Trump Tax derail - Abortion

[Starlight]

I am not a trump supporter, therefore i am a 'liberal'

You also once tried to do careful biblical exegesis rather than simply read modern evangelical teaching wholesale into the text, specifically with regard to abortion, therefore you are a liberal.

[oxmixmudd]

...which doesn't mean you're necessarily liberal. It just means that I don't have a whole lot of data to go on. I have 1) your claim you voted for Republican presidential nominees who won (until Trump), and, recently, your stance on abortion - which seems rather more centrist than conservative.

You don't read very carefully. Which has a lot to do with why you and others pick fights. I am against abortion. I would not call that a 'centrist' position. The debate we were having was a technical one over a specific interpretation of a specific Hebrew text that is sometimes used to justify abortion, which came from me being asked how I would define when the developing fetus becomes human. I approached that answer more from the scientific side, which is how it would have to be approached LEGALLY, which is the only way it can be approached as a matter of law. We do not allow laws to be made that reinforce the religious positions of one religion over another. Keeping in mind that our source faith, Judaism, regards a baby as garnering a soul at birth, not conception. So no law that outlaws abortion from conception for religious reasons could ever stand a legal test. The only possible law restricting abortion would necessarily need to be based on a scientific definition of when the fetus takes on full or nearly full human characteristics.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

You don't read very carefully. Which has a lot to do with why you and others pick fights. I am against abortion. I would not call that a 'centrist' position. The debate we were having was a technical one over a specific interpretation of a specific Hebrew text that is sometimes used to justify abortion, which came from me being asked how I would define when the developing fetus becomes human. I approached that answer more from the scientific side, which is how it would have to be approached LEGALLY, which is the only way it can be approached as a matter of law. We do not allow laws to be made that reinforce the religious positions of one religion over another. Keeping in mind that our source faith, Judaism, regards a baby as garnering a soul at birth, not conception. So no law that outlaws abortion from conception for religious reasons could ever stand a legal test. The only possible law restricting abortion would necessarily need to be based on a scientific definition of when the fetus takes on full or nearly full human characteristics.

Scientifically? The obviously correct answer is that human life begins at the moment of conception. This is by far the majority view you'll find in any scientific text that addresses the question. The fact that liberals tend to fight against this fact should tell you that those in favor of abortion really don't care about the science and are only interested in pushing a political agenda. Of course they try to muddy the waters with concepts like "personhood" and other attempts to differentiate between "human life" and "human being", but that takes us away from "settled science" and into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics, which is the very thing you claim laws should NOT be based on. It does your reputation little good to so easily fall for such an obvious bait-and-switch.

[One Bad Pig]

You don't read very carefully. Which has a lot to do with why you and others pick fights.

I don't pick fights (well, with non-trolls; I don't consider you a troll).

I am against abortion. I would not call that a 'centrist' position. The debate we were having was a technical one over a specific interpretation of a specific Hebrew text that is sometimes used to justify abortion, which came from me being asked how I would define when the developing fetus becomes human. I approached that answer more from the scientific side, which is how it would have to be approached LEGALLY, which is the only way it can be approached as a matter of law.

And now I'm not sure what you mean by 'against abortion'. Is it only abortion, in your opinion, after the fetus meets your 'scientific' criteria for being human?

We do not allow laws to be made that reinforce the religious positions of one religion over another.

Then why are you arguing from Judaism?

Keeping in mind that our source faith, Judaism, regards a baby as garnering a soul at birth, not conception.

Judaism is not our source faith. Judaism is a hostile Jewish reaction to the Christian faith.

So no law that outlaws abortion from conception for religious reasons could ever stand a legal test. The only possible law restricting abortion would necessarily need to be based on a scientific definition of when the fetus takes on full or nearly full human characteristics.

Jim

From the standpoint of science, a person is a unique individual from the moment of conception. If you were arguing from a Christian point of view - which is, after all, your religion, abortion would also be outlawed from the moment of conception; the canons of the early church were quite consistent in that regard.

[Starlight]

Keeping in mind that our source faith, Judaism, regards a baby as garnering a soul at birth, not conception.

When I was a Christian I took the view that if indeed "a soul" was something that existed in and of itself that created inside of / put inside of humans, then God would decide a sensible time to do that based on his omniscience and general competence. Since over half of conceived embryos die naturally and do not survive to term, it would seem a bit silly for God to put souls into them at conception, and it would seem more sensible for him to wait until they had survived the part where they were likely to die. Depending on his level of foreknowledge (open theism etc) he may know exactly whether a fetus would survive to term and so presumably wouldn't bother to put a soul into a fetus that was going to die pre-birth. Alternatively he could simply recycle the soul of a fetus that didn't get a chance at life back into a new fetus, until it got to live a length of life he deemed acceptable.

So as a Christian I always found it difficult to care at all about the abortion issue, because I couldn't see any reason to think God didn't have the issue well in hand, and the Bible doesn't place any emphasis on anti-abortion views to the extent that it even mentions the subject at all.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't pick fights (well, with non-trolls; I don't consider you a troll).

And now I'm not sure what you mean by 'against abortion'. Is it only abortion, in your opinion, after the fetus meets your 'scientific' criteria for being human?

The scientific criteria is the legality. It is legal to get wasted drunk if you don't drive a car. I believe it is wrong to get wasted drunk period. But that is not an opinion I can legislate. It comes from my religious views. Likewise, my moral, religious opinion is that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy for convenience. But I can't legislate that religious opinion. But if I can establish a point where the developing zygote is clearly indistinguishable in matters of defining what is a person from a full term baby, then our laws that prevent murder can be (or could be) used to prevent abortion past that point.

Then why are you arguing from Judaism?

Because legally in the USA we don't enforce religious views with the law. Whatever reason we have for limiting abortion can't be based on a religion's teachings about that issue. I'm just illustrating why we can't. Judaism has a very different view than a good bit of Christianity on abortion. So we can't impose a Christian moral teaching about when human life begins on a Jewish person, unless the secular law already, for reasons other than religious moral teaching, happens to agree.

Judaism is not our source faith. Judaism is a hostile Jewish reaction to the Christian faith.

YIKES! Judaism is not a 'hostile reaction'. Judaism is Judaism. Excepting the destruction of the Temple, they practice (at least the orthodox) essentially the same faith Christ was raised in. Celebrate the same holidays, recite the same prayers. Judaism is the continuation of the Jewish faith from Christ's day until our own by the Jewish people who were not convinced Christ was Messiah. Calling it the 'hostile Jewish reaction to the Christian faith' is not far from the "Christ killers" cry that has resulted in much persecution of the Jewish people.

From the standpoint of science, a person is a unique individual from the moment of conception.

No - at conception you have a zygote. That is not a person or an individual - yet. It is one unspecialized cell that can become a human being. It is the very first stage of a developing human baby. But when that baby is fully developed, AFAIK, it will not contain any copies of the original zygote.

So if the zygote attaches to the mother's uterus and is allowed to grow and develop, and does not die for the reasons babies die in gestation, it will become a baby and a unique individual. And it is that potential to become a person that makes killing it wrong from a religious perspective. But our laws are not structured that way, and any arguments to change them must proceed from some secular basis. At least, that is how the courts interpret the establishment clause.

If you were arguing from a Christian point of view - which is, after all, your religion, abortion would also be outlawed from the moment of conception; the canons of the early church were quite consistent in that regard.

I'm not arguing about whether my religion regards the developing child as a person, I am talking about what our laws will allow. You can't make abortion illegal based solely on religious dogma in this country.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

When I was a Christian I took the view that if indeed "a soul" was something that existed in and of itself that created inside of / put inside of humans, then God would decide a sensible time to do that based on his omniscience and general competence. Since over half of conceived embryos die naturally and do not survive to term, it would seem a bit silly for God to put souls into them at conception, and it would seem more sensible for him to wait until they had survived the part where they were likely to die. Depending on his level of foreknowledge (open theism etc) he may know exactly whether a fetus would survive to term and so presumably wouldn't bother to put a soul into a fetus that was going to die pre-birth. Alternatively he could simply recycle the soul of a fetus that didn't get a chance at life back into a new fetus, until it got to live a length of life he deemed acceptable.

So as a Christian I always found it difficult to care at all about the abortion issue, because I couldn't see any reason to think God didn't have the issue well in hand, and the Bible doesn't place any emphasis on anti-abortion views to the extent that it even mentions the subject at all.

But abortion has long been an unacceptable practice in the church, although early arguments were not so much based on when the baby becomes human, but rather that because the child is what sanctifies the sexual act. Lust alone is wrong. The purpose of sexual desire is for making babies. Sex for the sake of sex then is wrong. Killing the only element that redeems the sex act is then doubly wrong. At least, in summary, this was the argument of Augustine.

For more details:

https://www.cultureoflife.org/2008/0...-biden-part-i/

Jim

[Starlight]

But abortion has long been an unacceptable practice in the church

Sure, lots of Christians have been against abortion. Lots of Christians have also been pro-choice, as many are today. Historically, attempts to put a theoretical strong anti-abortion stance into practice proved too problematic because of the resultant number of children, and a family having more children than they could provide for and being driven into poverty and starvation as a result wasn't ideal, especially if the children then died from hunger. Until the modern invention of effective contraceptives, Christian societies were pretty much forced to tolerate a certain level of abortion/infanticide in practice out of sheer necessity, regardless of how much a few ignorant male theologians in their ivory towers may have railed against the idea of it.

although early arguments were not so much based on when the baby becomes human, but rather that because the child is what sanctifies the sexual act. Lust alone is wrong. The purpose of sexual desire is for making babies. Sex for the sake of sex then is wrong.

I find that argument pretty amusing/horrific, as I tend to do for Roman Catholic theological ideas in general. It seems a mixture of absurd ideas, combined with the self-hating ingrained fear of pleasure that pervades some Christian thinkers.

IMO part of human love is physical intimacy and shared pleasure. Couples often enjoy holding hands, and it strengthens the bond between them, but it doesn't create children. Hand holding, hugging, cuddling, kissing, and sexual acts are all part of the general range of physically enjoying each others company and strengthening the love between them that couples engage in. To say that it would be wrong for a couple to have sex out of enjoyment of each others presence and a desire to be intimate with each other and to share their love for each other, in a context where they knew a child wasn't going to be created (e.g. using conception, post-menopause, non-penetrative sex etc), strikes me as about the same as saying it would be wrong for them to sit on the beach and hold hands and watch the sunset together.

this was the argument of Augustine.

He had lots of dumb ideas, including his invention of the doctrine of Original Sin based on the incorrect Latin translation of Rom 5:12 he had that said all humans sinned "in" Adam. I note, however, that Augustine didn't think the soul entered the fetus until birth, and though he was against abortion he didn't think it was the killing of an ensouled being.


I do grant your general point however, that Roman Catholics, by use of their... quirky... teleological logic can come up with reasons for being against abortion that don't have to do with it being an ensouled being. (Though I think the response of the average person in the street on hearing those arguments would be to scratch their heads and ask if you were actually serious.) But I think in the protestant theological framework that typically operates on more widely accepted views of logic, it's a lot harder to adequately justify an anti-abortion position. This is, of course, why being anti-abortion used to be viewed as a "Catholic thing", and why the Southern Baptist Convention endorsed abortion a couple of years before Roe v Wade did.

[Terraceth]

The scientific criteria is the legality. It is legal to get wasted drunk if you don't drive a car. I believe it is wrong to get wasted drunk period. But that is not an opinion I can legislate.

It is absolutely an opinion that can be legislated, as shown by the fact usage of substances such as cocaine are banned outright. Heck, the 21st Amendment, when repealing Prohibition, quite clearly gives individual states the ability to prohibit the usage of alcohol however they see fit. The reason drunkenness is not banned is not because doing so wouldn't be constitutional, but because such a law would be unpopular in the present time.

It comes from my religious views. Likewise, my moral, religious opinion is that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy for convenience. But I can't legislate that religious opinion. But if I can establish a point where the developing zygote is clearly indistinguishable in matters of defining what is a person from a full term baby, then our laws that prevent murder can be (or could be) used to prevent abortion past that point.

This sentiment confuses me. As John Hart Ely wrote in his critique of Roe v. Wade:

"But in any event, the argument that fetuses lack constitutional rights is simply irrelevant. For it has never been held or even asserted that the state interest needed to justify forcing a person to refrain from an activity, whether or not that activity is constitutionally protected, must implicate either the life or the constitutional rights of another person. Dogs are not "persons in the whole sense" nor have they constitutional rights, but that does not mean the state cannot prohibit killing them: It does not even mean the state cannot prohibit killing them in the exercise of the First Amendment right of political protest."

Because legally in the USA we don't enforce religious views with the law. Whatever reason we have for limiting abortion can't be based on a religion's teachings about that issue.

Given the fact that carpedm is an atheist and believes abortion is wrong at any point in the pregnancy after implantation--and has in fact stated such in this topic--it clearly seems that it is possible to have that opinion without religious views.

Even if I didn't have anyone to point to as a specific example, however, one is absolutely capable of passing laws based on a religious view of something, so long as they also serve some kind of secular purpose, as was demonstrated in McGowan v. Maryland. And the desire to protect potentiality of life is absolutely a compelling interest even from a non-religious standpoint. Even Roe v. Wade, in spite of its many errors, was willing to admit that.

[One Bad Pig]

The scientific criteria is the legality. It is legal to get wasted drunk if you don't drive a car. I believe it is wrong to get wasted drunk period. But that is not an opinion I can legislate. It comes from my religious views. Likewise, my moral, religious opinion is that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy for convenience. But I can't legislate that religious opinion. But if I can establish a point where the developing zygote is clearly indistinguishable in matters of defining what is a person from a full term baby, then our laws that prevent murder can be (or could be) used to prevent abortion past that point.

As I've said, a zygote is fully distinguishable as a separate human person from the moment of conception. No one else has that unique, complete set of DNA.

YIKES! Judaism is not a 'hostile reaction'. Judaism is Judaism. Excepting the destruction of the Temple, they practice (at least the orthodox) essentially the same faith Christ was raised in.

Without the Temple, Judaism is necessarily massively different.

Celebrate the same holidays, recite the same prayers.

Same holidays, yes. Same prayers, sorta. Prayers were specifically added to exclude Christians.

Judaism is the continuation of the Jewish faith from Christ's day until our own by the Jewish people who were not convinced Christ was Messiah. Calling it the 'hostile Jewish reaction to the Christian faith' is not far from the "Christ killers" cry that has resulted in much persecution of the Jewish people.

Historically, the practitioners of Judaism persecuted the nascent Christian faith. I'm sorry that history horrifies you. And no, I don't think that Christians should return the favor; they need Christ no less than anyone else, and persecution is a terrible way to communicate that.

No - at conception you have a zygote. That is not a person or an individual - yet. It is one unspecialized cell that can become a human being. It is the very first stage of a developing human baby. But when that baby is fully developed, AFAIK, it will not contain any copies of the original zygote.

So if the zygote attaches to the mother's uterus and is allowed to grow and develop, and does not die for the reasons babies die in gestation, it will become a baby and a unique individual.

It is already a unique individual from the moment of conception - regardless of how far it is along in development. Every single cell contains copies of the DNA from the original zygote; they've developed from it, but the content which makes each individual unique remains the same.

I'm not arguing about whether my religion regards the developing child as a person, I am talking about what our laws will allow. You can't make abortion illegal based solely on religious dogma in this country.

Jim

I'm not trying to.

[oxmixmudd]

The zygote is not an individual, yet. Proof? One word:

Twins

Jim

[Bill the Cat]

The zygote is not an individual, yet. Proof? One word:

Twins

Jim

You mean Monozygotic (Identical) Twins? Yes, truly a unique and not-understood phenomenon that in no way invalidates the claim of personhood of the zygote. All that changes is the number of persons, due to unknown circumstances.

[Roy]

As I've said, a zygote is fully distinguishable as a separate human person from the moment of conception. No one else has that unique, complete set of DNA.

Unless the zygote later divides into two separate entities which have different amniotic sacs and maybe different placentae, but which may be born as two distinct individuals which both share that supposedly "unique, complete set of DNA".

This process, which occurs in about 1 pregnancy in 300, is such a common, well-known phenomenon that anyone who claims "human life begins at the moment of conception" has no excuse for ignoring it.

Every single cell contains copies of the DNA from the original zygote; they've developed from it, but the content which makes each individual unique remains the same.

Apart from somatic mutations, which though an even more common phenomenon are not so well-known.

Edited to add: Ack! Ninjaed

[oxmixmudd]

You mean Monozygotic (Identical) Twins? Yes, truly a unique and not-understood phenomenon that in no way invalidates the claim of personhood of the zygote. All that changes is the number of persons, due to unknown circumstances.

What twins shows is that the dna is not the sole determiner of who and what the individual will be. The unique environment of the womb, even the same womb, plays a part. The zygote becomes the individual during gestation. It is not the individual yet, but has the potential to become one.

Or more.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Without the Temple, Judaism is necessarily massively different.

Same holidays, yes. Same prayers, sorta. Prayers were specifically added to exclude Christians.

Historically, the practitioners of Judaism persecuted the nascent Christian faith. I'm sorry that history horrifies you. And no, I don't think that Christians should return the favor; they need Christ no less than anyone else, and persecution is a terrible way to communicate that.

Half truths, spoken in ways that easily encourage negative concepts about the Jewish people. You're walking right up to anti-semitism OBP. Jews persecuted Christians at most 50 years, then is was the Romans for 300 until constantine's conversion in 350. Christians have been persecuting the Jews for more than 1700 years - of course some constructs to protect their faith have crept in. And thoughts like you express here are the seeds of Christian anti-semitism if not the real thing. Luther was quite the anti-semite, not to mention the legacy of anti-semitism found in the RCC, and over time that became rampant hostility to jews in Europe, which fed into what allowed the Holocaust. Anti-semitism is still significant in Europe, Rampant in Russia, and is huge in Islam. The Jewish faith IS our source faith OBP. And we as Christians can learn a very great deal about what Christ taught by understanding the teachings and practices of present day Judaism. And if they are ever to understand Christ was in fact Messiah, streams of anti-semitic thought like you have expressed here must end.




Jim