you can bet it would be issue of concern number 1 globally. Clearly saving people who are this young is not. This is not consistent. Additionally it creates a dilemma where on has to ask oneself why God creates 2/3 of his children to die within days. Please address these two points.Very well.

Point 1: You have changed, or at least considerably shrunk, your argument.

Recall the argument of yours that I actually responded to in post #8. You laid out the realities of high mortality rates of zygotes, which you reiterate above, but then you added a conclusion, as follows: "For these reason I find it hard to accept, despite the very solid theology, life begins immediately at conception." In context it was clear that "these reasons" referred to the high mortality rates.

But now you've removed that last step in your argument. You've now said that your point is simply not treating zygotes as though they were people. The rebuttal I offered in my previous reply to you was quite sound, but it was not a response to this comment. It was a response to your conclusion, where you expressed your own doubt that life actually begins at conception. I did show that this conclusion was unwarranted.

If I look at your new version, with this conclusion removed altogether, then it's no longer an argument, but merely an observation along these lines:
Pro lifers don't act as though they consider zygotes human, because they aren't doing anything to prevent zygotes from dying, while they are trying to prevent abortion.

I have three responses to this observation.

1) My first reaction to this much smaller claim is to say that there's an inherent practical reason at play here: People can abstain abortion, but it's much less clear how they could abstain from losing their zygotes. Indeed, when a woman has a zygote inside her, she isn't even aware of the fact, let alone capable of keeping that zygote safe.

2) My second reaction is to deny the truth of the above observation of yours. As far as I can tell, pro lifers actually do what they can to keep zygotes from being lost. As an example, some years ago I was involved in one of the most vocal pro-life organizations in New Zealand, and my wife put together a pamphlet for that organization explaining the abortifacient risks of some tpyes of so-called "contraceptives," which actually (in some cases) allow conception, but prevent the zygote/embryo from implanting, causing it to be destroyed. Google around and you'll find pro lifers everywhere making this point. So while pro-lifers simply have no ability to do anything about the natural loss of zygotes, to the extent that they can do something to prevent the loss of the very early conceptus, they do.

3) My third reply is that if you observe the pro-life community not being consistent with their view of human life, there is a choice to make. Do we take the low road of saying "well, if they're not consistent, and they don't act like life doesn't begin with conception, then let's just go with the flow and say that it doesn't"? Or do we say "look, if life begins at conception then we need to be more consistent about this." It seems obvious to me that the latter is the more moral option.

Point 2: No "dilemma" is created here at all.

You said, "Additionally it creates a dilemma where on has to ask oneself why God creates 2/3 of his children to die within days."

A dilemma is where we feel that we must do one of two things, both of which is wrong for some reason. Here there is no such situation at all, or anything like a dilemma. You say that God allows 2/3 of concepti at the very early stages to die, and therefore... well, therefore what, exactly? It requires nothing evil of us. It doesn't require us to change our views on what counts as a human life. It just doesn't seem to require any modification or abandonment of the view that human life begins at conception. Perhaps you could elaborate.

[Ryokan]

You know, never mind Jack. I am not interested in debating, I wanted to talk about something bothering me. Its not your fault, I got belligerent in my second post too. Nevermind.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

OK, fair enough. I wasn't being "belligerent," so I wish you hadn't added the word "too," but never mind.

[Ryokan]

OK, fair enough. I wasn't being "belligerent," so I wish you hadn't added the word "too," but never mind.
Okay. I was belligerent. Not you. Thanks for your time.:pray:

[Teallaura]

I don't think it was me - I recall an end of life argument along those lines with Jimmy but I don't remember being in any such beginning of life argument with you or anyone else. :shrug:


By the way, how the heck do you get implantation figures? Last I looked they were suspect as all get out - if Mom doesn't know the zygote is present how's Dr. Bob gonna know? Without that info you can't compute an implantation rate. What I've seen have been projections based on in vitro fertilization but they are crap since nothing in in vitro seems to work as well as nature.

:cs: We might have discussed the figures somewhere before - I know I've questioned them before.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

By the way, how the heck do you get implantation figures? Last I looked they were suspect as heck - if Mom doesn't know the zygote is present how's Dr. Bob gonna know?

:cs: We might have discussed the figures somewhere before - I know I've questioned them before.
That question occurred to me as well. I didn't pursue it, because the argument can be answered even if we grant very high numbers. But yeah, I'd like to find out exactly how we could go about getting figures for that.