Pastor Protection Bill derail

[rogue06]

Oh, I'm sure it has, some though try to argue that they are talking about killing in the womb and not outside of it (as though the process of birth magically brings about the right to life) and try to say that 'nobody is talking about infanticide'. Glad to see that shell is coming apart.

It seems that some on the left are so militantly "pro-choice" that not even birth is enough to stem their support for abortion

[rogue06]

But we should remember not all 'pro-abortion' advocates are this extreme. My position differs markedly from Starlight's. To push all opposing viewpoints to an extreme is equally a fallacy and unhelpful.

I don't think that anyone argues that it is a majority viewpoint among those who are pro-abortion. Nevertheless it is indeed chilling that this even gets serious consideration in some quarters.

[lilpixieofterror]

But we should remember not all 'pro-abortion' advocates are this extreme. My position differs markedly from Starlight's. To push all opposing viewpoints to an extreme is equally a fallacy and unhelpful.

Killing in the womb, really isn't any better.

[pancreasman]

Killing in the womb, really isn't any better.

In your opinion, which I understand.

[lilpixieofterror]

In your opinion, which I understand.

And what makes a person less worthy of life, at any stage in life? Really, both positions are not really any different, in their logic. They both draw a line in the sand and say anybody on that side of the line can be killed while anybody on the other side can not be killed. The only real difference is where that line is drawn at.

[CMD]

It seems that some on the left are so militantly "pro-choice" that not even birth is enough to stem their support for abortion

And many of those same people will cry about capital punishment being "barbaric" and "inhumane."

Apparently in these people's minds, the lives of "men" like the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs (google at your own peril) or other equally disgusting monsters are more precious and valuable than the lives of infants.

[pancreasman]

And what makes a person less worthy of life, at any stage in life? Really, both positions are not really any different, in their logic. They both draw a line in the sand and say anybody on that side of the line can be killed while anybody on the other side can not be killed. The only real difference is where that line is drawn at.

I'll do you the courtesy of answering your question, since it is a legitimate one and you didn't call me an 'idiot' or 'sweetie', but this will probably be my last word on the subject since I think I've put my position calmly and clearly and obviously neither of us is going to convince the other. These conversations from this point tend to devolve into more and more bitter exchanges without producing much new.

My answer: I think you're assuming what has yet to be proven, ie, a notion of personhood and to whom it applies. I do not believe a fertilised egg is a 'person'. It exhibits no elements that I would normally associate with a person. When does personhood begin? I have already asserted that for me personhood requires a complex nervous system such that pain and suffering (and possibly self awareness) can be experienced. According to my admittedly quick research, this looks to be somewhere from 8 to 12 weeks. Based on that definition then abortion before this time is not 'killing a person'. There is nothing inherently wrong with 'lines in the sand'. Doctors use them all the time to determine when to shut off machines that sustain life in badly injured patients.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'll do you the courtesy of answering your question, since it is a legitimate one and you didn't call me an 'idiot' or 'sweetie', but this will probably be my last word on the subject since I think I've put my position calmly and clearly and obviously neither of us is going to convince the other. These conversations from this point tend to devolve into more and more bitter exchanges without producing much new.

What do you expect? I can not or will not support a view that draws random lines in the sand that says killing people at certain stages of life is not only moral, but perfectly justified.

My answer: I think you're assuming what has yet to be proven, ie, a notion of personhood and to whom it applies. I do not believe a fertilised egg is a 'person'. It exhibits no elements that I would normally associate with a person. When does personhood begin? I have already asserted that for me personhood requires a complex nervous system such that pain and suffering (and possibly self awareness) can be experienced. According to my admittedly quick research, this looks to be somewhere from 8 to 12 weeks. Based on that definition then abortion before this time is not 'killing a person'. There is nothing inherently wrong with 'lines in the sand'. Doctors use them all the time to determine when to shut off machines that sustain life in badly injured patients.

Few women are going to have any idea they have a fertilized egg in them to start with and likely will not know they are pregnant for several weeks (trust me, I didn't). Besides, trying to compare brain dead patience's with fertilized eggs and various stages of human development is comparing apples to oranges. Brain dead people don't tend to recover from their condition. They will likely always be brain dead from that moment until their bodies finally give out and stop breathing. In terms of fetal development, that isn't the same. It is the natural process of human development that really is no different, than any other stage of human development. We all pass though these different stages in life from that fertilized egg up to an adult. What right does anybody have to determine, at X stage(s) of life, you are not worthy of living? Why should brain development be that line in the sand? Why not heartbeat? Why not development of limbs? Why not fertilization? Why does it even have to be drawn in the womb? To be fair, Starlight is being perfectly consistent, he's just drawing the line further along than you're comfortable with, but his line still is just one line of many to choose from that has a wide rage of justifications to try to defend it. Brain development is just another line in the sand that can't be objectively explained as being a 'proper' line anymore than other lines can be.

[Jesse]

You honestly don't understand why Christians (of any time period) would have a problem with dismembering a small baby using hooks and spikes?

Of course he knows. He's either a liar (the most likely) or too stupid/lazy to go read the church fathers I provided to see why they thought the way they did. The great thing about this thread, other than what Cow Poke brought to our attention, is seeing Starlight expressing his sociopathy freely. It truly is a sight to behold.

[lilpixieofterror]

Of course he knows. He's either a liar (the most likely) or too stupid/lazy to go read the church fathers I provided to see why they thought the way they did. The great thing about this thread, other than what Cow Poke brought to our attention, is seeing Starlight expressing his sociopathy freely. It truly is a sight to behold.

Thus why I said he shouldn't be allowed around children. Since he views their lives as disposable.

[Christianbookworm]

Wait... all humans will die before they reach 200 years of age. So, it would be okay for some immortal elves or something that lives longer than 200 years to kill humans. Does that make any sense? So, there will be many in heaven who didn't survive long enough to remember this life, but that could cover a range from fertilization to 4-5 years of age. Meaning they'll grow up in an utopia. But if some one were to kill one of the little ones, I would not want to be in their shoes on Judgement Day.

[Teallaura]

I was born into a Christian family, and spent the first 20-something years of my life attending Church every Sunday and was a member of various interdenominational Christian groups. When I prayed for Jesus to come into my heart at the ages of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 etc, I certainly didn't know what Christians generally thought about gay rights and abortion. I understand these are now big issues in the US, but I heard almost nothing at all ever about either issue when growing up in the Church here in New Zealand. Abortion is legal and regulated here, and while there are a few fringe Christian groups that are anti-abortion, that is not a mainstream position, and I don't recall ever hearing it mentioned in Church. I imagine that the topic of homosexuality must have been quite controversial within the church during my childhood, however any mention of homosexuality was presumably hidden from my ears as a child as the topic was deemed "not fit for the ears of children", and again I don't recall hearing it ever mentioned in Church. When the political issue of Civil-Unions for gay people came up, all the Christians who I knew supported it, seeing it as a step towards equality for a minority group who had been suffering prejudice, and saw it as their Christian duty to support the oppressed.

When I first found out due to talking to other Christians on the internet that some Christians in the world thought the bible should be interpreted as anti-gay I was amused by their weird exegesis and discussed the topic with them, because I loved to discuss different interpretations of the bible. When I first found out around age 30 that the majority of Christians thought the bible was anti-gay and that gay people shouldn't be able to marry, I was absolutely furious - I felt tricked as they had never ever told me that this was a widespread teaching of Christianity. I was initially utterly baffled: Wasn't the whole concept of unequal rights for minorities something that got solved over 100 years ago? (In my country at least) It was not something I felt I was able to in any way accept or agree with, just as I would have not been able to accept or agree with if they had sprung on me that Christians were all against black people marrying or against rights for Jews.

You got mad because you hadn't bothered to actually read the Book?

[Teallaura]

I'll do you the courtesy of answering your question, since it is a legitimate one and you didn't call me an 'idiot' or 'sweetie', but this will probably be my last word on the subject since I think I've put my position calmly and clearly and obviously neither of us is going to convince the other. These conversations from this point tend to devolve into more and more bitter exchanges without producing much new.

My answer: I think you're assuming what has yet to be proven, ie, a notion of personhood and to whom it applies. I do not believe a fertilised egg is a 'person'. It exhibits no elements that I would normally associate with a person. When does personhood begin? I have already asserted that for me personhood requires a complex nervous system such that pain and suffering (and possibly self awareness) can be experienced. According to my admittedly quick research, this looks to be somewhere from 8 to 12 weeks. Based on that definition then abortion before this time is not 'killing a person'. There is nothing inherently wrong with 'lines in the sand'. Doctors use them all the time to determine when to shut off machines that sustain life in badly injured patients.

The concept of personhood comes from Roe and is possibly the biggest reason even some liberal legal scholars wonder what the heck was going on in Blackmon's head. It's a really vague invention and the absolute most dangerous legal concept in the US Jurisprudence. It amazes me that civil rights leaders never even challenged it - it's insane. It threatens all the CR gains and then some.

Political winds change - and they can and will reverse themselves. Unthinkable now is commonplace - no one even remembers Quinlan let alone the assurances it wouldn't lead to euthanasia, et al. Roe with its entry of 'personhood' as a criterion for the right to live opens the door to a return to slavery. Yeah, unthinkable - NOW - but the most certain thing about political will is that it changes. Legal protections are supposed to insure against the vicissitudes of political winds but Blackmon tore out one of the supports with his irrational work in Roe. Blackmon was a much better jurist than that - one wonders what possessed him.

[Starlight]

Hmm, well this has gone pretty much as I expected and why I stay out of abortion discussions in general. Because anti-abortionists just get really wound-up emotionally and throw out the hate but don't present any logical arguments at all.

The anti-abortionist movement in general seems to rely primarily on emotionalism and mass hysteria, with the occasional false biological 'facts' and occasional terrible theology thrown in. As I pointed out earlier, biblical law appears to make clear that <1 month-olds are not counted as humans, that fetuses are not legal persons when it comes to murder, and that abortion is a legitimate punishment for infidelity. Nor does there seem to be a basis for an anti-abortion stance in any sort of sound and logical secular reasoning: People tend to take a certain level of awareness and humanness as the cut-off and are okay with abortions occurring prior to that level of awareness developing. Most anti-abortionists seems to rely heavily on arguments about the fetus having an immortal soul, which I deconstructed.

"OMG the fetus has an immortal soul that you're killing!"

Okay, with that howler I can go to bed now. You guys can take over.

Hmm, sorry that sentence obviously should have read "OMG the fetus that you're killing has an immortal soul!" Obviously nobody's talking about killing the immortal soul, but rather the belief that the fetuses being killed have an immortal soul is part of what seems to inspire a lot of anti-abortion advocates.

Wait... all humans will die before they reach 200 years of age. So, it would be okay for some immortal elves or something that lives longer than 200 years to kill humans.

The humans would be self-aware, conscious, sentient beings, so the elves killing them is not okay. My general criteria is quality of life / level of cognitive functioning.

This and your previous posts in this thread make it sound you were extremely naive when you were a Christian.

Well I'd say all Christians are extremely naive...

I guess I'd describe myself in hindsight as being exceptionally informed in some areas, but pretty naive in others. I tended toward book-learning and was exceptionally well-read in biblical scholarship, but didn't necessarily pay much attention to social issues.

What denomination were you a member of, and how old were you when you left?

Baptist. I guess I was maybe around 28 when I stopped attending church.

Did you ask your pastor any of these oddball questions you had about gay marriage and abortion, and if so, what was his answer?

These were not issues at the time. During the ~25 years I attended churches and Christian organisations I don't recall any positions on gay rights or abortion issues being advocated. This country had legal and regulated abortion, and gay non-discrimination business laws, and they were taken for granted by everyone and I don't recall them being discussed. I do recall knowing that there existed some Christians that were anti-abortion, but I don't recall ever having that view advocated to me as being the 'correct' position. Civil-unions for same-sex couples caused a bit of a disturbance, because an extremist Christian sect did a public march in protest of it, and got soundly mocked by most Christians I knew who were all in favor of civil-unions.

Which work of NT Wright's had you questioning the idea of an immortal soul?

I don't recall where I first heard the idea from. In Wright's book Surprised by Hope he writes "the idea that every human possesses an immortal soul, which is the ‘real’ part of them, finds little support in the Bible.”" He has quite a complex view which he expounds on here. Eventually I stopped reading Wright though because I found him to be a bit too off-the-wall random for my tastes - I thought he occasionally had some good ideas but he had about 5 bad ideas for every good idea he managed to come up with.

[hamster]

As you well know, the entire abortion debate centers on the interpretation of what the fetus is. Whether it is thought of as fully-human with a soul, or as a potential-human that is still developing. As such, to say a fetus is just a 'small baby' begs the question,

It doesn't beg the question, christians clearly thought they were small babies, and I'm not sure how a fetus could have limbs and a head and not look like a "small baby." For most of its time in the womb it literally looks small and like a baby, regardless of whether or not it has a soul or whatever magic trait would stop you from being okay with dismembering them