Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Alabama Abortion Ban:

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Hey Jim, I posted a lengthy post on this subject some time ago here and here. The actual Jewish view is far more complex than we may sometimes think. Some Jews maintained that an unformed child and a formed child were indistinguishable (even in the face of rape), some actually distinguished between the two, but look at our own language on this subject. You call both formed and unformed "children". That is significant I think. As much as I agree with you on so many other topics, especially your views on Trump, this is an area that I agree with the other Christians on this forum.
    Great to hear from your again, Adrift!

    We've had this debate with ox fairly recently, and some of us even quoted to him the same sources you reference in your linked posts, but for whatever reason, he's REALLY committed to this idea that a fetus at an early stage of development is not a protected being, and he interprets scripture accordingly. That along with his apparent strong emotions relating to this topic, and his fixation on abortion sometimes being necessary to save a rape victim from emotional anguish and suicidal thoughts, leads me to believe there's more to the story that he is unwilling to share (and like I said, it's none of our business).

    I guess my point is, don't expect reasoned and rational debate from him. In my case, I repeatedly expressed sympathy for women who get pregnant as a result of rape, but he dismissed it as "window dressing" simply because I disagreed with him that it is morally acceptable for the woman to abort in such circumstances. He even mocked the idea that a woman could come to love a child who was conceived during rape.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      Hey Jim, I posted a lengthy post on this subject some time ago here and here. The actual Jewish view is far more complex than we may sometimes think. Some Jews maintained that an unformed child and a formed child were indistinguishable (even in the face of rape), some actually distinguished between the two, but look at our own language on this subject. You call both formed and unformed "children". That is significant I think. As much as I agree with you on so many other topics, especially your views on Trump, this is an area that I agree with the other Christians on this forum.

      I SO empathize with your point of view in this thread. Rape destroys so many lives, and it continues to destroy lives well beyond the initial physical act. I know it's only anecdotal, but in my own life I've been close to a number of women who have been raped, and/also have aborted their children. My own mother had an abortion because the cult I was raised in sanctioned abortion regardless of the cause. These women felt like they had nowhere else to go, and/or were disgusted with their condition, and/or felt they had no other choice without destroying their lives. My mother who was raped while under the influence, and aborted her child, coming to a fuller knowledge of God's will, has ministered to women in the same circumstances for decades. I grew up in a household where my parents took in so many poor women who felt they had no other choice, who felt that suicide was the only option, who ministered into their lives, and showered them with the love of Christ. Once they knew that the child within them wasn't part of the evil they endured, it changed them. I saw so many lives changed. They saw their children as a curse turned into a blessing. That's for real. That's not some hypothetical, I saw it with my own eyes. Again, I totally empathize with those who've been through that sort of trauma, but abortion isn't the answer. The Christians on this form are correct in pointing out that all it does is lead to more grief.

      I love your heart man. I really do, but I think in this particular case it's misplaced.
      Hi there adrift - thanks so much for providing a thoughtful and helpful reply on this topic.

      I do understand where you are coming from, and I do believe that wherever possible it is best not to abort. I certainly do not support abortion at any time as birth control or to avoid the consequences of consensual sex. And I do believe that many times even in a rape situation the women may well be better off carrying the child. So I say all that to clarify where we align. For me though removing the option legally in the case of rape, especially in that very early stage where there is not actual person there, it seems that it is wrong to force the woman to carry that which she was forced to create. But It's not something I joyfully embrace, but rather something I with reluctance concede as the better of two options in that forcing any woman, no matter who she is, to carry the product of the rape to term is making her the victim again.

      As to whether the abortion itself is more traumatic, or more harmful to the woman than carrying the baby in such a case. That is a very hard bit to get an objective answer too. Neither side of the debate would ever be willing to allow the data to speak for itself. If it came down as most pro-lifer's see it, the pro-choice people could not accept it. And likewise, if it turns out it depends on how traumatic the rape itself is and the impact of a pregnancy on the women at the time she was raped, the pro-life side could not accept it. And neither side would be willing to sponsor or support such a study that was independent and unbiased.

      As to the issue of timing - thanks for your input there as well. We had a not so civil debate a little while ago on the fact the Septuagint translated from the original Hebrew rendered the text on the law associated with a two men fighting such that a pregnant women's child was lost to imply it depended on how well formed the fetus was as to what the punishment was. From my study, it seem that was in fact the most consistent rendering of what was being said coupled with what the historical variations in the text were. But that was not well received The traditional religious pro-life side simply can't even consider if it is possible there is some intermittent state in the earlier stages of pregnancy where we are talking about the potential to be a human person, not an actual, realized human person yet.

      Personally I take the view there is such an intermittent state and that it ends about the time the fetus develops a nervous system and begins to have brain activity. That nascant glimpse of the person is enough, but before then the physical elements that allow for person-hood simply don't exist yet.

      As I perceived it, our debate became hostile because no matter how hard I tried, those opposed to me could not accept I did not believe that intermittent state would allow for abortion on demand during that time - which I don't. I don't believe it is right to terminate any pregnancy that results from consensual sex unless the life of the mother is in immediate danger.


      Jim
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-18-2019, 08:52 AM.
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • You say:

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        I certainly do not support abortion at any time as birth control or to avoid the consequences of consensual sex.
        and:

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        Personally I take the view there is such an intermittent state and that it ends about the time the fetus develops a nervous system and begins to have brain activity. That nascant glimpse of the person is enough, but before then the physical elements that allow for person-hood simply don't exist yet.
        These two positions do not seem compatible. If it's not yet a person at the earliest stage then why shouldn't a woman be free to terminate the pregnancy regardless of how she conceived?

        You also say that a rape victim should be free to decide what she is able to bear and should have the right to abort the child if she so chooses. Is that only during the so-called "intermittent state", or is that at any time during pregnancy? What if she initially decides to keep the child, but three- or six- or eight-months later claims extreme emotional distress and wants to end the pregnancy? Still morally acceptable in your view?

        And why shouldn't a woman who engaged in consensual sex be given the same liberty if she is in a similar emotional state? You claim that asking a rape victim to carry a child to term is akin to punishment. Is it your view, then, that a woman who willingly had sex and conceived (suppose the birth control failed and she didn't intend to get pregnant) should be "punished" by forcing her to keep the child even if it causes her emotional distress?

        These are largely rhetorical questions, the point being that your arguments are logically inconsistent and appear to be an ad hoc appeal to emotion.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment
























        • Just sayin'

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            but before then the physical elements that allow for person-hood simply don't exist yet.
            I'm not sure how you square this belief with your belief in a God who is spiritual, i.e who does not exist as a physical being (except in the sense of the incarnation), but is still a person.

            It should be self-evident to any Christian that personhood is not dependent on any physical element, or configuration of physical elements, to exist.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              Would the woman not qualify as "whoever performed the abortion" in those circumstances?
              I double checked the article I had read. Turns out it was talking about the Georgia bill:
              https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ave-abortions/

              "While abortionists can be prosecuted for performing unlawful abortions — and an attacker can spend the rest of his life in jail for killing a woman’s unborn child — Georgia’s heartbeat bill cannot be used to prosecute a woman for ending her own pregnancy."

              So the charge of inconsistency applies to the Georgia bill. I'm not sure if it does for the Alabama one or not.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                I'm not sure how you square this belief with your belief in a God who is spiritual, i.e who does not exist as a physical being (except in the sense of the incarnation), but is still a person.

                It should be self-evident to any Christian that personhood is not dependent on any physical element, or configuration of physical elements, to exist.
                I don't think so. When the body dies, the soul no longer inhabits it. We reject the concept of the soul as inhabiting inanimate objects or even inanimate human tissue such as an arm or a leg if they are severed. Therefore it is reasonable not to expect a soul to inhabit the inanimate human tissue developing into the baby until it reaches the point it has some capacity to be an animate being - which does not occur until the nervous system develops. We also know that the personality and state of being is inextricably tied to the brain. Damage the brain, and the person can indeed change - sometimes completely. We also recognize death has occurred when the brain ceases to function. We do not consider that the soul hangs around once that occurs. I'm merely looking at all of this and logically applying it in reverse. Before there is a brain, there is no person there yet.

                Jim
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post










                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]37110[/ATTACH]












                  Just sayin'
                  Yep - one which quite obviously had a brain and a nervous system at the time it rejoiced.

                  Jim
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    You say:


                    and:


                    These two positions do not seem compatible. If it's not yet a person at the earliest stage then why shouldn't a woman be free to terminate the pregnancy regardless of how she conceived?
                    They are only incompatible if you think that it lack of status as a full human person means it has no value, or that it is not human. Which reminds me, I should thank each of you in that in our debate on this issue I was being too careless with my language and giving the impression that somehow I ascribed little value to this phase - it is still a human fetus, it still, if allowed to develop will be a human person. This is no trivial thing. IOW, the distinction is not sufficient to justify abortion on demand.

                    You also say that a rape victim should be free to decide what she is able to bear and should have the right to abort the child if she so chooses. Is that only during the so-called "intermittent state", or is that at any time during pregnancy? What if she initially decides to keep the child, but three- or six- or eight-months later claims extreme emotional distress and wants to end the pregnancy? Still morally acceptable in your view?
                    I am only talking about the first 6 to 8 weeks. Rape exceptions typically don't make such a limitation, nevertheless I think that a person raped and pregnant would need to act in that period to avoid crossing that line from the fetus having only the potential to be a person to actually being a person. At that point I believe we enter the realm where only if the life of the mother is in immediate danger can it be justified.

                    And why shouldn't a woman who engaged in consensual sex be given the same liberty if she is in a similar emotional state? You claim that asking a rape victim to carry a child to term is akin to punishment. Is it your view, then, that a woman who willingly had sex and conceived (suppose the birth control failed and she didn't intend to get pregnant) should be "punished" by forcing her to keep the child even if it causes her emotional distress?
                    I'm not sure why this is so hard to communicate. The raped women that is pregnant has been forced to become pregnant. This changes the character and the morality of the situation completely. As I said to Sparko, it is not only her distress, but also the fact that her distress was imposed upon her, not the consequence of her own choices and willful actions. There are a who host of mitigating psychological and physical issues related to the rape which compound her distress and which alter the morality of the situation in that added to the equation is her victimhood, her lack of personal responsibility for the situation existing.


                    Jim
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      You say:


                      and:


                      These two positions do not seem compatible. If it's not yet a person at the earliest stage then why shouldn't a woman be free to terminate the pregnancy regardless of how she conceived?
                      They are only incompatible if you think that it lack of status as a full human person means it has no value, or that it is not human. Which reminds me, I should thank each of you in that in our debate on this issue I was being too careless with my language and giving the impression that somehow I ascribed little value to this phase - it is still a human fetus, it still, if allowed to develop will be a human person. This is no trivial thing. IOW, the distinction is not sufficient to justify abortion on demand.

                      You also say that a rape victim should be free to decide what she is able to bear and should have the right to abort the child if she so chooses. Is that only during the so-called "intermittent state", or is that at any time during pregnancy? What if she initially decides to keep the child, but three- or six- or eight-months later claims extreme emotional distress and wants to end the pregnancy? Still morally acceptable in your view?
                      I am only talking about the first 6 to 8 weeks. Rape exceptions typically don't make such a limitation, nevertheless I think that a person raped and pregnant would need to act in that period to avoid crossing that line from the fetus having only the potential to be a person to actually being a person. At that point I believe we enter the realm where only if the life of the mother is in immediate danger can it be justified.

                      And why shouldn't a woman who engaged in consensual sex be given the same liberty if she is in a similar emotional state? You claim that asking a rape victim to carry a child to term is akin to punishment. Is it your view, then, that a woman who willingly had sex and conceived (suppose the birth control failed and she didn't intend to get pregnant) should be "punished" by forcing her to keep the child even if it causes her emotional distress?
                      I'm not sure why this is so hard to communicate. The raped women that is pregnant has been forced to become pregnant. This changes the character and the morality of the situation completely. As I said to Sparko, it is not only her distress, but also the fact that her distress was imposed upon her, not the consequence of her own choices and willful actions. There are a who host of mitigating psychological and physical issues related to the rape which compound her distress and which alter the morality of the situation in that added to the equation is her victimhood, her lack of personal responsibility for the situation existing.


                      Jim
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        I am only talking about the first 6 to 8 weeks. Rape exceptions typically don't make such a limitation, nevertheless I think that a person raped and pregnant would need to act in that period to avoid crossing that line from the fetus having only the potential to be a person to actually being a person. At that point I believe we enter the realm where only if the life of the mother is in immediate danger can it be justified.
                        The minute you make one exception, you have lost. You have granted the opposition's proposal that the fetus is not a human individual. Therefore, you have no logical reason to deny ANY mother the right to murder their child at any stage.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          They are only incompatible if you think that it lack of status as a full human person means it has no value, or that it is not human. Which reminds me, I should thank each of you in that in our debate on this issue I was being too careless with my language and giving the impression that somehow I ascribed little value to this phase - it is still a human fetus, it still, if allowed to develop will be a human person. This is no trivial thing. IOW, the distinction is not sufficient to justify abortion on demand.



                          I am only talking about the first 6 to 8 weeks. Rape exceptions typically don't make such a limitation, nevertheless I think that a person raped and pregnant would need to act in that period to avoid crossing that line from the fetus having only the potential to be a person to actually being a person. At that point I believe we enter the realm where only if the life of the mother is in immediate danger can it be justified.



                          I'm not sure why this is so hard to communicate. The raped women that is pregnant has been forced to become pregnant. This changes the character and the morality of the situation completely. As I said to Sparko, it is not only her distress, but also the fact that her distress was imposed upon her, not the consequence of her own choices and willful actions. There are a who host of mitigating psychological and physical issues related to the rape which compound her distress and which alter the morality of the situation in that added to the equation is her victimhood, her lack of personal responsibility for the situation existing.


                          Jim
                          You say that an abortion after rape should only be allowed in the first 6- to 8-weeks after conception. Why? Your emotionally charged arguments throughout this thread have said how insane, and cruel, and lacking in compassion it would be to force a rape victim to carry a baby to term. Why does that not continue to be the case just because you think the baby might have crossed over some magic line into "personhood"?

                          You wrote, "[My positions] are only incompatible if you think that [a] lack of status as a full human person means it has no value, or that it is not human."

                          But earlier you said that at the very earliest stages of pregnancy "the physical elements that allow for person-hood simply don't exist yet," and in your response to Chawnrus, you likened a fetus without a nervous system to a corpse. Does a corpse have value? I also suspect some goalpost moving on your part with the addition of the word "full". Are you saying that before a certain point, the embryo is a person, just not a "full" person? What does that even mean?

                          Either the embryo has value from the moment of conception, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, and suggesting that it has value only if the sex was consensual, but not if the mother was raped, is illogical. Why should the manner of conception make any difference? If it has no value than any woman should be allowed to abort for any reason. If it does then no woman should be allowed to abort except for very narrow and clearly defined medical reasons.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            I don't think so. When the body dies, the soul no longer inhabits it. We reject the concept of the soul as inhabiting inanimate objects or even inanimate human tissue such as an arm or a leg if they are severed. Therefore it is reasonable not to expect a soul to inhabit the inanimate human tissue developing into the baby until it reaches the point it has some capacity to be an animate being - which does not occur until the nervous system develops.
                            How is this anything other than question begging? We don't think a soul doesn't inhabit a severed arm or a leg, so therefore it's reasonable not to expect a soul to inhabit an embryo before the nervous system develops? I certainly don't agree that the reason I reject the concept of a soul inhabiting a severed arm or a leg is because it is "inanimate human tissue", but rather because it is tissue that is no longer connected to a living human organism. At no point in development is an embryo anything other than a living human organism.

                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            We also know that the personality and state of being is inextricably tied to the brain. Damage the brain, and the person can indeed change - sometimes completely.
                            Which does not in itself prove that personhood is dependent on a nervous system. It proves that changes in the nervous system can influence personality and/or behavior, not that personhood itself depends on the existence of a brain, or nervous system.

                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            We also recognize death has occurred when the brain ceases to function. We do not consider that the soul hangs around once that occurs.
                            But we do consider that the soul survives the death of the brain (so it is not dependent on it for it's existence), and being a Christian you have no good reason to assume that the soul couldn't exist prior to the formation of the brain. If the soul is not dependent on the brain for it's existence after brain-death, why should it be dependent upon it's existence prior to the development of the brain?

                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            I'm merely looking at all of this and logically applying it in reverse. Before there is a brain, there is no person there yet.
                            By your logic I would have to conclude since there is no nervous system/brain to support the existence of the person after death, therefore the person ceases to exist if the brain is destroyed. And this notion is (or should be) absurd to any professing Christian.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              How is this anything other than question begging? We don't think a soul doesn't inhabit a severed arm or a leg, so therefore it's reasonable not to expect a soul to inhabit an embryo before the nervous system develops? I certainly don't agree that the reason I reject the concept of a soul inhabiting a severed arm or a leg is because it is "inanimate human tissue", but rather because it is tissue that is no longer connected to a living human organism. At no point in development is an embryo anything other than a living human organism.



                              Which does not in itself prove that personhood is dependent on a nervous system. It proves that changes in the nervous system can influence personality and/or behavior, not that personhood itself depends on the existence of a brain, or nervous system.



                              But we do consider that the soul survives the death of the brain (so it is not dependent on it for it's existence), and being a Christian you have no good reason to assume that the soul couldn't exist prior to the formation of the brain. If the soul is not dependent on the brain for it's existence after brain-death, why should it be dependent upon it's existence prior to the development of the brain?



                              By your logic I would have to conclude since there is no nervous system/brain to support the existence of the person after death, therefore the person ceases to exist if the brain is destroyed. And this notion is (or should be) absurd to any professing Christian.
                              Having seen demonic phenomenon, and known others who have, I also disagree with his stance that inanimate matter can't have a soul/spirit "in" it. I think he's trying to simply say rocks don't have rock "souls", therefor no inanimate matter has a spirit/soul in it. It's not a valid syllogism.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                                How is this anything other than question begging? We don't think a soul doesn't inhabit a severed arm or a leg, so therefore it's reasonable not to expect a soul to inhabit an embryo before the nervous system develops? I certainly don't agree that the reason I reject the concept of a soul inhabiting a severed arm or a leg is because it is "inanimate human tissue", but rather because it is tissue that is no longer connected to a living human organism. At no point in development is an embryo anything other than a living human organism.



                                Which does not in itself prove that personhood is dependent on a nervous system. It proves that changes in the nervous system can influence personality and/or behavior, not that personhood itself depends on the existence of a brain, or nervous system.



                                But we do consider that the soul survives the death of the brain (so it is not dependent on it for it's existence), and being a Christian you have no good reason to assume that the soul couldn't exist prior to the formation of the brain. If the soul is not dependent on the brain for it's existence after brain-death, why should it be dependent upon it's existence prior to the development of the brain?



                                By your logic I would have to conclude since there is no nervous system/brain to support the existence of the person after death, therefore the person ceases to exist if the brain is destroyed. And this notion is (or should be) absurd to any professing Christian.
                                I never implied or said the soul ceased to exist. I said it didnt hang around, iow, it leaves, goes to be with Christ if a Christian. This body is only the dwelling of the soul while the body is alive.

                                Jim
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X