[Brazelton] Roe v. Wade

Already answered on the sincerity bit.
By saying some actually do drink the kool-aid?

Yeah, i'm sure some slave owners though that black people where better off being "directed" by the "superior" race. Do you think many of them stopped any lynchings?

Show your cousin the data about maternal mortality difference between races, and i'm sure he'll then totally support more maternal care for them, right?
 
By saying some actually do drink the kool-aid?

Yeah, i'm sure some slave owners though that black people where better off being "directed" by the "superior" race. Do you think many of them stopped any lynchings?

Show your cousin the data about maternal mortality difference between races, and i'm sure he'll then totally support more maternal care for them, right?
He genuinely believes abortion is murder. With that as a given, killing people 100% of the time with an abortion is worse than some people dying less than 100% of the time without. The math is simple for him (and many like him). It is easy to call the opposition sheep but they really aren't an "other", nor are they (all) prone to violence. It is why I don't see violence as a certainty. Because the followers of the faith, of the GOP in particular, are not necessarily prone to using that tactic.
 
He genuinely believes abortion is murder. With that as a given, killing people 100% of the time with an abortion is worse than some people dying less than 100% of the time without. The math is simple for him (and many like him). It is easy to call the opposition sheep but they really aren't an "other", nor are they (all) prone to violence. It is why I don't see violence as a certainty. Because the followers of the faith, of the GOP in particular, are not necessarily prone to using that tactic.
I sometimes wonder how people with this stance wrap their brains around IVF. Because more than double the amount of embryos are disposed of than embryos/fetuses removed by abortion. If "life begins at conception", are we removing IVF services as well? I find myself thinking about this more often than I'd like because the Catholic church next to our house has been flying a "pray for the 63 million aborted babies" banner for some time (which makes me wretch for a number of reasons), and according to the church, IVF is "against God's will". But I know for a fact* that a significant amount of the kids enrolled in both their school and their CCD program are children conceived through IVF treatments. So, are these parishners sinners? Murderers? Are their children unnatural? Or, as usual, if the money comes in, the church will ignore it's own dogma?

(*We live in an area with a lot of fairly well-off Catholics, and through school/sports/etc. I've met a lot of parents who use that church, and a good amount of those parents used IVF.)
 
He genuinely believes abortion is murder.
I wasn't talking about ppl dying without it, but just that he's consistent about preventing deaths through gov action, just with helping pregnant women of colour so that they don't die more often from complications then white women (or, you know, other women on colour in developed places outside the US).

With that as a given, killing people 100% of the time with an abortion is worse than some people dying less than 100% of the time without. The math is simple for him (and many like him).
Yeah, that is incredibly stupid. If he's against abortion in all cases, then 100% of the time people will die when there's no chance for the foetus to live.

And i bet the same math wouldn't fly for banning guns, right...


according to the church, IVF is "against God's will". But I know for a fact* that a significant amount of the kids enrolled in both their school and their CCD program are children conceived through IVF treatments. So, are these parishners sinners? Murderers? Are their children unnatural? Or, as usual, if the money comes in, the church will ignore it's own dogma?

(*We live in an area with a lot of fairly well-off Catholics, and through school/sports/etc. I've met a lot of parents who use that church, and a good amount of those parents used IVF.)
Don't worry, i'm sure they'll just say it's only God's will if the embryo get implanted... while also trying to ban Plan B.
 
I sometimes wonder how people with this stance wrap their brains around IVF. Because more than double the amount of embryos are disposed of than embryos/fetuses removed by abortion. If "life begins at conception", are we removing IVF services as well? I find myself thinking about this more often than I'd like because the Catholic church next to our house has been flying a "pray for the 63 million aborted babies" banner for some time (which makes me wretch for a number of reasons), and according to the church, IVF is "against God's will". But I know for a fact* that a significant amount of the kids enrolled in both their school and their CCD program are children conceived through IVF treatments. So, are these parishners sinners? Murderers? Are their children unnatural? Or, as usual, if the money comes in, the church will ignore it's own dogma?

(*We live in an area with a lot of fairly well-off Catholics, and through school/sports/etc. I've met a lot of parents who use that church, and a good amount of those parents used IVF.)
If you're really curious, I would bet that in general it isn't known to the church who was conceived and how, but a) all Catholics are sinners, so the idea that these parishioners are sinners is a given b) yes, IVF causes deaths the same way abortion does, so they should repent of the sin. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. As we can see with Pelosi, Biden, and PM Trudeau, many Catholics do not adhere to the doctrine of the Church and consider themselves faithful Catholics. They sort of pick-and-choose what parts to follow and what not to, often in line with cultural norms and values. As for the teaching of the Church on the children, there is nothing unnatural about the children, they are not illegitimate (I know you didn't say this but it is sometimes brought up. The Church believes illegitimacy is a legal construction, not spiritual. No children are illegitimate spiritually, that is matter for the laws of the land), and they are made in the image of God and inherently valuable human beings who are loved, whose sins are paid for with Christ's death and resurrection, just like all of us. If the parents did tell the church that they conceived via IVF, that wouldn't impede the child's baptism, admission into schools, etc. The parents have sinned, but not the child. The Church's dogma is not to reject children born of IVF, or any method. If we one day grow a child in a vat, it will be as human as we are now, with all the attendant divine image.

Whether or not the Church excommunicates such parents is much more fraught territory. Typically these days excommunication is rare (for a high profile recent example see: Pelosi, and even then only in her home parish). Usually excommunication will involve 3 traits: the person is in a continuous and unrepentant state of grave (mortal) sin, the person has refused pastoral counsel, and the person is of some public standing. This last point is important because we believe in the sin of 'scandal'. As a sin, scandal is when your behaviour seems to permit others to do this behaviour too. So if I happen to know a parishioner got IVF, but they're just someone at my church and it's not something they brag about and hype up, it isn't scandalous. It is something they did - I have done many sins in my past too. Their repentance is their business. But if they were a community leader and they advised other couples to try IVF, they might be excommunicated until they repent, as they are leading other Catholics to believe it is okay to do.

Just like much of culture there are more liberal and conservative elements within the Church clergy, too. A priest might be much more open to the idea of IVF than the Church teaches, and therefore not likely to admonish let alone excommunicate someone who has had it.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
It's like I told my gramma, if Jesus died for our sins, we gotta sin or he died for nothing. We can always ask forgiveness later, and as long as we really really mean it, it doesn't matter what we did.
 
It's like I told my gramma, if Jesus died for our sins, we gotta sin or he died for nothing. We can always ask forgiveness later, and as long as we really really mean it, it doesn't matter what we did.
Jesus didn't die for your sins. He died for mine.
 
Man, tell that to Adam and Eve's children. They fucked up so bad a guy had to get nailed to a cross several thousand years later
I know you're being sarcastic, but we draw a distinction between Original Sin and particular sin (the sins we commit as individuals). However, if there's one thing I definitely flirt with heresy on, it's whether I accept the Church's full teaching on Original Sin, so I sympathize with your point to an extent.
 
I know you're being sarcastic, but we draw a distinction between Original Sin and particular sin (the sins we commit as individuals). However, if there's one thing I definitely flirt with heresy on, it's whether I accept the Church's full teaching on Original Sin, so I sympathize with your point to an extent.
So, I'm not religious, so obviously I also don't believe in original sin, but I do like the stories and myths of religions (note: it's organized religion I don't like, and to be honest human organized anything I'm pretty skeptical of).

And one such story is the story of Prometheus. In Greek myth (or at least one of them, there's multiple variations) Prometheus is a titan and a bit of a trouble maker among the gods. All of these different animals had been created, but among them were humans, who didn't have fur to protect them from cold or claws to fend off predators. So Prometheus decides he's going to steal fire from Mt Olympus and give it to the humans. But much more than fire, he gifts them the knowledge of the forge and metalworking, the gift of technology. Through this, humans expand their knowledge and start to grow more powerful, of which Zeus is upset, fearful that man may become as the gods, and so punishes Prometheus by chaining him to a rock and having an eagle eat his liver every day.

Obviously this story is good for humans, the trickster Prometheus is a hero to mankind, and in the Greek tradition was revered as an advocate for mankind's independence.

So if you take this story, and replace Prometheus with a serpent, and the knowledge of fire to the fruit of knowledge of good and evil... all I'm saying is in Greece they would have built statues to snakes.




While, as said before, I'm not religious, I am a Jew, both ethnically and once in spiritual practice, and in most Jewish doctrine the idea of original sin is kinda bonkers. (Most) Christian belief is that mankind is completely lost and held captive in sin, and completely powerless to change from that on their own. -Only- through the belief in Christ and acceptance of him as a savior can any individual person overcome this. Mankind is totally and wholly depraved and unable to enact any kind of salvation from this, or any hope of free will, without Jesus. And frankly, to a Jew, that's nuts. The Torah teaches the exact opposite, that man is responsible for his own salvation. In Deuteronomy, Moses holds a sermon for his people who are claiming that salvation is too difficult on their own.

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 said:
For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.
It is not in heaven that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?
Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?
Rather, [this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
(note: I don't know anything about the chabad movement, this isn't an endorsement, they're just the first website that came up when googling for Torah chapters)

Sorry, this is all a tangent, and in the end I don't believe any of it anyway so I really have no horse in this race, I just find the concept of original sin kinda insulting. To me, it reads as a form of control, like when the church doctrine was being formed they had a sudden realization that if people could reach salvation on their own, then why would they need the church? And so they quickly had to solve that problem and force people into dependency on them.
 
So, I'm not religious, so obviously I also don't believe in original sin, but I do like the stories and myths of religions (note: it's organized religion I don't like, and to be honest human organized anything I'm pretty skeptical of).

And one such story is the story of Prometheus. In Greek myth (or at least one of them, there's multiple variations) Prometheus is a titan and a bit of a trouble maker among the gods. All of these different animals had been created, but among them were humans, who didn't have fur to protect them from cold or claws to fend off predators. So Prometheus decides he's going to steal fire from Mt Olympus and give it to the humans. But much more than fire, he gifts them the knowledge of the forge and metalworking, the gift of technology. Through this, humans expand their knowledge and start to grow more powerful, of which Zeus is upset, fearful that man may become as the gods, and so punishes Prometheus by chaining him to a rock and having an eagle eat his liver every day.

Obviously this story is good for humans, the trickster Prometheus is a hero to mankind, and in the Greek tradition was revered as an advocate for mankind's independence.

So if you take this story, and replace Prometheus with a serpent, and the knowledge of fire to the fruit of knowledge of good and evil... all I'm saying is in Greece they would have built statues to snakes.




While, as said before, I'm not religious, I am a Jew, both ethnically and once in spiritual practice, and in most Jewish doctrine the idea of original sin is kinda bonkers. (Most) Christian belief is that mankind is completely lost and held captive in sin, and completely powerless to change from that on their own. -Only- through the belief in Christ and acceptance of him as a savior can any individual person overcome this. Mankind is totally and wholly depraved and unable to enact any kind of salvation from this, or any hope of free will, without Jesus. And frankly, to a Jew, that's nuts. The Torah teaches the exact opposite, that man is responsible for his own salvation. In Deuteronomy, Moses holds a sermon for his people who are claiming that salvation is too difficult on their own.



(note: I don't know anything about the chabad movement, this isn't an endorsement, they're just the first website that came up when googling for Torah chapters)

Sorry, this is all a tangent, and in the end I don't believe any of it anyway so I really have no horse in this race, I just find the concept of original sin kinda insulting. To me, it reads as a form of control, like when the church doctrine was being formed they had a sudden realization that if people could reach salvation on their own, then why would they need the church? And so they quickly had to solve that problem and force people into dependency on them.
I mean, this is basically exactly where my 'heretical' thoughts on Original Sin as Christian/Church doctrine come from. If we affirm that the Tanakh is true, which we do, then how can we leave out not just the verse you quoted from Deuteronomy which says the law is close and not hard to fulfill (Paul arguably misquotes/misuses this passage in one of his letters), but other passages where God says all that is necessary for repentance is to turn to Him and repent, or Ezekiel where God says he wishes for the wicked to repent. I tend to read Jonah too as a lesson about how non-believers can be more 'righteous' in their lives and repentance than believers, which is basically anathema to Christian doctrine.

I think Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular has done a disservice to itself with its zeal to distance itself from Judaism. I feel that we (Christians) owe a special duty to listen to Jewish people and their criticisms of Christianity, and answer them, in a way that we maybe don't owe to atheists or other religions (not that we shouldn't answer those criticisms too), but instead it's been persecution at the worst of times and dismissal at the best. And the Jewish criticism I truly cannot answer is Original Sin. It isn't a Jewish idea, and obviously Christians believe in doctrinal development, it doesn't seem to be sustained by the Bible.

There are things I love about the Church, and I don't see it as a form of control, of course, I wouldn't have re-converted if I did, but I can certainly agree with the sentiment of Original Sin as insulting.
 
I can certainly agree with the sentiment of Original Sin as insulting.
For me, it's more the idea that, on a scale from -100 to 100, "Original Sin" says my initial starting condition MUST be the -100, NO EXCEPTIONS. Personally, this strikes me as conflicting directly with the idea of "free will." The idea that every human is born burdened with an entire lifetime's worth of what amounts to spiritual student loans constitutes anathema, for then what would be the point of living? And I know the usual answer is something along the lines of, "To allow sufficient time to grow closer to God and allow yourself to be saved by accepting Him into your heart," but to me that just sounds like a glorified version of, "It's Yahweh or the highway."

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
I mean, this is basically exactly where my 'heretical' thoughts on Original Sin as Christian/Church doctrine come from. If we affirm that the Tanakh is true, which we do, then how can we leave out not just the verse you quoted from Deuteronomy which says the law is close and not hard to fulfill (Paul arguably misquotes/misuses this passage in one of his letters), but other passages where God says all that is necessary for repentance is to turn to Him and repent, or Ezekiel where God says he wishes for the wicked to repent. I tend to read Jonah too as a lesson about how non-believers can be more 'righteous' in their lives and repentance than believers, which is basically anathema to Christian doctrine.

I think Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular has done a disservice to itself with its zeal to distance itself from Judaism. I feel that we (Christians) owe a special duty to listen to Jewish people and their criticisms of Christianity, and answer them, in a way that we maybe don't owe to atheists or other religions (not that we shouldn't answer those criticisms too), but instead it's been persecution at the worst of times and dismissal at the best. And the Jewish criticism I truly cannot answer is Original Sin. It isn't a Jewish idea, and obviously Christians believe in doctrinal development, it doesn't seem to be sustained by the Bible.

There are things I love about the Church, and I don't see it as a form of control, of course, I wouldn't have re-converted if I did, but I can certainly agree with the sentiment of Original Sin as insulting.
Were you not criticising the likes of Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau for being pro choice and still calling themselves Catholic? Is this not also picking and choosing? Or did I misread your intent in that statement?
 
For me, it's more the idea that, on a scale from -100 to 100, "Original Sin" says my initial starting condition MUST be the -100, NO EXCEPTIONS. Personally, this strikes me as conflicting directly with the idea of "free will." The idea that every human is born burdened with an entire lifetime's worth of what amounts to spiritual student loans constitutes anathema, for then what would be the point of living?
You know, i looked it up for Catholics just to be sure it was the same as here (i was pretty sure it was, because that's not one of the few things that have become slightly different over teh year beside the Pope's role), and, yeah, baptism is supposed to cleat up OS.

But as i was looking it struck me how much the convo is about Adam's sin, and how that it's the origin of mankind's loss of innocence etc... even though he was actually the 2nd ever human to sin.
 
Were you not criticising the likes of Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau for being pro choice and still calling themselves Catholic? Is this not also picking and choosing? Or did I misread your intent in that statement?
I am critical of it, but I meant to be more neutral-sounding in as much as "There are Catholics like this," which is just, well, true. I guess it came across as critical anyway.

As to the picking-and-choosing, I would say the difference is that while I struggle with the teaching on Original Sin, and am not sure it is right, I defer to the teaching in as much as I practise what the Church teaches on it. It's like "I don't know how you got to that answer, but there's a large number of things I do see how you got, and you seem wise, so I will follow this while I investigate it, because I trust you." If someone struggles with IVF or abortion or a number of other Church teachings, but thinks everything else (or a lot of) that the Church teaches is right, I would probably advise them to follow the Church's teaching during their struggle.

To be clear, when I say I am critical, I don't mean to say that "They are bad Catholics and should be excommunicated/not call themselves Catholic." I am critical of their position as it contradicts teaching (and I do think the teaching on abortion is more clear than the teaching on Original Sin) and they don't seem willing to consider their faith's instruction even if they personally disagree. If sinning or disagreeing with the Church makes someone a bad Catholic, then every Catholic is a bad one. That 'bad' Catholics can struggle, repent, and struggle again is of great comfort to me, and hopefully to them as well.
For me, it's more the idea that, on a scale from -100 to 100, "Original Sin" says my initial starting condition MUST be the -100, NO EXCEPTIONS. Personally, this strikes me as conflicting directly with the idea of "free will." The idea that every human is born burdened with an entire lifetime's worth of what amounts to spiritual student loans constitutes anathema, for then what would be the point of living? And I know the usual answer is something along the lines of, "To allow sufficient time to grow closer to God and allow yourself to be saved by accepting Him into your heart," but to me that just sounds like a glorified version of, "It's Yahweh or the highway."

--Patrick
I mean, obviously I struggle with the doctrine, so I am not a great person to defend it, but the numbers thing/loan analogy is not quite right. It's more like, "Given the ability to pursue the good or wicked ends, you will naturally incline yourself to wickedness." To what degree this is the case varies on denomination. Calvinists believe in something called Total Depravity - 'no good without God,' or the idea that Original Sin has made it impossible for humans to choose good other than what God allows them to choose. This is very antithetical to free will.

Catholics have more schools of thought on the matter, but the important thing for us is free will exists absolutely, and while all good is for the glory of God, Original Sin has not removed from us the ability to choose good ourselves. To me, the part of the doctrine I do understand is that Original Sin has created this sort of brokenness that can never be fixed by the works of man. Like a child destroying a masterpiece painting. We didn't even know what we broke when we broke it, and we don't have the skill to fix it. There's just this... damage to the world that is bad and present and it has something, I'm not sure what exactly, to do with that first sin.
 
You know, i looked it up for Catholics just to be sure it was the same as here (i was pretty sure it was, because that's not one of the few things that have become slightly different over teh year beside the Pope's role), and, yeah, baptism is supposed to cleat up OS.

But as i was looking it struck me how much the convo is about Adam's sin, and how that it's the origin of mankind's loss of innocence etc... even though he was actually the 2nd ever human to sin.
Well yeah, I don't even know about this one. I think about why it's called the Sin of Adam. I suppose it's because he was made first, but the Original Sin was a joint effort. I've heard people say semi-seriously that the 'real' Original Sin wasn't eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, but Adam saying 'She made me do it!' when caught.
 
That’s all fine, but there’s a difference between having personal religious beliefs and trying to force those beliefs on others through legislation. Justify it through your beliefs all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that those religious beliefs are being forced on others.
 
That’s all fine, but there’s a difference between having personal religious beliefs and trying to force those beliefs on others through legislation. Justify it through your beliefs all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that those religious beliefs are being forced on others.
The problem is that we believe there is a human life at stake. To us there's no difference than saying "Well your religion says you can't kill people, but don't force me to not kill people."

I believe in secular democracy. I don't think that Christianity should be enshrined as law, or that something like gay marriage should be illegal, or theocracy will usher in some golden age. I think democracy is a good thing for the freedom of religion.

But on this issue, if one really believes that it is another human being, then I have to believe the law should protect that human life. I agree there should be medical/life-of-the-mother exceptions, because now there's two lives at stake, and there is a far more likely chance of losing both or saving the mother than of saving both. That's tragic, but I would say the abortion is a side-effect of saving the mother's life, not the goal of the procedure, and the death of the unborn child is to be mourned, but it is no one's fault anymore than a miscarriage is. We have to triage patients in disasters, we have to deal with the consequences of cancer, these are difficult and sad but no one's fault.
 
The problem is that we believe there is a human life at stake. To us there's no difference than saying "Well your religion says you can't kill people, but don't force me to not kill people."
That’s a bullshit comparison and you know it. It’s a religious belief that life begins at conception is it not?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Therein lies the rub. The definition of when someone is alive is always a religious debate even if religion isn't involved. Does it begin at conception? Does it begin at the first brainwave? Does it end at brain death? Or is it true that you're not really dead until you're dead AND warm, as the saying goes?
 

figmentPez

Staff member
The problem is that we believe there is a human life at stake. To us there's no difference than saying "Well your religion says you can't kill people, but don't force me to not kill people."
Doesn't matter if you think a life is at stake. Do you have both kidneys? There are people on transplant lists who will die if you don't donate one. Should the government be able to force you to donate one to keep from killing someone by their inaction?

Bodily autonomy supersedes any considerations of if an embryo is a life. A fertilized egg, an embryo, even a fetus, none of these have the right to use someone else's body without their permission. Doesn't matter if a life is at stake, people have control over their own bodies. If you don't own your own body, you don't own anything, you don't have freedom, you don't have liberty. Bodily autonomy is a very basic right, and the only reason it's not considered fundamental to law in this country is because the US was founded by racist slave holders who thought they needed to be able own people.

You can argue about how long it takes before a woman has de facto made the decision to allow a pregnancy, and that she can't revoke use of her uterus after letting a fetus grow for 6 months or whatever, but during the early stages of pregnancy? The woman's body is hers, and the cells growing inside her have no claim over it.

Furthermore, you have got to be fucking kidding me if you think that laws that are written specifically to ban abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy are about preserving life. Because there's no medical way to make an ectopic pregnancy viable. The only reason to specifically codify against terminating an ectopic pregnancy is to have control over women, because without medical intervention to end an ectopic pregnancy, both the woman and fetus die. It's either save the life of the mother, or lose both. There is no option to save the "life" of an ectopic pregnancy. Yet I don't see any pro-life Republicans making a stand against the states that are enacting laws meant to control women to the point of sentencing them to death. That alone should be reason to denounce the SCOTUS ruling, because of the horrors it unleashed.

Also, it's really only been recently that Christians started believing that life begins at conception. There's a long history of Judeochristian belief holding that life begins at first breath. So you should really reconsider if your belief is as well founded as you think it is.
 
It's established law, a fetus isn't a person until it is separated from the mother, it is simply just another part of the mother otherwise.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
ALSO, let me note that it's never possible to satisfy every possible person's belief on medical matters. There are pacifists who think that any act of violence is unacceptable, always, yet we don't cater our entire country's laws to make killing someone in self-defense the same charge as murder. They don't get to insist that everyone else give up their lives in the face of violence, just because their pacifism says that it's better to die than use violence.

Quiverfull christians believe that any use of contraception, even the rhythm method, is against God's will. Should we force all married couples to have as many babies as they can, just because some fringe group thinks that God commands it?

Some christians believe that "spilling seed" is equivalent to murder. Should we ban masturbation because of the babies not born from jizz in a sock?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs. If there were 6 Jehovah's Witnesses on the SCOTUS, should they be allowed to ban all blood transfusions because they think they're morally required to do so by their faith?

And why should we stop at people's physical lives? If SCOTUS can make a ruling based on Christian beliefs about when life begins, regardless of any science or objective reality, then why shouldn't they be able to make rulings based on the state of people's immortal souls? Should they be able to require everyone attend church on Sundays? Require people take communion? Can they ban witchcraft because of the harm they claim it does to a person's soul?
 
That’s a bullshit comparison and you know it. It’s a religious belief that life begins at conception is it not?
Even if it is, and I do think there's some scientific basis for the belief, my hypothetical isn't supposed to be a direct comparison, but rather... I can't pretend it's just an abstraction. Objectively, I think it's a human life.

if I really believe it's a human life, then I can't risk being wrong. Like, if I'm right, people are being killed. We would definitely agree it's bad. If I'm right about pre-marital sex, and you don't agree, no one dies. But if I'm right about this and you don't agree, people are dying.

Doesn't matter if you think a life is at stake. Do you have both kidneys? There are people on transplant lists who will die if you don't donate one. Should the government be able to force you to donate one to keep from killing someone by their inaction?

Bodily autonomy supersedes any considerations of if an embryo is a life. A fertilized egg, an embryo, even a fetus, none of these have the right to use someone else's body without their permission. Doesn't matter if a life is at stake, people have control over their own bodies. If you don't own your own body, you don't own anything, you don't have freedom, you don't have liberty. Bodily autonomy is a very basic right, and the only reason it's not considered fundamental to law in this country is because the US was founded by racist slave holders who thought they needed to be able own people.

You can argue about how long it takes before a woman has de facto made the decision to allow a pregnancy, and that she can't revoke use of her uterus after letting a fetus grow for 6 months or whatever, but during the early stages of pregnancy? The woman's body is hers, and the cells growing inside her have no claim over it.

Furthermore, you have got to be fucking kidding me if you think that laws that are written specifically to ban abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy are about preserving life. Because there's no medical way to make an ectopic pregnancy viable. The only reason to specifically codify against terminating an ectopic pregnancy is to have control over women, because without medical intervention to end an ectopic pregnancy, both the woman and fetus die. It's either save the life of the mother, or lose both. There is no option to save the "life" of an ectopic pregnancy. Yet I don't see any pro-life Republicans making a stand against the states that are enacting laws meant to control women to the point of sentencing them to death. That alone should be reason to denounce the SCOTUS ruling, because of the horrors it unleashed.

Also, it's really only been recently that Christians started believing that life begins at conception. There's a long history of Judeochristian belief holding that life begins at first breath. So you should really reconsider if your belief is as well founded as you think it is.
I'm opposed to laws that forbid treating ectopic pregnancy, as I said. There should be exemptions. I mean, the procedure is 'an abortion' but as I said, the fact of the matter is that we either jeopardize two lives, or save one, and saving the one is the right choice.

The kidney example is good, but I think it's incomplete. The difference is in a couple of ways. One is that it's tragic but no one's fault if my kidneys fail. In fact, if a baby is born and needs blood and mom's a match, and the mother refuses to give her blood, I don't think she is morally bound to do it. An induced abortion is not like kidney failure. The other thing is that the womb is the only organ that is for sustaining another life. A human life dependent on a kidney transplant is tragedy. A human life dependent on another's womb is normal.

Finally, I never said this belief is founded on it being old. I think it is true. Very early in our history, Augustine said that at three months an infant had a soul and before that a pregnancy could be terminated, but that was never Church teaching, which, although slow and careful, does change on some matters as knowledge increases. I would say this is a matter where science has taught us a lot about how life starts in the last 200 years, and the fact that almost immediately upon insemination, this little cell and then cluster of cells has its own unique DNA, and it starts replicating and consuming energy, are good indicators that life starts right away.
It's established law, a fetus isn't a person until it is separated from the mother, it is simply just another part of the mother otherwise.
The law isn't the only thing that matters. How people want to count censuses, give tax credits, etc, is a legal construction. It's like borders. Canada and the US are legal constructions, our border isn't a real thing that exist in a vacuum, but the land is. In this case, the government may not count the unborn, but the fact is that they are human lives. And when people say we should give child tax credits to pregnant women, I am for that. It makes sense. But that's not going to tell us whether or not this is a human being. It just tells us how to govern.
 
ALSO, let me note that it's never possible to satisfy every possible person's belief on medical matters. There are pacifists who think that any act of violence is unacceptable, always, yet we don't cater our entire country's laws to make killing someone in self-defense the same charge as murder. They don't get to insist that everyone else give up their lives in the face of violence, just because their pacifism says that it's better to die than use violence.

Quiverfull christians believe that any use of contraception, even the rhythm method, is against God's will. Should we force all married couples to have as many babies as they can, just because some fringe group thinks that God commands it?

Some christians believe that "spilling seed" is equivalent to murder. Should we ban masturbation because of the babies not born from jizz in a sock?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs. If there were 6 Jehovah's Witnesses on the SCOTUS, should they be allowed to ban all blood transfusions because they think they're morally required to do so by their faith?

And why should we stop at people's physical lives? If SCOTUS can make a ruling based on Christian beliefs about when life begins, regardless of any science or objective reality, then why shouldn't they be able to make rulings based on the state of people's immortal souls? Should they be able to require everyone attend church on Sundays? Require people take communion? Can they ban witchcraft because of the harm they claim it does to a person's soul?
No, as I said, I think secular democracy is a good thing.

This is a case where I think there is both scientific and philosophical reason to regard this as a human life. A fertilize egg will implant and grow into a person, barring natural abortion like a miscarriage, or unnatural abortion. It is the latter that concerns me. Semen on its own won't do anything. When it comes to blood transfusions or gay marriage, I think the advice 'If you don't want to get gay married, don't.' works, and is a compatible way for religious and secular society to get along. The problem with applying it to abortion is I think there is a person who is being killed as a result, and that is something we should prevent.
 
No, as I said, I think secular democracy is a good thing.

This is a case where I think there is both scientific and philosophical reason to regard this as a human life. A fertilize egg will implant and grow into a person, barring natural abortion like a miscarriage, or unnatural abortion. It is the latter that concerns me. Semen on its own won't do anything. When it comes to blood transfusions or gay marriage, I think the advice 'If you don't want to get gay married, don't.' works, and is a compatible way for religious and secular society to get along. The problem with applying it to abortion is I think there is a person who is being killed as a result, and that is something we should prevent.
Again, you think. Would you really believe that without your faith? You can say it’s based on philosophy and science, but you just spent how much time explaining why your faith did not allow for abortions to be done.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
The problem with applying it to abortion is I think there is a person who is being killed as a result, and that is something we should prevent.
The problem with this is that to reach your goal of protecting lives, you're sacrificing others because the people you've allied yourself with are not being in any way reasonable. They're denying abortion in cases of detached placentas, and fatal birth defects. They're denying abortion care in cases where the fetus is already dead. I know you're against those cases, but you've allied yourself with people who are willing to kill women because they get more political power for being pants-on-head stupid about the issue.

No matter what you think abortion laws should be like, overruling Roe v. Wade and allowing unchecked absurdity when it comes to states making whatever crazy laws they want about the issue is horribly harmful. To the point of being unconscionable. You're not arguing in favor of saving the unborn, you're arguing in favor of punishing women.

Moreover, you're arguing in favor of ALL the losses that will will come, losing access to birth control, losing LGBTQ+ rights, losing interracial marriage, etc. etc.

This is not an issue that exists in a vaccuum. If you want to deny bodily autonomy just because you think that life begins at a fertilized egg, then you've got to accept all the bullshit that follows. Because everyone is going to lose a lot of rights if people don't have a right to their own bodies.
 
The argument "a woman growing a baby is natural" is BS.
You are not killing a person, you are allowing another person to stop doing a lot of serious harm to their own body for the sake of another's.
As you have said: after birth a mother can refuse to give blood - which is pretty uneventful and unharmful - to keep her child alive. If the fetus is a life, there's no reason why she should not have the same right before birth. Let the fetus survive on its own if it can.
A pregnancy is, in many/most/nearly all cases, NOT just nine months, fire-and-forget. It radically alters your body AND mind forever. Hormonal balance, hip and pelvis adjustments, breasts getting bigger, often spinal movement which can cause hernias, blood flow changes, etc etc.
Not just asking, but FORCING someone to accept their personality will change and their body will change for something they didn't ask for and don't want, for some tortured reasoning of "it might be a human of you really squint and look sideways at a lot of science" is just morally wrong.
Also, as has been shown a billion times, it is NOT about saving or protecting lives. Otherwise, childcare and education world be free, maternal leave would be longer and better paid, and the same damn people wouldn't be advocating for the death penalty, gun freedom, and so forth.
Trying to claim it's about preserving life is only even remotely possible if you're totally consistent about it.
As-is, it's a power play to enforce a servile role for women.
 
Top