Abortion discussions and debates


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

I can't think of why you would say that not even I can tell God not to put a soul on a 1-day old fetus, because of course I wouldn't presume to.  But imagining that God would be fairly consistent seemed reasonable to me when I made my supposition, and I've been wrong before about a lot of things. If our objective were to attempt to find a point of agreement with regard to  the "crux" how would you choose to proceed?

Proceed to debate on when Life Begins.  Come up with a consensus.  Then make it so.

The Constitution is bound to protect Life.

 

Are you wanting to debate it here and now?

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2016 at 6:08 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Abortion debates are difficult, because they go to the heart of our morality, ethics, compassion, and humanity. Sadly, both sides too often despise each other. Pro-choicers are called Nazis and we pro-lifers are religious terrorists. For most, the reality is that pro-lifers care deeply about teen moms, and desire that all babies and single parents would experience safety and provision. Most pro-choicers would be fine with a world in which abortions are rare, so long as desperate mothers have access. If we continue to condemn hurting people and gin up the angry rhetoric, I suspect the extremists will capture both sides, and most people will just withdraw from the discussions.

Sadly that seems to be the way for most issues now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is massively polarized because of those who benefit from that polarization.  Political candidates want to appeal to one side or the other, and are stirring up peoples' emotions to motivate them to get out and vote.  News and commentary outlets have more viewers/listeners when things are polarized, so they discuss and report on it in such a way as to stir things up. 

Most people really would like to come together on this and figure it out, but we've been conditioned to fight over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2016 at 7:08 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Pro-choicers are called Nazis and we pro-lifers are religious terrorists. 

IMO, part of that should be easy to solve through licensing the term; you only get to call someone a Nazi if you've watched Night Will Fall in the last 6 months.

Now we need a similar film about ISIS' atrocities to put as the requirement for calling someone a religious terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Somebody smarter than me is going to have to explain how "prudence" trumps protecting the-growing-product-of-human-reproduction, given that this life form will certainly become human life, and, at least according to many world religions, already is "ensouled humanity."

Well, I certainly don't think that I'm smarter than you are, Chaplain.  Can you think of any way two people could overcome what would seem to be an impasse?  One person thinks protecting the growing product of human reproduction is paramount.  Another person doesn't.  One person thinks a fertilized human egg has a soul.  Another person thinks a fertilized human egg is nothing more than the beginning of a process and that it doesn't have a soul.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

The issue is massively polarized because of those who benefit from that polarization.  Political candidates want to appeal to one side or the other, and are stirring up peoples' emotions to motivate them to get out and vote.  News and commentary outlets have more viewers/listeners when things are polarized, so they discuss and report on it in such a way as to stir things up. 

Most people really would like to come together on this and figure it out, but we've been conditioned to fight over it.

I would like to believe that most people would like to come together as you say.  I don't blame politicians, though.  But threads like this one make it hard to find a reason to believe--and this thread has been mild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

Well, I certainly don't think that I'm smarter than you are, Chaplain.  Can you think of any way two people could overcome what would seem to be an impasse?  One person thinks protecting the growing product of human reproduction is paramount.  Another person doesn't.  One person thinks a fertilized human egg has a soul.  Another person thinks a fertilized human egg is nothing more than the beginning of a process and that it doesn't have a soul.  

Or not even human.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UT.starscoper said:

Well, I certainly don't think that I'm smarter than you are, Chaplain.  Can you think of any way two people could overcome what would seem to be an impasse?  One person thinks protecting the growing product of human reproduction is paramount.  Another person doesn't.  One person thinks a fertilized human egg has a soul.  Another person thinks a fertilized human egg is nothing more than the beginning of a process and that it doesn't have a soul.  

I defer to classic Oxford debate rules:  The burden of proof is on those who advocate change.  Until relatively recent history abortion was outlawed everywhere. There was a baby inside that tummy, and it was not right to kill him/her. Along came a movement that said, "Who knows...who's to say...let the mother decide."  Mother is not a doctor, scientist, ethicist, nor a theologian. Often she is a desperate, early-to-mid-teen, who's being pressured by her parents, boyfriend, and boyfriend's parents to get rid of the evidence. It could even be argued that mother has a conflict of interest in this decision.  Let the pro-choicers prove that that unborn babies have no soul and are not human. Then we can talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 17, 2016 at 6:18 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I am not sure what a middle of the road position would be on abortion. If I ever hope to have a part in stopping them, I will do better by respecting those I disagree with, and trying to win them over, rather than through fiery condemnations that only gin up the anger of those who already agree with me.

If you rely on the Oxford Debate Rules and insist that your opponents have the burden of proof before you'll talk, then I'm puzzled.  It reads like you want to win them over but don't want to talk to them until they prove their position to you. But of course they can't, can they?  Therefore, it seems you'll be left to admonish your fellows on threads such as this to stop condemning them as you say and to try to avoid ginning up their anger since they already agree with you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been claimed that until relatively recent history abortion was outlawed everywhere.  A counter-claim I have often read is that the Old Testament refers to abortion in terms of loss of property and not sanctity of human life, demonstrated by the law that if a person caused a miscarriage they had to pay a fine to the husband of the woman, but if they also caused the woman's death they would be liable to be killed in retribution.  Is the counter-claim nonsense in the context of abortion being outlawed everywhere?

Edited by UT.starscoper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UT... the be precise, abortion was outlawed nearly everywhere.  The rationale that there's a baby in the tummy is mine. I suspect many believed that, but your OT example is a valid point--except that women were often treated as property in ancient cultures too.  The idea of burden of proof is not to say that the status quo is always morally superior, but rather that if one wants to bring change it's on them to prove the demerits of current morality, and the superiority of the change they wish to bring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

UT... the be precise, abortion was outlawed nearly everywhere.  The rationale that there's a baby in the tummy is mine. I suspect many believed that, but your OT example is a valid point--except that women were often treated as property in ancient cultures too.  The idea of burden of proof is not to say that the status quo is always morally superior, but rather that if one wants to bring change it's on them to prove the demerits of current morality, and the superiority of the change they wish to bring.

Yes, I felt confident that the rationale of a baby in the tummy is yours (and of course just about everyone who opposes abortion).  It's much easier to feel one has the high ground if we call it a baby instead of a clinical term like fetus. But I don't see the value in pointing out that women were often treated as property in ancient cultures, because in this case my point was that in the particular OT culture and case in question they treated property and human life differently. The baby/fetus was apparently property and the woman was apparently human life.  

I don't have a problem with burden of proof traditions in formal debate.  But this thread can hardly be construed as such.  And I'm not trying to win.  I'm only trying to talk about the issue--and to a certain extent I am role-playing.  If you were to ask me why I believe something, I would do my best to give you reasons.  If I had nothing I would probably say so and confess that it's just my feeling, my belief, it makes me feel good, whatever.  I respect your feelings if you don't want to talk about it.  To harass you (as I've seen some others do to one another) would be mean-spirited at best.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Of course we can.  I just wasn't sure if that's what you meant.

I think I prefer to avoid the term debate because I don't want something with such a formal or combative connotation. Moreover, I'm rarely so set in my position on many issues that I won't admit it when I hear something that makes me think twice. I would much more enjoy the ability to ask why you think a certain way, and of course I would reciprocate.  For example, what makes you assert that a human egg penetrated by a human sperm has a soul?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UT.starscoper said:

Yes, I felt confident that the rationale of a baby in the tummy is yours (and of course just about everyone who opposes abortion).  It's much easier to feel one has the high ground if we call it a baby instead of a clinical term like fetus. But I don't see the value in pointing out that women were often treated as property in ancient cultures, because in this case my point was that in the particular OT culture and case in question they treated property and human life differently. The baby/fetus was apparently property and the woman was apparently human life.  

The Old Testament view is apparently as complicated as Protestant Christian denominationalism.  However, the assertion that to kill/harm a fetus was to damage property is not universally accepted in Judaism.  Apparently, there is a good deal of conversation about whether such is murder, 'murder but' and over whether the prohibition against harming unborn life is biblical or rabbinic.  However, there is one consensus in Judaism: 

From Aish.com:  Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.

I don't have a problem with burden of proof traditions in formal debate.  But this thread can hardly be construed as such.  And I'm not trying to win.

My suggestion was that the pro-choice side won legalization by convincing SCOTUS to legislate from the bench.  Given the huge moral shift our culture experienced, they should have had to win over a large majority to their viewpoint--the burden of proof should have been on them, not those upholding traditional prohibition against abortion.

 I'm only trying to talk about the issue--and to a certain extent I am role-playing.  If you were to ask me why I believe something, I would do my best to give you reasons.  If I had nothing I would probably say so and confess that it's just my feeling, my belief, it makes me feel good, whatever.  I respect your feelings if you don't want to talk about it.  To harass you (as I've seen some others do to one another) would be mean-spirited at best.

Like so many on the pro-life side, I remain saddened that we allow abortions, which are at least as likely as not to mean the killing of 'ensouled' human life, without a majority of Americans having ever consented.  I still remember in the 70s that my state forced taxpayers to pay for the abortions of most who got them.  So that's my feeling on it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UT.starscoper said:

 For example, what makes you assert that a human egg penetrated by a human sperm has a soul?

The Christian answer is that God formed us, and knew us in the womb (I believe the reference is in the Psalms).  The materialist answer is that the offspring of a human should be considered human until proven otherwise.  Again, even if we cannot prove ensoulment begins at conception, it should be up to the pro-choice side to prove that it does not.  Who decided that killing is okay until pro-lifers can prove life is human???? Frankly, I find this bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The Christian answer is that God formed us, and knew us in the womb (I believe the reference is in the Psalms). 

Are you referring to: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:5)? I have my own thoughts about the relevance or irrelevance to our topic, but explain a little further about how you feel this means that the soul was placed into the fetus at conception, as opposed to, say, the third Trimester or later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The materialist answer is that the offspring of a human should be considered human until proven otherwise.  Again, even if we cannot prove ensoulment begins at conception, it should be up to the pro-choice side to prove that it does not.  Who decided that killing is okay until pro-lifers can prove life is human???? Frankly, I find this bizarre.

Do you think it's important (as I think it is) to avoid misunderstanding that comes from mixing words and word meanings like human and human being?  Everybody considers offspring of a human being to be a human being. But not everybody considers an object that is unquestionably human in nature to be a human being.  We both know that neither of us can prove the positive nor the negative of ensoulment, so why waste our energy citing burden of proof?  However, we *can* simply share with one another as you did citing Psalms what motivates us to feel the way we do.  I like that you did that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UT.starscoper said:

Are you referring to: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:5)? I have my own thoughts about the relevance or irrelevance to our topic, but explain a little further about how you feel this means that the soul was placed into the fetus at conception, as opposed to, say, the third Trimester or later.

I actually had in mind Psalm 139:13 For Thou hast made my reins; Thou hast knit me together in my mother's womb. (JPS: Tanach) --thought I'd use the Jewish version here.

Both Jeremiah and Psalms indicate God is already deeply involved in our coming together, in the womb. He knows us. And yes, He knew of us, before we were conceived. So, if He knows of us as we are about to start, and is engaged in our development in the womb, how hard is it for believers in God to conclude that once we're started God's doing his work in us.

Further, given that we're created in God's image, and God's working on us, should we not keep hands off from the get-go\?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I actually had in mind Psalm 139:13 For Thou hast made my reins; Thou hast knit me together in my mother's womb. (JPS: Tanach) --thought I'd use the Jewish version here.

Both Jeremiah and Psalms indicate God is already deeply involved in our coming together, in the womb. He knows us. And yes, He knew of us, before we were conceived. So, if He knows of us as we are about to start, and is engaged in our development in the womb, how hard is it for believers in God to conclude that once we're started God's doing his work in us.

Further, given that we're created in God's image, and God's working on us, should we not keep hands off from the get-go\?

I like that verse, although the fact that different versions (man-make interpretations) substitute verbs (made for possessed; knit for covered) that often aren't quite synonyms, which becomes problematic for our purpose here.  Still, I agree completely that God knew of us before we were conceived; and I agree that He knows of us as we are about to start.  My agreement on those two points, however, doesn't compel me to adopt the conclusion that He placed me into a biological cell that became two cells, then four cells, etc.  And so even calling myself a believer, It's a challenge (a stretch) in my mind to suppose that His engagement in a body within a womb routinely includes ensoulment at conception.  

Another fact enters into directing where my feeling goes with regard to this.  That fact is that in the United States alone (according to the March of Dimes as one source) there are each year more than 4 Million pregnancies *and* of those nine hundred thousand to a million spontaneous abortions.  Multiply the numbers as conservatively as one cares to choose by the number of other countries, i.e. thinking of the entire population on this planet and I'm prone to wonder about God's engagement in development inside the womb.  If God ensouls each conception and millions of those ensouled conceptions are spontaneously aborted every year, I think you can at least imagine some of the conclusions I'm prone to reach. I'm prone to wonder what the difference is between nature "killing" a fertilized egg with a soul in it and Jane Doe choosing to "kill" a fertilized egg with a soul in it.  Opposite conclusions about ensoulment of those fertilized eggs are much easier for me to accept.

And now I'm thinking about your last question (... given that we're created in God's image, and God's working on us, should we not keep hands off from the get-go\?).  Similar to my thoughts already mentioned, I don't see how the conclusion ought to be derived from the premise.  God apparently *expects* us to have our hands on from the get-go.  Except for some possible pretty specific scriptural exceptions it appears to me that the rule is that who has sexual intercourse with whom is pretty much a hands-on decision totally left to us. A woman choosing to abort a fertilized egg (or a fetus less than 12 weeks along) seems to me to be just one in hundreds of hands-on decisions that God leaves to us--and I'm talking only about decisions with regard to our topic. So, to say that I'm made in God's image and that God works on me doesn't produce in my mind the conclusion that He expects me to keep my hands off these things from the get-go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

I think I prefer to avoid the term debate because I don't want something with such a formal or combative connotation. Moreover, I'm rarely so set in my position on many issues that I won't admit it when I hear something that makes me think twice. I would much more enjoy the ability to ask why you think a certain way, and of course I would reciprocate.  For example, what makes you assert that a human egg penetrated by a human sperm has a soul?

Debates are actually great and doesn't need to be combative.

So... to your question:  What makes me assert that a human egg penetrated by a human sperm has a soul?

My answer:  Question is irrelevant to the issue.  The question assumes that all Americans believe that you're human because you have a soul... an assumption that is not rooted in reality.  It's not wise to legislate something not rooted in reality.

Your turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

I think I prefer to avoid the term debate because I don't want something with such a formal or combative connotation. Moreover, I'm rarely so set in my position on many issues that I won't admit it when I hear something that makes me think twice. I would much more enjoy the ability to ask why you think a certain way, and of course I would reciprocate.  For example, what makes you assert that a human egg penetrated by a human sperm has a soul?

Debates are actually great and doesn't need to be combative.

So... to your question:  What makes me assert that a human egg penetrated by a human sperm has a soul?

My answer:  Question is irrelevant to the issue.  The question assumes that all Americans believe that you're human because you have a soul... an assumption that is not rooted in reality.  It's not wise to legislate something not rooted in reality.

Your turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share