posted
Read this and tell me if you agree or disagree. Yes, I know I've been posting a fair amount of articles lately, but because this is an important subject for me and other people, I want to know what the rational behind your beliefs is. I tend to be against abortion, and not just for biological reasons.
Oh yeah, here's another one if you're interested.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether I agree or disagree, there doesn't seem to be anything in the article which is new for the sake of the hatrack debate.
It takes, pretty much as a given, that "human life" begins at fertilization. The logic the author uses for this claim is weak at best. Then it uses this definition of human life to argue against the pro-choice arguments.
But the vast majority of pro-choice proponents don't accept the definition of "human life" or "human being" that the author does, so pretty much the entire article is rendered meaningless.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists — not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.
I think the question "What is a human being" is largely a metaphysical question.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a brief scan of the first par of the first article, I've made most of the same arguments here already and get the same yawning responses you're getting here.
If the empirical definition of human life is, indeed, a contested thing, I don't get why we don't err on the side of safety... but as everyone says, we've been over this pretty thoroughly here before.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am pro-life but both sources, especially the first, make pretty weak arguments. They both give irrelevant biology lessons (irrelevant in that they define terms, but in no way settle the question of when life begins), and then both go on to assert that they have demonstrated that life begins at conception. They have demonstrated no such thing!
Nevertheless, I think a somewhat scientific approach is the right tack for pro-lifers to take. I see a lot of billboards with pictures of the Virgin Mary or Jesus with pro-life messages, and I think they demonstrate a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge of how to change people's minds. They don't address the important question, they just make religious statements which pro-choicers clearly already disagree with. Whom, exactly, are they trying to convince? Themselves?
I think talking about developmental milestones in the life of the fetus is a more useful line to pursue, because they can hope to persuade some people that life begins before the fetus exits the womb--or, at least, that this possibility should be factored into the debate.Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question of whether or not a fetus is a "human life" or "human being" is pretty much irrelevant to my views on abortion, so I'm afraid my opinion of the article is mostly bewilderment at what they're trying to accomplish.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nevertheless, I think a somewhat scientific approach is the right tack for pro-lifers to take. I see a lot of billboards with pictures of the Virgin Mary or Jesus with pro-life messages, and I think they demonstrate a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge of how to change people's minds. They don't address the important question, they just make religious statements which pro-choicers clearly already disagree with. Whom, exactly, are they trying to convince? Themselves?
You seem to be assuming that religious messages will never convince a Pro-Choicer. Do you really think this?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think they demonstrate a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge of how to change people's minds.
Let me ammend this to "a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of their opponents in this debate."
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you think that somebody who is Pro-Choice could never be convinced by a religious argument?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lost posts are never as good when I try to rewrite them. It's like a spell in D&D or something. I had it in me to say the thing once, and then it's gone. *sigh* Usually, I don't bother to retype it, but since it was in reply to a question specifically asked of me, and since I think it's an important point, I'll try again.
First (and of less import) because the people you're arguing against are aware of the stances of the various Christian denominations. And they are unmoved by them. Is there a major denomination that doesn't oppose abortion? Do you really believe that people don't know that organized Christianity opposes it? Pro-choicers clearly either are not Christian, or disagree with their churches' viewpoints on this one. Either way, they are unmoved by these arguments.
More importantly, though, arguing in religous terms gives pro-choicers an unbelievably effective weapon that I believe has done more to keep abortion legal than any single other thing. It allows them to claim that the issue here is one of separation of church and state. Judges, the media, legislators (including John Kerry), and thousands of people have all bought into this line of reasoning, that abortion may or may not be a sin, but the government should not interfere because it's a personal (i.e., religious) issue.
This is not a church and state issue! Why do Christians oppose abortion? Is there a lot written about abortion in the bible? I know the bible proscribes against killing human beings, except in specific circumstances, but then, so does virtually every ethical system. And so does the law of our country. I think it's necessary, then, to turn the question away from whether or not God disapproves of abortion, and to whether or not it is the killing of a human being.
quote:I think it's necessary, then, to turn the question away from whether or not God disapproves of abortion, and to whether or not it is murder.
Accusing anyone who has ever had an abortion of murder is not conducive to having a productive [added: or civil] discussion.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps murder is an overloaded word? Would calling it "killing" be better? "Manslaughter"?
I don't think I can get completely away from any similarly loaded word, though. I mean, if I think the fetus is alive, what non-charged word is there for ending a human life? Not using any of those words cedes the rhetorical ground to those who believe the fetus is not alive, neh?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you just focus on the closely related (but not quite so loaded) question of whether a fetus is entitled to legal protection?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there a major denomination that doesn't oppose abortion?
I think that there are quite a few denominations that have no stance on abortion, but I'm not sure.
So you are saying that religious arguments won't work only because everybody has already heard all possible religious arguments?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why don't you just focus on the closely related (but not quite so loaded) question of whether a fetus is entitled to legal protection?
Because to make any headway I have to explain why I believe it would be entitled to legal protection, and that is explicitly tied up in my belief that a fetus is a human life before the moment it is born.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. That's not what I said. I said a) your opponents don't care about religious arguments, and 2) using religious arguments allows your opponents to claim that this is purely a religious question.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:a) your opponents don't care about religious arguments
Is this because you believe that all pro-choice people are not religious enough to be influence by religious arguments?
edit: Icky, I hope that it's clear that I'm really trying to understand where you are coming from, and not just trying to trap you in a corner or dig a pit for you
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pro-choice and obviously disagree with the article.
Actually, no. I don't disagree. Mostly, I just have no opinion whatsoever on those particular aspects of abortion.
Although I do find it somewhat unsettling that arguing that humanity begins at conception could be used to argue against birth control and the morning after pill.
posted
Religion in the argument introduces the concept of the soul, which cannot be measured and can therefore be said to enter the fetus at any point including conception.
Without the concept of the soul, the decision of when a fetus gains human legal rights can be made based on stages of fetal development such as brainwave patterns or fetal viability.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of them are not religious enough. (Some of them, of course, are not religious at all.) Some of them are religious, but believe their churches to be mistaken. And some of them are religious and believe this themselves, but have bought into the idea that they should not be imposing their religion on other people with the force of law.
Which brings me to what I've been trying to emphasize, which is that, more important than whether or not you can convince Christians with this logic is the ammunition you give to your opponents in this debate.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Accusing anyone who has ever had an abortion of murder is not conducive to having a productive [added: or civil] discussion.
I apologize. I did not explicitly do this, but I have removed the word "murder" from my post nonetheless.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't know what kind of trap you're trying to get me to walk into Porter.
I think this is not a religious question. I think it's a legal and ethical one. And a pragmatic one. I don't think I want to rehash the same point over and over again.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am *not* trying to get you to walk into a trap.
I'm just trying to understand how you can believe that nobody can be influenced by religious arguments concerning abortion.
It seems clear to me that many people have been influenced by those arguments, and that people are influenced by them.
I think we must be miscommunicating if you think I'm trying to dig a pit for you. I'll just let it drop right now if you don't want to discuss this.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this because you believe that all pro-choice people are not religious enough to be influence by religious arguments?
I think that people who are not religious are unlikely to be swayed by religious arguments then and there. If they do change their mind, they will probably not come to God through abortion issues, but to abortion issues through God.
Those who are religious have probably already faced this very issue both personally and publically numerous times and has come to a delicate understanding with themselves and their God over the issue.
In that case, I think further using someone's religion to guilt or frighten them (even if you're doing it politely) into changing their mind is not exactly the most pleasant thing in the world to do.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let me just say that perhaps some (or many) people can be swayed by religious arguments, but that it is clear to me that many many more people--including Christians--are influenced away from the pro-life camp by the religious arguments of Christians.
I felt like it was a rhetorical trap because it felt like you were trying to get me to commit to an absolute statement when my point was really in another direction.
posted
I think, though, that most people who are influenced by religious arguments on this issue are influenced by the teachings of their own religion, (or perhaps official statments of a religion/religious figure that they respect) rather than a billboard with a picture of Jesus.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it wasn't clear, I also agree with dkw statement. People can be swayed if they already belong to that particular set of other beliefs.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After a somewhat lengthy discussion, we now have four people in a row agreeing to a single statement. Is this some kind of record? Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another problem with the religious argument is that you can argue that the Bible is actually not against abortion. For example Exodus 21:22 can be read that punishment for harming a fetus is similar to that for harming property (a fine). Where harm to the mother is an eye for an eye, etc.
Or people ask questions such as, "Why are you chosing to follow the Bible in this case, and not the verses about kashrut?"
If "religion" is the main argument offered, and someone can find enough scripture to induce doubt in whether it holds, then there is no argument left.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm just trying to understand how you can believe that nobody can be influenced by religious arguments concerning abortion.
It seems clear to me that many people have been influenced by those arguments, and that people are influenced by them.
See, I don't think that the people who are influenced by them are people who'd take another position if NOT for them. But maybe my opinion is biased due to the fact that my own pro-life stance is completely unrelated to my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and therefore I don't think one has to be contingent upon the other for any reason.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Minerva: check out this article for an explication of Exodus 21. It doesn't support abortion; on the contrary.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Tom said: I oppose abortion, and I don't find the article useful. (It lists opinions as "myths," and it spends a lot of work picking apart what "embryo" means. It doesn't matter. If abortion is right/wrong among English speakers, it's also right/wrong if we switch to some language that uses different terms.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
All I am saying that there are many readings of the verse, and there are certainly those that support abortion. You may disagree with those readings, but there are certainly those who could say, "I read the Bible (perhaps even better than many who quote scripture without having read it). I thought/prayed about Exodus 21. And I think it supports abortion. Therefore, the Bible is at the very best ambiguous about its support of abortion. Therefore, even though I believe in the Bible, I am not against abortion."
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Another problem with the religious argument is that you can argue that the Bible is actually not against abortion. ...
If "religion" is the main argument offered, and someone can find enough scripture to induce doubt in whether it holds, then there is no argument left.
It's easy if you believe the word of God is still being revealed and written today Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, that would probably not apply to the majority of religious groups out there, but I had to throw that in
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a charming example of coupling the word "science" with a liberal sprinkling of italics for emphasis and standing back with a smile and saying "ta da". It's another paper that's unable to say anything that the source material does not. You'd be better off signing out a relevant textbook.
Just because you say "scientifically" before any of your debunks doesn't mean you've actually said anything of merit.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
