A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion

[Atothetheist]

Are you saying that God *couldn’t* make a less undesirable punishment for people who aren’t saved through Jesus? 

It is certainly not clear that he could.  I seems that his intrinsic property of perfect justice might have something to do with it. Of course you can make an argument that he could and explain how your scenario would satisfy all the moving parts. I would happy be critique it.

Did Jesus die when he was crucified?

Yes.

You know, I'm not missing the leading nature of the your questions and where you will go next. You could just skip that part and be more efficient.

Ah...

Omnipotence only means the ability to do what is logically possible and not in violation of his nature. Perfect justice is part of his nature.

The person of Jesus, as the doctrine of the incarnation explicates, has a complete God nature and complete human nature. Guess which one died on the cross.

You are missing the nature my questions. You've been missing their nature *for a while* now. I suggest you just answer to best of your ability.  You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. 

I didn't ask if "God's nature" can die. You're lodging a defense for which there is no accusation. I'll lead clarify further: Can God experience the phenomena of death, even if he cannot die? If he cannot, would you say his knowledge of death is complete? Why or why not?

As it's been made abundantly clear, you are in no position to critique a just system. You make definite statements about what is in/out of God's nature, some of which you offer the Bible as an authority (again, without establishing the credibility) of it, other in which you offer "natural theology" (whatever that fucking means), but you don't actually know.

 Any critique of the system (even ones that are biblically based) amounts to: Its not against his nature to do evil (because of the presupposition that he is perfect justice and all-good) and if God does engage in that behavior, then it must be good. So such. critique cannot be possible, nor would you entertain it. If I could come up with a better system that was appealing to you I would imagine that the reply might be: "God, because he is simply better, thought of something outside of your capabilities and chose this system, so its better than your alternative system."

If you truly believe what you've stated, you've philosophically castrated yourself in the determining process of morality (at least in the process of critiquing your Master). Even your own personal morality is derived from the presuppositions and "truths" Christianity has advocated. Anything not revealed through the Bible, Natural Theology or whatever else you think is some sort of authority on God, you filter through those precepts, guidelines and rules regardless. 

Instead of determining what is right or wrong, you determine what the tea leaves say. Like those leaves, your precepts are vague and murky enough (to the outsiders, obviously) that they're always right, or that they don't actually form the letters that it looks like they form.
As you've already admitted, you do not completely know God. You cannot know God completely (at least on this plane). As a consequence, you cannot know your objective morality completely. You cannot critique objectively, and you cannot place yourself in the position of God. Why bother entertaining your bad faith challenge?

If God instructs you, like Abraham, to kill sacrifice your child, would you grab for the knife? You can deny that he would ask, but your book makes it clear that a man that would should be celebrated for his obedience rather than criticized for not understanding God's nature enough to question the command.

More broadly, if God commanded you do to do an act that you perceive as immoral, would you do it?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

No, it's not. You are ignoring the existential framework of what is actually going on. God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided.

Gotta give the christo-fascist credit when it's due...

If mental gymnastics were an Olympic event, Steve-O would be a favorite to bring home gold this summer!

[Inkubus]

No, it's not. You are ignoring the existential framework of what is actually going on. God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided.

Gotta give the christo-fascist credit when it's due...

If mental gymnastics were an Olympic event, Steve-O would be a favorite to bring home gold this summer!

God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided.

Worship me or burn. 

Give me your wallet or I'll stab you.

[Mathilda]

More like ..

Give me your wallet or my reflex action will stab you. Sorry, I actually love you and don't want to stab you and only want what's best for you. I want you to give me your wallet out of your own free will because you love me too. But it's entirely your choice whether you want to be stabbed or not.

[Mathilda]

By the way, in case you wonder why I call him Mr God it's because I respect other people's pronouns, even when they're imaginary beings.

Christians are adamant that he is male even though they define sex in strictly limited biological ways which don't apply to a non-corporeal deity. So I must conclude that Mr God's gender identity must be male.

Also his name is God. It's like being called Miss Human.

[Szuchow]

By the way, in case you wonder why I call him Mr God it's because I respect other people's pronouns, even when they're imaginary beings.

Christians are adamant that he is male even though they define sex in strictly limited biological ways which don't apply to a non-corporeal deity. So I must conclude that Mr God's gender identity must be male.

Also his name is God. It's like being called Miss Human.

Actually his name is Yahu-Wahu. 

[Mathilda]

By the way, in case you wonder why I call him Mr God it's because I respect other people's pronouns, even when they're imaginary beings.

Christians are adamant that he is male even though they define sex in strictly limited biological ways which don't apply to a non-corporeal deity. So I must conclude that Mr God's gender identity must be male.

Also his name is God. It's like being called Miss Human.

Actually his name is Yahu-Wahu. 

I'd say calling him God then is dehumanising but I'm not sure what the god version of dehumanising is.

[Szuchow]

Actually his name is Yahu-Wahu. 

I'd say calling him God then is dehumanising but I'm not sure what the god version of dehumanising is.

Degodising?

[Inkubus]

I'd say calling him God then is dehumanising but I'm not sure what the god version of dehumanising is.

Degodising?

I was so hoping that was a semi-real word like embiggen or chortle but nah.
But then seeing as this is yet another philosophy thread I thought I would look for a deeper meaning to the word. I sought help.

I'm not quite sure what to make of:

Doggie sin.

Sogged nidi.

Going sided.

[Minimalist]

From the world of science.....as opposed to the delusions of a primitive bullshitter......


https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/23/world...index.html

Why don’t humans have tails? Scientists find answers in an unlikely place

Humans still have tails when we’re developing in the womb as embryos; this wee appendage is a hand-me-down from the tailed ancestor of all vertebrates and includes 10 to 12 vertebrae. It’s only visible from the fifth to sixth week of gestation, and by the fetus’ eighth week its tail is usually gone. 

Since modern "humans" don't have tails perhaps the forced birth crowd should seize on 8 weeks instead of their imaginary fetal heartbeat at 6? Better still, maybe they should mind their own business and wait until the fetus attains "Live Birth" status before annointing it with the title of "human?"

‘‘Live Birth’’ means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such expulsion or extraction, breathes, or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Heartbeats are to be distinguished from transient cardiac contractions; respirations are to be distinguished from fleeting respiratory efforts or gasps.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

 

[Dānu]

In answer to your question, what I am asking is whether there is good evidence that the pro-life position is God's design, a position you made a central question in the second half of your reply.  As I'm sure that you are aware, Exodus 21:22-25 actually argues against the idea that abortion is murder, and the rest of the passages you cite are vague interpretive claims about the value of life in the womb which aren't conclusive, nor do they address what value the life in the womb has, only that it has value; that alone is insufficient for the argument you are making.  Even pro-choice people acknowledge that the life in the womb has value, so the passages you cite don't go nearly far enough.  Unless there are some passages not yet cited, the situation is largely analogous to the debate about chattel slavery in 19th century America, wherein both pro and anti slavery Christians could point to the bible for support.  What's clear in hindsight is that the morals as they apply to slavery had their origin outside the bible and people were simply trying to inherit the imprimatur of divine authority with claims that the bible, and therefore God, did or did not support chattel slavery.  Which brings us back to the second paragraph of your response in which you maintain that your stance is motivated by a concern for God's design and that the secular arguments simply reinforce the theological implications.  However, if this is analogous to the slavery question -- and I think it clearly is -- then the notion that this God's design business can ground your secular arguments is pure malarkey because the morals of the pro-life movement are clearly coming from outside the bible.  This leaves us again with the central question I asked earlier as to how you reconcile making is-ought arguments while simultaneously claiming that is-ought arguments cannot be made?  You appealed to your religious beliefs as a trap-door out of the dilemma and it appears from inspection that this was just a smokescreen.  If I'm correct here, then you still need to explain this central inconsistency in the arguments that you've made.

I think the syllogism format would be useful. Here is my basic religious argument:

I don't think you understand what a syllogism is.

P1. All human life is sacred and valuable, as affirmed by explicit biblical teachings and implicit foundational doctrines (Imago Dei, a path to redemption, the incarnation, salvation/grace, and provisions for eternal life).

In support of Premise 1
There are verses and narratives that do indicate a recognition that life begins in the womb and that our size and location seemed irrelevant as to purpose and value from God's perspective. Additionally, there is nothing in the Bible that would suggest that considering an unborn child as something other than an early human in the normal arc of development was the proper perspective. Following are representative samples:

Psalm 139:13-16: This Psalm is often referenced for its depiction of God's intimate knowledge and care for the psalmist even from the womb.
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Jeremiah 1:5: This verse is often cited as evidence that God's relationship with and plans for a person begin before birth.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

The interpretation objection: While individual verses might be interpreted in various ways, the overarching narrative of scripture consistently supports the value of life from its earliest stages -- preempting objections based on interpretive differences.

Setting aside your premise for the moment, Exodus 21:22-25 makes clear that God places different value upon born and unborn life. You do not. So your arguments aren't coming from God, the bible, or Christianity. So, again, you need to explain your hypocrisy in denying others the option of making is-ought arguments while making an entire thread in which you literally do nothing but.

Second, keeping the larger goal in mind, your P1 claims that it is immoral to unnecessarily destroy human life, yet as already noted, God makes a distinction between human life in the womb, let's call it human_life_1, and human life that is born, which we'll call human_life_2. Exodus 21:22-25 makes clear that God considers human_life_2 as being life for which lex talionis is valid, a life for a life, but not necessarily for human_life_1. Since they are not morally equivalent according to your bible and other religions, your P1 cannot be granted until you establish that they are morally equivalent. This you have not done so. You have argued that they are equivalent in other ways (genetics, identity), but doing so is a non sequitur as these other equivalences don't necessarily entail moral equivalence.

I've raised the problem with P1 multiple times from the beginning. That you ignore it and make disingenuous biblical arguments to support it strongly suggests that you are being dishonest and arguing in bad faith.

As I said in the post to which you replied, no one is denying that life in the womb has value. Having value isn't enough, as other things have value, too.

P2. Human life begins at conception, evidenced by the formation of a unique genetic identity and the initiation of the normal arc of human development.

In support of Premise 2
[From the OP] At the moment of conception, a unique genetic identity is formed, combining DNA from both the egg and sperm, creating a distinct human organism with its own individual and unrepeatable genetic code, separate from both the mother and father. Scientifically, conception marks the beginning of a continuous developmental process; the zygote, the earliest stage of human development, fulfills the basic biological criteria for life, including the ability to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, and reproduce cells. The zygote, formed at conception, is the initial stage of a human being's life cycle, initiating a complex process of development that, if uninterrupted by natural or external factors, will lead to the birth of a human child.

What is necessary to fulfill the basic biological criteria fort life is a matter of great controversy both within biology and outside of it. That you are here claiming to know what those criteria are or should be suggests either that you are dishonestly claiming something that you don't know, or that we can add biology to the list of things that you are ignorant and incompetent about.

[From Post #30] In the fields of biology, developmental biology and embryology, the consensus is pretty firm. The denial that the above describes life is more ideologically based than scientific.

The "study" you quoted surveyed a sample of biologists for their opinion. It was a self-selected sample and as such cannot be considered random. In order for a statement about the opinions of biologists as a whole to be valid, the sample queried must be representative of biologists as a whole. The author made no attempts to control for composition to justify thinking that his sample was representative and so he isn't justified in forming conclusions about biologists as a whole. The methodological flaws in the study thus negate your claim here that it supports and establishes what the consensus of biologists believes. I'll have more on the problems with this paper if you insist on continuing to push it. At best, it shows that you do not understand what a scientific fact is. Scientific facts are not determined by a vote. However, if you have other evidence to support your claim of a scientific fact, I'll be happy to evaluate it as you do not appear competent to do so on your own.

First, the embryo is a) growing, b) metabolizing, c) responding to stimuli, and d)reproducing cells. It seems to me that this is a basic definition of something living. Further, you can't confuse the mother's function with the embryos because we can develop viable embryo artificially outside the womb for weeks. Second, to deny this is life on a ideological basis entails proposing an alternative. Obviously at some point within the gestational window, the unborn human has basically all the traits of a new born. No one denies a newborn is alive so the viable fetus must be alive. Going backwards, what particular cell division would put it over the line? Every point going back is needlessly arbitrary made purely to further some agenda or justify some action.

This is an example of the fallacy of the beard. Your reckless aspersions are noted. That the point you choose is easily identifiable doesn't make it non-arbitrary.

There is also an lengthy addendum in Post #61 with more sources and 7 arguments against "personhood" as the appropriate concept.

And as I've warned you once already, I have made no such arguments. Take your strawman and shove it wherever you deem appropriate.

C. Therefore, human life from the moment of conception is sacred and valuable, deserving of protection.

It is implicit in the concept of something having value that, in the absence of other considerations, it is deserving of protection. However, in this case, there are other considerations, so pointing out that the life in the womb is valuable in the simpliciter does not lead to the conclusion that it should be protected in other instances. This is a non sequitur. Additionally, even on its own it wouldn't align sufficiently with your original argument to count as anything other than an interesting observation.

As an additional note, you keep adding things to the bible that aren't there (human life, sacred, worth protecting). Please stop.

All the counterarguments I addressed in the OP apply to this argument:
--Bodily Autonomy
--Quality of Life (of child)
--Required for Equality with Men
--Hypocrisy
--Hard Cases

I don't know what you are saying here, nor what you are referring to here. If it's important to you, link to it and make a specific point and I may address it. Please note in advance that if I have not depended upon any result you are countering, your concerns may be dismissed as more strawman arguments.

Epistemic Issues for Pro-life morality:
As has been pointed out, abortion is a recent issue of concern for Christians. How are we to understand such evolving positions? The concept is called "doctrinal development." This theological principle acknowledges that while the core truths of faith as revealed in the Bible remain constant, our understanding, interpretation, and application of these truths can grow and evolve over time in light of new knowledge, including scientific advancements, deeper theological reflection, and changing social and historical contexts.

The Christian's understanding of faith and morals is not static but can deepen and expand. This does not mean that core doctrines change in their essence but that the understanding and expression of these doctrines can become more nuanced and comprehensive. Theologian John Henry Newman's seminal work, "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" (1845), argued that doctrinal development is a natural and necessary process within the Church, analogous to the organic growth of a living organism.

So we should come to understand that theological insights, ethical norms, and pastoral practices can be re-evaluated and re-interpreted in response to new questions, challenges, and insights from various fields, including science, philosophy, and history. This approach allows for a dynamic engagement with the world, ensuring that the teachings of faith remain relevant and are understood in a way that resonates with contemporary human experience and knowledge. To be clear, doctrinal development is grounded in a deeper exploration of unchanging biblical truths, not an adaptation to societal changes. This ensures that the core truths of faith inform our understanding of new issues.

Specific Responses:
Slavery Debate Analogy: I'll start by saying that you seem to imply that anti- and pro-slavery Christians were both appealing to the Bible illegitimately. I think that the anti-slavery Christians were appealing to fundamental concepts I referred to in P1 to derive a biblically consistent position whereas the pro-slavery position was seeking to justify their position post hoc. I think the "doctrinal development" process I just described explains the arc of change in Christian thought from the start of the abolition movement, through the end of slavery, through the Jim Crow era, the civil right era and right up to today. It is an understatement to say William Wilberforce was instrumental in abolishing the slave trade in the British Empire and his motivations were deeply rooted in biblical principles and Christian ethics--his application of which isn't even questioned today. So, although not for the same reasons, your slavery analogy is apropos to the abortion issue.

So rather than a "trapdoor," foundational biblical principles can and does ground most of the consequential moral positions of the day. Even though you can't do a word search for 'abortion' and find the verse, it is not particular mysterious to start with a well-established moral truth (P1), examine our facts and context (P2) and derive a biblically consistent position that honors the underlying principle. Is it a perfect process: no.  

I hope this covers most of your questions. Let me know what new ones you have.

I'm tired for now. I will look at this last section of your reply another time.

[Deesse23]

Steve keeps on rambling about sanctity of human life, how human life needs to be protected. You hear him rambling about the evils of bodily autonomy, "hard cases" quality of life, and of course evil bitches aborting.
Yet 10-20% of all pregnancies end with a natural cause of abortion, within 12 weeks of becoming pregnant. Yet you dont hear a single word from Steve about this, never.ever. He should be rambling about medicine, its current state and the fact that all those clumps of cells and fetuses never could be born, and how we can possibly avoid it in the future by making scientific progress in the field of medicine. Yet he doesnt.

No thread, no treatise, no post, not a single.fucking.word.

[Dānu]

How rightwing groups used junk science to get an abortion case before the US supreme court
Anti-abortion researchers ‘exaggerate’ and ‘obfuscate’ in their scientific papers – but by the time they’re published, it’s too late

A pharmacy professor who strenuously avoids heated political discussions is an unlikely candidate to get involved in a fight over abortion, particularly one as high stakes as a case now before the supreme court: the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) v the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM).

But when the professor Chris Adkins of South University in Georgia emailed his concerns about an academic article to the editors of Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology, that’s exactly what happened.

The article had been published by an anti-abortion research institute and, perhaps unsurprisingly, concluded that medication abortion was far less safe than the accepted scientific consensus – one established by more than 100 peer-reviewed studies across multiple continents and two decades of real-world use.

“The way this study used this situation to exaggerate, and I’ll say obfuscate, the truth behind mifepristone’s safety profile is where I thought: ‘I’ll reach out to the journal and say I’ve got these issues,’” said Adkins, referring to the drug targeted by researchers. Mifepristone is one half of a two-pill regimen that treats miscarriage and ends early pregnancy, and its future hangs in the balance of the supreme court case, to be heard this week.

“I honestly didn’t think I would be the first to do that,” said Adkins.

Within a couple days of Adkins’ complaint, the global academic publisher Sage, which publishes the journal, began investigating. Within weeks, Sage retracted not one but three papers by the anti-abortion researchers.

Adkins’ concerns go to the heart of a problem that has bedeviled scientists for at least a decade: the judicial system’s repeated adoption of poor-quality evidence to justify litigation and legislation to restrict abortion. Often that evidence is produced by the anti-abortion movement itself.

FDA v AHM is scheduled for oral arguments on Tuesday. The suit, brought by anti-abortion doctors, seeks to force the FDA to reverse decisions that relaxed restrictions on prescribing mifepristone. The Biden administration and the medication’s manufacturer argue the doctors have no right to sue in the first place.

The study Adkins complained about is central to the doctors’ case, and was cited heavily by a federal district court in Amarillo, Texas, that kicked off the government’s appeal when it found in favor of anti-abortion doctors.

---

The anti-abortion movement pours money into research groups such as the Charlotte Lozier Institute, whose raison d’être is to produce articles its activists can cite in litigation, legislation and promotional materials. The institute was founded in 2011 by one of the nation’s most powerful anti-abortion advocacy groups, Susan B Anthony Pro-life America, and its researchers are responsible for the three now-retracted articles flagged by Adkins.

Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at the University of California at Davis and a leading legal historian of the abortion debate, says the movement has spent decades investing in its own research arm. Campaigners started fringe publications, such as the journal Issues in Law and Medicine, a peer-reviewed publication produced by the the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled. That organization was founded by James Bopp, a lawyer who has campaigned against abortion for decades, and is now the lead council of the National Right to Life.

The journal’s current editor, Barry Bostrom, is an attorney who fought abortion for decades. Bostrom has served as director and general counsel of Indiana Right to Life, and at least once represented National Right to Life before the Federal Election Commission in 2009, alongside Bopp.

But “that’s not the business model anymore”, Ziegler said. The movement is no longer limiting anti-abortion research to its own journals.

[AutisticWill]

Steve keeps on rambling about sanctity of human life, how human life needs to be protected. You hear him rambling about the evils of bodily autonomy, "hard cases" quality of life, and of course evil bitches aborting.
Yet 10-20% of all pregnancies end with a natural cause of abortion, within 12 weeks of becoming pregnant. Yet you dont hear a single word from Steve about this, never.ever. He should be rambling about medicine, its current state and the fact that all those clumps of cells and fetuses never could be born, and how we can possibly avoid it in the future by making scientific progress in the field of medicine. Yet he doesnt.

No thread, no treatise, no post, not a single.fucking.word.

Women are evil. Don't you know? Because of them the son-of-god had to die.

Women need to be controlled. Faggot men, uppity females, sissified-celibate-momma's-boys -- they're the ones pushing this woke 'body autonomy' crap!

Women need to be quite. In the dark. Missionary -- and don't stand up too quickly; gotta get pregnant.

Or at least, all sexual acts must potentially result in a female getting pregnant.

He doesn't say any of that; but he surly believes every word of it.

And if he denies that: Proof or he's lying!

[brewerb]

Could we forget all this and talk about cheese?

(why do I even look in this thread)

[Minimalist]

I like Munster.

[airportkid]

Could we forget all this and talk about cheese?

Hmm.  Favorites:  Port Salut, Dill Havarti, Sharp Cheddar, Cottage, Roquefort, Jack, Louisiana Head, Pepperidge Farms Goldfish, and ---ous Kryste Allmyty!!! exclaimed when the knife slips and nicks a finger 

[Inkubus]

SCOUT: Good Morning.
 
OWNER: Good morning, Sir. Welcome to the National Cheese Emporium!
 
SCOUT: Ah, thank you, my good man.
 
OWNER: What can I do for you, Sir?
 
SCOUT: In a nutshell. And I thought to myself, "a little fermented curd will do the trick," so, I curtailed my Scouting activites, sallied forth, and infiltrated your place of purveyance to negotiate the vending of some cheesy comestibles!
 
OWNER: Come again?
 
SCOUT: I want to buy some cheese.

OWNER: (lustily) Certainly, sir. What would you like?
 
SCOUT: Well, eh, how about a little red Leicester.
 
OWNER: I'm, a-fraid we're fresh out of red Leicester, sir...

[brewerb]

I've never liked the runny cheeses. They remind me of unpleasant things.

[pattylt]

A visit to Frankenmuth Michigan may be in order…

[brewerb]

A visit to Frankenmuth Michigan may be in order…

Do they have blocks of American cheese?

[pattylt]

A visit to Frankenmuth Michigan may be in order…

Do they have blocks of American cheese?

They seem to specialize in a variety of cheeses.  I’ve never been there but in a book I’m reading, the characters go there and thoroughly enjoy all the cheese.

[brewerb]

Do they have blocks of American cheese?

They seem to specialize in a variety of cheeses.  I’ve never been there but in a book I’m reading, the characters go there and thoroughly enjoy all the cheese.

Please tell me they are NOT mice.

[Minimalist]

Packer fans.....

[pattylt]

They seem to specialize in a variety of cheeses.  I’ve never been there but in a book I’m reading, the characters go there and thoroughly enjoy all the cheese.

Please tell me they are NOT mice.

No.  Humans and two other species.  The two other species are blown away by cheese and can’t seem to get enough of it.