ARCHVE: Attention all sick pro-aborts

Evangelion

New member
Jes -

As Christians, are we still permitted to have opinions about the moral code?

Absolutely. :)

I'm not looking for "should not be considered". I'm asking for legality.

I was giving you the government's position. I was explaining what I believe to be your government's rationale.

So, without references to trimesters, can you state your position in terms of viability and legality.

I don't believe that abortion should be legal. I would only consider it under the exceptional circumstances to which I have already referred.
 

jes1994

New member
Evangelion,

I don't believe that abortion should be legal.
I was under the impression that such a sentiment constituted a position that was not pro-choice. Previously, you said that you were pro-choice. What am I missing here?
 

Evangelion

New member
Jes -

I was under the impression that such a sentiment constituted a position that was not pro-choice.

Surprisingly enough, it does not.

Previously, you said that you were pro-choice.

Agreed.

What am I missing here?

The necessary distinction between "what I would prefer to see", and "what is realistic under the current circumstances."

Speaking personally, I do not believe that abortion should be legal. But it is legal, and I cannot change that fact.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, I still argue that people should be permitted to make up their own minds on the subject.

Abortion is not the hill on which I choose to die.
 

jes1994

New member
Evangelion,

Speaking personally, I do not believe that abortion should be legal. But it is legal, and I cannot change that fact.
Should whether or not you personally can change the legality have an impact on whether or not you personally feel it should be legal?

As I understand things, you and I agree on a "life of the mother exception" to any potential abortion law. And if we do not, I'd rather discuss that exception on a separate thread. So, ignoring that exception, is it possible for you to make a statement tying to together your views on legality of abortion and viability of the fetus, without bringing in any mention of trimesters?
 

DavidCaroYates

New member
Quote:
Should people make up their minds about the illegality of robbery, rape, or murder? Should those actions not be illegal?

Euangelion:
To me, this is a false equivocation. I had never said that people should be allowed to make up their own minds about everything - I had said that they should be allowed to make up their own minds about the abortion issue. In other words, they should be free to make a choice about abortion, on the basis of their own situation and their own personal world view.

DCY:
Please forgive me for butting in on this highly volatile discussion, but...
I happen to have taken a couple courses in logic during my university days and, as far as I can tell, there is no 'false equivocation' being made here at all. The individual who posted the questions at the top obviously sees abortion in general as a moral evil, along with the other activities that are listed. Naturally each is not exactly the same as the other, nor end in the same results, and are therefore punished diversely. But they are all nevertheless wrongful--as is abortion, which, no matter the particular situation in which the procedure is decided upon and thus performed, ends in the death of a yet-to-born human baby. That is the bottom line and must not be dismissed nor forgotten.

Euangelion, the scenario you present as the 'only' one in which you would 'personally' find the abortion procedure an acceptable option--the 'life of the mother' exception--is one which, in this day and age, is exceedingly rare (thank God!). Indeed, the incidence of a mother's life being genuinely put in jeopardy as the result of her producing a live baby are so rare as to be virtually negligible. It is seriously a situation where, if such circumstances really were the only instance in which an abortion is justifiable, it would, for all intents and purposes, put an end to the practise almost altogether.

Projill, I am sincerely saddened that a pregnancy of yours (or any pregnancy, for that matter) ended in a miscarriage. And I am also saddened that your church community failed to show you the sympathy appropriate for such a terrible event, no matter what your politics might be. (Though I can honestly say that, until you, I have never heard of any Christians reacting thusly to such a situation). However, at the same time, you designate yourself an ideological liberal. That being so, liberals generally pride themselves on standing up for 'the little guy', speaking out on behalf of those who have no voice and fighting for those who are comparatively defenseless. Why is this not so when it is the littlest 'guys' who are in mortal danger? Why are these principles of advocacy not extended to those who are truly voiceless, who are completely defenseless and whose very lives are jeopardised? This is an egregious inconsistency. Please, don't allow the bitterness you likely have a perfect right to be feeling toward those particular Christians who mistreated you to compromise your liberal principles, because in the end, your voice goes out not against them, but against babies.

And to all those who claimed not to feel a sense of shock at the photo of a sliced-up baby: I don't at all mind saying this. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Unless, of course, instead of shock, the feelings that were elicited by the picture were those of revulsion, profound sadness and righteous indignation that any baby should meet with such a truly horrible end. Personally speaking, I have seen countless such photos over the years and they have never once failed to profoundly upset me. And it really shouldn't matter which side of the abortion debate you come down on, if pictures like that don't upset you, well then, I'm sorry to say this, but you might just as well turn in your humanity-card right now.
 

Evangelion

New member
Jes -

Should whether or not you personally can change the legality have an impact on whether or not you personally feel it should be legal?

No. It must stand or fall on its own ethical merits.

As I understand things, you and I agree on a "life of the mother exception" to any potential abortion law.

Yep.

And if we do not, I'd rather discuss that exception on a separate thread.

Fine.

So, ignoring that exception, is it possible for you to make a statement tying to together your views on legality of abortion and viability of the fetus, without bringing in any mention of trimesters?

I thought I already had, in my previous post.
 

Evangelion

New member
DCY -

Please forgive me for butting in on this highly volatile discussion, but...

I happen to have taken a couple courses in logic during my university days and, as far as I can tell, there is no 'false equivocation' being made here at all. The individual who posted the questions at the top obviously sees abortion in general as a moral evil, along with the other activities that are listed. Naturally each is not exactly the same as the other, nor end in the same results, and are therefore punished diversely. But they are all nevertheless wrongful--as is abortion, which, no matter the particular situation in which the procedure is decided upon and thus performed, ends in the death of a yet-to-born human baby. That is the bottom line and must not be dismissed nor forgotten.

I can see where he's coming from, but I still maintain that it's a false equivocation. Since I had not argued for the acceptance of abortion as an everyday procedure, but only ever argued for it as a "last resort", there is no comparison between my position on abortion and the question of whether or not people should be allowed to make up their minds about rape, murder, etc. This would only be a legitimate parallel if I had claimed that abortion should be legalised without exception. And yet, that is not the position to which I subscribe.

Euangelion, the scenario you present as the 'only' one in which you would 'personally' find the abortion procedure an acceptable option--the 'life of the mother' exception--is one which, in this day and age, is exceedingly rare (thank God!).

Yes, I know it is. And interestingly enough, Jes1994 agrees with me with regard to this exceptional circumstance.
 

Atheist_Divine

New member
And it really shouldn't matter which side of the abortion debate you come down on, if pictures like that don't upset you, well then, I'm sorry to say this, but you might just as well turn in your humanity-card right now.

It is possible to become de-sensitised to images and still remain human. Soldiers become de-sensitised to death, along with everyone else, journalists, aid workers and the like who go to war zones - are they no longer human?

~AD~
 

DavidCaroYates

New member
Evangelion: Abortion is not the hill on which I choose to die.

No, Ev, it's the baby who is doing the dying.
The truth is, as a percentage of the general population (of North America, at least) the number of pro-life advocates who want to disallow any and all abortions no matter the circumstances, even should the life of the mother be in legitimate danger (which is, again, exceedingly rare these days) is considerably less than the numbers of those pro-abortion advocates who want to allow any and all abortions no matter the circumstances, for any reason, or indeed NO reason, at all. That being the case, Ev, and given your own stated position on this matter, it would seem you're directing your arguments in the wrong direction. There are not likely too many people here who WOULD advocate the mother's death should such a situation genuinely present itself, to begin with!
 

jes1994

New member
Evangelion,

I thought I already had, in my previous post.
In post #68370, I attempted to summarize your position as "viability of the fetus should be the criteria for whether or not gov't should step in to make abortion illegal".

Another way of saying this could be "viability of the fetus should be the criteria for legality of abortion". I may have misunderstood your point when I made such a summary. And seeing how other people have been trying to put words into your mouth (so to speak) on the issue, I am trying to be very careful not to do so. Would you agree with either of these statements? If not, can you please modify either one in such a way the statement that does express your philosopy while still referencing legality, viability, and not referencing trimesters?
 

Evangelion

New member
Jes -

I think that development of the fetus, viability of the fetus, and the risk to the mother's life should be the criteria for the legality of abortion.

Is that what you were looking for?

:)
 

jes1994

New member
Originally posted by Evangelion
Jes -

I think that development of the fetus, viability of the fetus, and the risk to the mother's life should be the criteria for the legality of abortion.

Is that what you were looking for?

:)

Yes. Now, I need to make two deductions from your statement.

1) Abortion where development of the fetus is past the point of viability should be considered murder, and prosecuted as such under the legal system as murder, with the life of the mother exception.

2) Abortion before development reaches the point of viability should not be prosecuted as murder under the legal system.

Both of these statements seem to me like they are pretty straightforward conclusions coming from your original statement, along with the standard western societal definition of murder. Am I close enough with #1 and #2?
 

DavidCaroYates

New member
DCY -
Quote:
Please forgive me for butting in on this highly volatile discussion, but...
I happen to have taken a couple courses in logic during my university days and, as far as I can tell, there is no 'false equivocation' being made here at all. The individual who posted the questions at the top obviously sees abortion in general as a moral evil, along with the other activities that are listed. Naturally each is not exactly the same as the other, nor end in the same results, and are therefore punished diversely. But they are all nevertheless wrongful--as is abortion, which, no matter the particular situation in which the procedure is decided upon and thus performed, ends in the death of a yet-to-born human baby. That is the bottom line and must not be dismissed nor forgotten.


Evangelion:
I can see where he's coming from, but I still maintain that it's a false equivocation. Since I had not argued for the acceptance of abortion as an everyday procedure, but only ever argued for it as a "last resort", there is no comparison between my position on abortion and the question of whether or not people should be allowed to make up their minds about rape, murder, etc. This would only be a legitimate parallel if I had claimed that abortion should be legalised without exception. And yet, that is not the position to which I subscribe.

DCY: All due respect Ev, but there still isn't a false equivocation being made here. It was not a statement from you to the effect that you thoght abortion should be an "everyday procedure" that prompted the alegedly false comparisons. Rather, as you only allude above, it was you expressing your position that abortion should be a choice left up to the individual. Given that the procedure results in egregious harm being done to another person, you were asked if you thought other actions that also result in harm being visited upon another should also be simple matters of individual choice. Trust me, there is no false equivocation being made in this request, which by the way is still outstanding.

Quote:
DCY: Euangelion, the scenario you present as the 'only' one in which you would 'personally' find the abortion procedure an acceptable option--the 'life of the mother' exception--is one which, in this day and age, is exceedingly rare (thank God!).

Ev: Yes, I know it is. And interestingly enough, Jes1994 agrees with me with regard to this exceptional circumstance.

DCY: That being so, what then is the ultimate point of contention?
As near as I can tell, it is in your assertion that despite your own personal reservations concerning the deliberate termination of an otherwise healthy pregnancy, you nevertheless maintain that you still consider it best left as a matter of personal choice. Again, given that abortions end in the horrible death of a human baby, such a stance is, quite frankly, beyond my ken to understand.
I cannot of course speak to your own personal situation, Ev, but certain others I've come across who've taken much the same position on this issue as you have seem to do so with the underlying intention of endeavouring to maintain some perceived sense of being 'with it'. It is as though coming out publically against abortion is seen as somehow unsophisticated and unenlightened, and has the ostensibly regrettable consequence of thus being grouped with the same. I can understand this concern, but I cannot accept it. Sadly, largely due to the manner in which virtually all forms of the media have chosen to present this issue, it's simply not TRENDY to be against abortion. But, whoever said that following Christ would ever be trendy? As I hope you would agree, Ev, we should not allow our morals to be dictated by something as inconstant as societal trends.
 

DavidCaroYates

New member
Evangelion: Abortion is not the hill on which I choose to die.

DCY: No, Ev, it's the baby who is doing the dying.
The truth is, as a percentage of the general population (of North America, at least) the number of pro-life advocates who want to disallow any and all abortions no matter the circumstances, even should the life of the mother be in legitimate danger (which is, again, exceedingly rare these days) is considerably less than the numbers of those pro-abortion advocates who want to allow any and all abortions no matter the circumstances, for any reason, or indeed NO reason, at all. That being the case, Ev, and given your own stated position on this matter, it would seem you're directing your arguments in the wrong direction. There are not likely too many people here who WOULD advocate the mother's death should such a situation genuinely present itself, to begin with!

Evangelion: DCY - I see emotivism, but little relevance.

DCY: Where's the overt emotionalism in what I posted?!? All I asserted above was, given the fact that the vast majority of pro-life advocates are indeed open to the option of allowing abortions only in those extremely rare circumstances that, should the pregnancy be carried to term, the mother's life would be genuinely jeopardized (a position which you expressed is in concert with your own), coupled with the fact that there are far more pro-abortion advocates who demand a completely free and open abortion license for any reason whatever--or indeed NO reason at all (which is something with which you are supposedly uncomfortable)--then it seems to me you're picking a fight with the wrong people, Ev. That is my only point here.

Ev: Could you please be specific?
Thanks.

DCY: Happily. But specific concerning what exactly?
 

DavidCaroYates

New member
Quote:
DCY: And it really shouldn't matter which side of the abortion debate you come down on, if pictures like that don't upset you, well then, I'm sorry to say this, but you might just as well turn in your humanity-card right now.

Atheist-Divine (A-D): It is possible to become de-sensitised to images and still remain human. Soldiers become de-sensitised to death, along with everyone else, journalists, aid workers and the like who go to war zones - are they no longer human?

DCY: Of course this is POSSIBLE, A-D, but surely it is not DESIRABLE--especially where horribly murdered, defenseless babies are concerned. Shouldn't this 'de-sensitisation' to which you refer be guarded against? And, in point of fact, to the degree to which soldiers and journalists and the like are genuinely de-sensitised to such images, I think they do lose a bit of their humanity--and I would even wager good money that most of them would agree with that.
The fact is, my goodness, I'm honestly stunned that anyone would even wish to argue about this. Are you sincerely not bothered by the photo of a sliced-up human baby?!? Heck, as far as I'm concerned, it could be a picture of a puppy, kitten or practically whatever sliced-up in like manner and I think I'd find myself bothered by it.
 

jes1994

New member
DCY and ~AD~,

One quick thing... we've already got a thread discussing the use of the abortion pictures as avatars over in the fellowship section called "Avatar Contest".

Thanks,
 

Evangelion

New member
Jes -

1) Abortion where development of the fetus is past the point of viability should be considered murder, and prosecuted as such under the legal system as murder, with the life of the mother exception.

Yes, that is my position. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that the majority of US states prohibit abortion after the third trimester unless the mother's life is at risk. Am I correct?

2) Abortion before development reaches the point of viability should not be prosecuted as murder under the legal system.

Yes, that is my position.

Both of these statements seem to me like they are pretty straightforward conclusions coming from your original statement, along with the standard western societal definition of murder. Am I close enough with #1 and #2?

You are correct on both.

Now permit me to elaborate:
  • I would prefer it if abortions were illegal - without qualification.
  • Practically speaking, however, this is simply not possible. (Some women who have been raped would prefer to abort ASAP, for example.) People's individual circumstances must be taken into consideration. They should have the freedom of choice.
  • I therefore believe that people should be free to make up their own minds with regard to abortion before the third trimester.
  • Notwithstanding this, I believe that abortion after the third trimester should be illegal unless the life of the mother is at stake.
 
Last edited:

Evangelion

New member
DCY -

All due respect Ev, but there still isn't a false equivocation being made here. It was not a statement from you to the effect that you thoght abortion should be an "everyday procedure" that prompted the alegedly false comparisons.

In that case, you don't have an argument.

Rather, as you only allude above, it was you expressing your position that abortion should be a choice left up to the individual.

*snip*

So what this really comes down to, is your own subjective definition of what constitutes a "person." This is precisely why it amounts to a false equivocation - because you are using a subjective definition instead of a universally accepted one.

Trust me, there is no false equivocation being made in this request, which by the way is still outstanding.

In what way is it "still outstanding"? Are you seriously asking if I believe that people should be free to decide if rape and murder are OK?

That, sir, is an insult to my intelligence and morals. I shall not dignify it with an answer.

That being so, what then is the ultimate point of contention?

I suggest you ask him. I certainly don't know.

*snip*

I cannot of course speak to your own personal situation

*snip*

No, you cannot. But I note with interest that this didn't stop you from implying it. :rolleyes:

I do not hold this position because I want to be "with it", nor do I hold it in deference to "social trends." In fact, my position is at odds with the current "social trends." It is quite conservative - though not as right-wing as yours.

*snip*

Where's the overt emotionalism in what I posted?!?

I said "emotivism", not "overt emotionalism." You have chosen to employ a logical fallacy known as "The Argument From Pity." That is a classic case of emotivism.
 
Top