Jump to content

If a sovereign nation, such as the US, decides that abortion is a right, why should that have any bearing on anti-abortion Christians? Why can't anti-abortion Christians advocate against it while still respecting the decision of a secular government?


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, coolshades said:

Is a discussion necessary?   Why can't I just say, "Ok, that's an interesting point of view" and move on?

Because they are proposing a law that, if passed, would prevent people from getting blood transfusions. Obviously if they don’t want to get transfusions themselves, there’s no problem. Just like someone who doesn’t want to get an abortion isn’t harmed by abortions being legal. But once you move to criminalize the actions of other people, then you have to engage in some kind of dialogue.

 

8 hours ago, coolshades said:

 

And I don't see how that example is anything like someone believing abortion is wrong because life begins at conception.

They believe that a common lifesaving medical procedure is equivalent to murder. How is that any different? You were literally just saying that you think we shouldn’t interrogate other peoples reasons for their beliefs.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bare_trees said:

It's delusional because it's a routine medical procedure. A 6 month old is completely different because it isn't inside another person, taking resources from that person, not necessarily with that person's consent. Murder is cold-blooded and calculated.

 

I'm having a really difficult time not getting upset about this, and that's on me, I will concede. I hate that to most people, I have no worth beyond being a baby-making machine--something I will never actually be. Not anyone's fault in this thread that I'm overreacting, but I won't be responding in this thread anymore. 

I think this is an important topic because abortion is an important topic - too important for people to act on how they feel or on anger.  I strongly support abortion rights, and I'm pretty horrified that they are under threat in the US, but in our political system the best approach is to *convince* people. I think in order to convince people you need to really understand why they feel the way they do, so you know what sorts of arguments will work. 

 

There have been medical procedures that were common in the past that are viewed as horrifying today - like lobotomies. 

 

There are some anti-abortion people who want to oppress women, but I think the majority honestly believe that they are protecting the unborn.  How can we convince those to change their minds.

 

Congress can make abortion legal nationwide - if we have the votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calligraphette_Coe

I guess by now, everyone has seen the leaked draft opinion? IDK if it's only me, but Alito's opinon reminded me of something a Puritan would write. And I sitll don't think they can be trusted to not overturn other culture-war facets of the law that can't be pawned off as taking human life like gay marriage and the blanket reppeal of sodomy laws. Nor, again, contraception, which they will claim prevents eggs and sperm from creating human life.

 

Welcome to the Handmaid's Tale....

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, uhtred said:

There are some anti-abortion people who want to oppress women, but I think the majority honestly believe that they are protecting the unborn.  How can we convince those to change their minds

Get them to understand why people choose to have an elective abortion and solve those issues instead. 

 

Healthcare, contraception, childcare, financial assistance, daycare—these things which are cheap or free and easily accessible decrease elective abortion rates. Banning it does not decrease it much at all. More people just get injured trying to abort through the clothes hanger method, through drugs or alcohol or through physical trauma or starvation. It gets swept under the rug, that's it.

 

On the other hand, medical issues that require abortions cannot be debated. As we have seen time and time again, banning abortion or making a bar to cross for people to access it in medical emergencies leads to suffering and death. Ireland required the heartbeat to be dead before an abortion could be allowed which only lead to a poor woman 17 weeks pregnant suffering for days with sepsis as the fetus was already dying inside yet it still had a heart beat—she died which actually lead Ireland to change their laws. 

 

Rape victims must always have the option well. It is the rapists fault not theirs; they should not suffer for the rapist's decision. I know I would kill myself rather than be forced to go through that, and that just makes things worse for postpartun depression.

 

If anti-abortionists actually understood the reasons for why people make the decision to have an abortion they should be active in supporting families and children instead of forcing people to be incubators for abandoned foster kids. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
coolshades
On 5/3/2022 at 1:11 PM, uhtred said:

There are some anti-abortion people who want to oppress women, but I think the majority honestly believe that they are protecting the unborn.  How can we convince those to change their minds.

As one of those people, I'm never going to stop believing that stopping abortion protects the unborn.    The only way to convince us to support abortion is to convince us that the unborn are not human beings and therefore abortion is no different from having a limb amputated or removing your gallbladder.  And that's something that would be very difficult to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
coolshades
On 5/3/2022 at 3:52 PM, Calligraphette_Coe said:

I guess by now, everyone has seen the leaked draft opinion?

I haven't looked at it because it's not finalized and therefore could change.  My opinion is that the person who leaked it did it in the hopes that people would threaten the justices and try to bully them into changing their opinion.  And that's basically what's going on right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calligraphette_Coe
1 hour ago, coolshades said:

I haven't looked at it because it's not finalized and therefore could change.  My opinion is that the person who leaked it did it in the hopes that people would threaten the justices and try to bully them into changing their opinion.  And that's basically what's going on right now.

Well, there is a competing theory that it was a conservative that leaked it who wanted to 'fire a warning shot across the bow', so to say, such that anyone of the conservative majority  would feel exremelty uncomfortable taking  even a moderate stand that would not completley dismantle the decision. Alito's phrasing was, to me, a no compromise under any circumstances opinion. Personally, I think it was aimed at Justice Roberts and maybe even Gorsuch. Sorry, but I think the conservatives are capable of  being  that Machievellian.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coolshades said:

As one of those people, I'm never going to stop believing that stopping abortion protects the unborn.    The only way to convince us to support abortion is to convince us that the unborn are not human beings and therefore abortion is no different from having a limb amputated or removing your gallbladder.  And that's something that would be very difficult to do.

I accept that as a valid opinion.    But if we can discuss further -  in your view, when does it become a human being? Keeping in mind that IVF involves fertilizing eggs outside of the mother, and in the process many fertilized eggs need to be destroyed. Similarly for some forms of birth control.

 

Is there an early enough stage in the development of a fetus that you do not consider it to be human?   For me that (somewhat fuzzily) is when the complexity of the developing brain is more like human than any animal, since we accept that its legal to kill animals.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
coolshades
2 hours ago, uhtred said:

I accept that as a valid opinion.    But if we can discuss further -  in your view, when does it become a human being? Keeping in mind that IVF involves fertilizing eggs outside of the mother, and in the process many fertilized eggs need to be destroyed. Similarly for some forms of birth control.

 

Is there an early enough stage in the development of a fetus that you do not consider it to be human?   For me that (somewhat fuzzily) is when the complexity of the developing brain is more like human than any animal, since we accept that its legal to kill animals.

 

 

I consider it to be human once it is conceived.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bare_trees

In my state, there is currently a house bill to be debated that would charge women and others who have abortions with murder as well as criminalize IVF. Because that's what happens when people who believe embryos are people want to force everyone else to adhere to their delusions. And you better believe the Christian God was invoked by the preacher who co-authored this bill. I couldn't possibly care less about these people's delusions; people who receive medically necessary abortions and who miscarry will be on trial for murder. Pregnant people (though, let's be honest--this is misogynistic at its core even though it does not affect solely women) have fewer rights than corpses, from whom we can't take/use organs without prior consent. But my body can be used in this way regardless of my consent. Access to safe medical procedures is being debated in this thread coolly, like people aren't going to die needlessly. What a privilege it is to be able to do that. 🙄 Like all the white men who voted for this evil bill who could impregnate countless people with their sperm every day if they wanted to (and force them to get abortions, even) but will face no consequences whatsoever for their actions.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, coolshades said:

I consider it to be human once it is conceived.

OK,  but that does rule out some types of fertility treatments and some types of birth control.

 

I'm curious, why is conception the important step in your view? At that stage there is so little development.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
coolshades
15 hours ago, uhtred said:

OK,  but that does rule out some types of fertility treatments and some types of birth control.

 

I'm curious, why is conception the important step in your view? At that stage there is so little development.

I just feel that once a human being is created, doing anything to harm them is wrong, regardless of the level of development.  I've felt this way for a very long time, and it's probably the social issue that I feel most strongly about.  My views on other social issues have changed as I've gotten older, but not this one.  And I've heard every explanation in the book for why I should change my mind, but I never have, just as I know anyone who is pro-choice isn't going to change their minds either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bare_trees
13 minutes ago, coolshades said:

I just feel that once a human being is created, doing anything to harm them is wrong, regardless of the level of development.  I've felt this way for a very long time, and it's probably the social issue that I feel most strongly about.  My views on other social issues have changed as I've gotten older, but not this one.  And I've heard every explanation in the book for why I should change my mind, but I never have, just as I know anyone who is pro-choice isn't going to change their minds either.

Criminalizing abortion means women will die. You're ok with that. Just admit that you don't give a damn about someone who's already been born and be done with it. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
coolshades
1 minute ago, bare_trees said:

Criminalizing abortion means women will die. You're ok with that. Just admit that you don't give a damn about someone who's already been born and be done with it. 

I'm sorry, but you don't know me at all.  So please stop trying to dictate to me how I must feel or think about people simply because my viewpoint on a contentious issue is different from yours.  You don't see me disrespecting you and calling you a baby killer, so why do you feel the need to do it to me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
bare_trees
20 minutes ago, coolshades said:

I'm sorry, but you don't know me at all.  So please stop trying to dictate to me how I must feel or think about people simply because my viewpoint on a contentious issue is different from yours.  You don't see me disrespecting you and calling you a baby killer, so why do you feel the need to do it to me?

Because I'm tired of people thinking it's ok to vote to take my rights away.  I'm not trying to do that to you.  You can choose to never have an abortion.  If it's a matter of life and death and you will not survive childbirth, you can choose to die if that's what you want.  100% up to you.  All I want is that same right.  If you don't believe your fellow man deserves that, then you don't care about them, whether you want to own up to that or not.  You're no saint in this.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
58 minutes ago, bare_trees said:

Criminalizing abortion means women will die. You're ok with that. Just admit that you don't give a damn about someone who's already been born and be done with it. 

Agree wholeheartedly with the first statement, but disagree on the latter. Pro-life people who extend that stance beyond being anti-abortion do exist, although they are the exception rather than the rule. It's disingenuous to assume automatically that all people who are pro-life are only on that side within the context of abortion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bare_trees
4 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Agree wholeheartedly with the first statement, but disagree on the latter. Pro-life people who extend that stance beyond being anti-abortion do exist, although they are the exception rather than the rule. It's disingenuous to assume automatically that all people who are pro-life are only on that side within the context of abortion.

I don't think you understood. Not sure. If you are aware that women will die because of your vote and you vote that way anyway, you don't care. I'm not talking about the question of supporting social services and whatnot.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coolshades said:

I just feel that once a human being is created, doing anything to harm them is wrong, regardless of the level of development.  I've felt this way for a very long time, and it's probably the social issue that I feel most strongly about.  My views on other social issues have changed as I've gotten older, but not this one.  And I've heard every explanation in the book for why I should change my mind, but I never have, just as I know anyone who is pro-choice isn't going to change their minds either.

I appreciate you wiliness to discuss, even if you don't expect to change your mind.

 
I think where we most differ is deciding when a human is "created".   To me its a continuous process from the development of eggs and sperm, to when the brain is fully developed, which is considerably after birth.    For me conception isn't as important a marker, since so much still happens to the embryo and then fetus as it develops.  So for me its not really human until it has something vaguely resembling a human brain.

 

I think technology is going to blur these lines a lot - in-vitrio fertilization already has.   So with IVF I would not want the lab to have to try to save known bad / damaged embryos.

 

So, I'm not trying to change your mind on being pro-choice, just on the point of development where it is human.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coolshades said:

I just feel that once a human being is created, doing anything to harm them is wrong, regardless of the level of development.  I've felt this way for a very long time, and it's probably the social issue that I feel most strongly about.

I hope you can understand why someone would be frustrated that you are motivated to make it illegal for people to be able to control what happens to their own bodies based on a feeling you've had that you refuse to elaborate upon, interrogate, or consider changing if presented with new evidence.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
1 minute ago, Epic Tetus said:

I hope you can understand why someone would be frustrated that you are motivated to make it illegal for people to be able to control what happens to their own bodies based on a feeling you've had that you refuse to elaborate upon, interrogate, or consider changing if presented with new evidence.

In all fairness, she's said it's wrong...has she ever advocated making it illegal?

 

I support allowing it at any point in the pregnancy for any reason, but I find it highly reprehensible beyond the first trimester for any reason other than life of the mother, severe birth defects, or the pregnancy resulting from a sex crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
1 hour ago, coolshades said:

You don't see me disrespecting you and calling you a baby killer, so why do you feel the need to do it to me?

Just as an aside...

It doesn't matter to most folks how polite (or usually people say "civil") the discussion is, for most it's entirely a matter of what you're advocating rather than how you advocate it. I've learned that the hard way here as somebody who holds some rather controversial dissenting opinions.

 

Some of the most "civil" people in the political arena are the ones advocating for horrific things couched in euphemisms and respectability politics. I'm not accusing you of that, just making sure you get where the hostility may in part be coming from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia

Just thought to share a thought, one that I've been asking myself, .. 'why' does someone advocate and talk on certain points? If the conversation becomes just uncivil throwing out points that no one on either side will listen to anyway, then what's the point in doing so?

And a lot of the time when there isn't a talk where people respect and listen to each other, it tends to lead to misunderstanding or missing the full points that are being made anyway, so.. again, what's the point, 'why' are people intent on having any talk that can be heated?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Just thought to share a thought, one that I've been asking myself, .. 'why' does someone advocate and talk on certain points? If the conversation becomes just having an uncivil throwing out points that no one on the other side will listen to anyway, then what's the point in doing so at all?

And a lot of the time when there isn't a talk where people respect and listen to each other, it tends to lead to misunderstanding or missing the points that are being made anyway, so.. again, what's the point, 'why' are people intent on having any talk that can be heated?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

Are you proposing that communication itself is pointless, or merely that we should never discuss anything that we don't already agree with each other on, or at least don't care about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia
4 minutes ago, Epic Tetus said:

I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

Are you proposing that communication itself is pointless, or merely that we should never discuss anything that we don't already agree with each other on, or at least don't care about?


It's more having to do with heated discussions that don't lead anywhere. When peole already have their minds made up and arguing without .. anyone learning anything, no progress being made, etc.


And the question is, why do people keep at it? What's the point or motivation in voicing the points in that case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:


It's more having to do with heated discussions that don't lead anywhere. When peole already have their minds made up and arguing without .. anyone learning anything, no progress being made, etc.


And the question is, why do people keep at it? What's the point or motivation in voicing the points in that case?

What's the alternative?

 

Let's take an extreme case.

 

Let's say people were in the process of petitioning for a law to be passed that said that anyone whose name started with "S" wasn't allowed to eat food. The people who want to pass the law really feel strongly about this, and they get very heated when anyone tries to talk about how inhumane this would be to put into practice, and how a lot of people would die if this law was passed.

 

Do you think you might be inclined to continue trying to argue the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its fair to assume people on both sides of this are arguing in bad faith:

 

The pro-abortion group wants women to have control of their own bodies.

The anti-abortion group doesn't want what they see as human beings killed.

 

I expect both sides agree that killing humans is wrong.  It  all comes down to whether, or at what stage a fetus is a "human being".  This is not something that can be "measured" in some absolute sense. People disagree, but I don't see either as evil - their goals are both good, based on their understanding of whether or not a fetus is a person.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
22 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Just thought to share a thought, one that I've been asking myself, .. 'why' does someone advocate and talk on certain points? If the conversation becomes just uncivil throwing out points that no one on either side will listen to anyway, then what's the point in doing so?

And a lot of the time when there isn't a talk where people respect and listen to each other, it tends to lead to misunderstanding or missing the full points that are being made anyway, so.. again, what's the point, 'why' are people intent on having any talk that can be heated?

The rhetorical exchange between intractable parties is generally more for the purpose of influencing neutral spectators towards a particular position or pushing less committed members of an opposing ideological camp to become neutral. I don't argue with people who are strongly anti-abortion, pro-gun control, anti-immigration, or pro-drug war because I expect to convince them to abandon their position. I argue because allowing them to speak unopposed would likely pull the people on the fence their direction and strengthen their cause. In a democratic system you don't have to convince every person that you're right, only keep enough people out of the opposing camp to hold enough power,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia
18 minutes ago, Epic Tetus said:

What's the alternative?

 

Let's take an extreme case.

 

Let's say people were in the process of petitioning for a law to be passed that said that anyone whose name started with "S" wasn't allowed to eat food. The people who want to pass the law really feel strongly about this, and they get very heated when anyone tries to talk about how inhumane this would be to put into practice, and how a lot of people would die if this law was passed.

 

Do you think you might be inclined to continue trying to argue the point?

I would try to have a civil conversation :P. Since getting heated back will probably just trigger them more xD. (within reason, since i might feel strongly considering my name starts with S ;p)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
2 minutes ago, uhtred said:

I expect both sides agree that killing humans is wrong.  It  all comes down to whether, or at what stage a fetus is a "human being".  This is not something that can be "measured" in some absolute sense. People disagree, but I don't see either as evil - their goals are both good, based on their understanding of whether or not a fetus is a person.

Just so you know, some of the pro-choice crowd does view fetuses as people.
Judith Jarvis Thomson is one such example of some arguing the pro-choice position without the presupposition that a fetus is not a human being.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion (colorado.edu)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia
5 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

The rhetorical exchange between intractable parties is generally more for the purpose of influencing neutral spectators towards a particular position or pushing less committed members of an opposing ideological camp to become neutral. I don't argue with people who are strongly anti-abortion, pro-gun control, anti-immigration, or pro-drug war because I expect to convince them to abandon their position. I argue because allowing them to speak unopposed would likely pull the people on the fence their direction and strengthen their cause. In a democratic system you don't have to convince every person that you're right, only keep enough people out of the opposing camp to hold enough power,


That's actually a really good answer ;D.

I guess then I would ask, what's better between keeping your cool and discusssing, continuing to make good points, vs arguing back heatedly.


And on the topic, I do think that the question of whether a fetus is a life human or not is a pretty big part. Clearly pro-life people believe they are.
Or is it that some think the 'potential' of a human is what's terrible to be lost.

 

I say the later one because I know most aren't vegetarian, and if it's just about life then what are they doing eating meat?
that's all the thoughts I had xD. have fun.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...