Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

What does the bible say about killing babies?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Abortion Debate

Author

Message

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:08 am Post subject:

sofyst wrote:

Do you not see this as our major point of disagreement in our discussion on this issue. I tend to think the good of the society can never justify the individual's displeasure, whereas you seem to think the good of society is the ideal.

If I am not mistaken, we BOTH are willing to sacrifice individuals' rights for the good of society. Pedophiles and slavers are good examples. In those instances you side with society over the right of the individual just as much as I do.

But really it is a bit of a misnomer to categorize this debate as individual vs. society. The argument could just as easily be made that banning slavery benefits the individuals who now no longer have to be slaves, and that banning pedophilia benefits individual children. It's really a balancing of rights. You and I both agree that someone's right not to be a slave should supersede someone's right to have slaves, and that a child's right not to be abused should supersede a pedophile's right to his sick form of pleasure.

You and I just happen to disagree on the issue of abortion. You and I simply put different values on the pros and cons:

ABORTION PROS:
-----------------------
-Empowers women by giving them a fundamental right, namely sovereignty over their own bodies.
-Economically and socially empowers women by giving them the freedom to terminate a pregnancy if they think this will be in their best interests.
-Helps reduce overpopulation.
-Makes your country more respectable in the eyes of the civilized world.
-Potentially saves the life of another baby that otherwise would not have been born.

ABORTION CONS:
-----------------------
-Upsets some people who think that fetuses are human beings.

I'm not going to be so bold as to make a similar list on your behalf, but I argue that if outlawing abortion just comes down to making some people happy, then the practical reasons for keeping it legal far outweigh their feelings.

What I find so strange about the whole abortion debate is that it is so un-American. Since when was it reasonable in America for one group to impose their (religious) views onto another group? The Christian right in America seems to be perfectly happy taking their beliefs and trying to FORCE everyone else to comply with them. Abortion isn't the only example. Gay marriage is another one. Teaching creation in schools is another one. Having prayer in schools is another one. How is any of this consistent with the American ideal of freedom???
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

sofyst
Tiger

Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830

Location: Tejas

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:34 am Post subject:

P123 wrote:

Well, you are mistaken on a lot of other issues, so you may be here as well (I mean, you don't even believe in God!). Very Happy

I am not saying that you are willing to sacrifice individual's rights for the good of society, whereas I am not. I am saying that the reason ultimately for sacrificing an idividual's rights are either for the good of society or for the good of the victim.

I say that the ultimate reason that a slave-owner or a pedophile is not allowed to have their rights is because of the victim. Whereas, I think the ultimate reason, in your opinion, is for the good of society. I may be mistaken here. Correct me if I am.

Quote:

You and I both agree that someone's right not to be a slave should supersede someone's right to have slaves, and that a child's right not to be abused should supersede a pedophile's right to his sick form of pleasure.

Of course we do. But do you ultimately ban the slave-owern's and the pedophile's right for this reason, or becuase in so doing we would be a civilized society and society would be better.

I think you display this somewhat here:

Quote:

ABORTION PROS:
-----------------------
-Empowers women by giving them a fundamental right, namely sovereignty over their own bodies.
-Economically and socially empowers women by giving them the freedom to terminate a pregnancy if they think this will be in their best interests.
-Helps reduce overpopulation.
-Makes your country more respectable in the eyes of the civilized world.
-Potentially saves the life of another baby that otherwise would not have been born.

The 'empowering' of a woman by giving her the freedom or the fundamental right can just as well be argued for the slave-owner or the pedophile. One could argue that a pro of allowing slavery or pedophilia is that it empowers the slave-owner and the pedophile by giving them a fundamental right.

Therefore, I think that these two 'pros' are not necessarily 'pros' in this situation, or rather, they are not exclusive pros in this situation. As you would just as be willing to give up the empowerment of the slave-owner or the pedophile in situations that you have deemed worthy.

Understand?

Your argument then that overpopulation or making our country more respectable, as well as saving other babies is, I think, an argument for the good of society.

Quote:

I'm not going to be so bold as to make a similar list on your behalf, but I argue that if outlawing abortion just comes down to making some people happy, then the practical reasons for keeping it legal far outweigh their feelings.

I think this would be a false balance. It is not a matter of 'making people happy'. We wouldn't say that the reason we outlawed slavery was to simply make the anti-slavery people happy. We did so because it protected the life of the persons that were slaves.

Quote:

What I find so strange about the whole abortion debate is that it is so un-American. Since when was it reasonable in America for one group to impose their (religious) views onto another group? The Christian right in America seems to be perfectly happy taking their beliefs and trying to FORCE everyone else to comply with them. Abortion isn't the only example. Gay marriage is another one. Teaching creation in schools is another one. Having prayer in schools is another one. How is any of this consistent with the American ideal of freedom???

I don't understand why you don't see the parallel. Wouldn't the idea of one group (the anti-slavery people) imposing their views onto another group (the pro-slavery) people be just as anti-American? Why do you permit it then, but not in the abortion issue.

The issue is not simply that Christians don't like abortion (for whatever reason), and therefore want to oppose their view on everyone else. The issue is that a group of people believe that persons are being murdered, and therefore want to protect these persons.
_________________
simul justus et peccator

the Protestant pub

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:01 am Post subject:

sofyst wrote:

They are not mutually exclusive. I want to have slavers' rights and pedophiles' rights curtailed for both the good of the victim AND the good of society. It is not an either or. Victims and society both benefit.

sofyst wrote:

You can argue that if you want, but it's a purely academic argument. No reasonable person would agree with you in any practical sense.

sofyst wrote:

Your argument then that overpopulation or making our country more respectable, as well as saving other babies is, I think, an argument for the good of society.

And my argument that abortion rights enhance the individual rights, powers, and freedoms of women is an argument for the good of the individual.

sofyst wrote:

Because the slavers themselves are trampling on the rights of others. It is a very clear-cut case. It's kind of like the old saying about intolerance: one should not be intolerant of anything except for intolerance itself. It's fine to be intolerant of slavery since it by its very nature is intolerant.

Abortion is a completely different issue. By legalizing abortion, we enhance society and we also enhance individual rights. By legalizing slavery, you hurt society, and you hurt individual rights. I can't understand why you're trying to compare them; they're completely different.

sofyst wrote:

The issue is not simply that Christians don't like abortion (for whatever reason), and therefore want to oppose their view on everyone else. The issue is that a group of people believe that persons are being murdered, and therefore want to protect these persons.

But all they have is their opinions that fetuses are people. There are plenty of people who believe that fetuses are not people. When we outlaw slavery or pedophilia, we do so for very good, concrete, real-world reasons. It would be a colossal mistake to outlaw abortion and sacrifice all of the good that comes from them just for some semantic reason having to do with a definition.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Fake
Tiger

Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 862

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:03 am Post subject:

dramatic_n_comedic_lynn wrote:

I'm sure there are like Italians (since Italy is pre-dominantly Catholic), Irishmen(Ireland, another predominantly Catholic country), and maybe Poles (Poland, another predominantly Catholic country) that support it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that amputations and mutilations performed on innocent people without strictly therapeutic reasons are against the moral law.

In other words, the Catholic Church does not support the barbary of mutilating baby boys, one of few things I and the RCC agrees on.

Fake
_________________
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

“If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.”

sofyst
Tiger

Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830

Location: Tejas

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:24 am Post subject:

P123 wrote:

I know it is not either/or, I realize it is both/and. My question is regarding which do you think is the ultimate reason, the most convincing reason? Do you consider slavery to be wrong mainly because it is an abuse of the slave's right, or mainly because society is considered bad if they allow slavery?

Quote:

You can argue that if you want, but it's a purely academic argument. No reasonable person would agree with you in any practical sense.

Academic or practical, is it a valid argument?

Quote:

And my argument that abortion rights enhance the individual rights, powers, and freedoms of women is an argument for the good of the individual.

But the argument can be posed that the slaver's rights enhance the individual rights, powers and freedoms of the slave-owner is an argument for the good of the individual as well...

Quote:

The only reason I am comparing them is because I think that the use of slavery tramples the rights of others, you disagree here though.

I would argue that we no more enhance society by the legalization of abortion than we do by the legalization of slavery. In my opinion, society is harmed in that it hurts individuals (slaves and babies). You hurt society and you hurt the individual's rights (the babies').

This is why I see them as similair.

The only reasonable argument that you have presented for abortion being a good for society is in the area of overpopulation. But I could pose the same argument that slavery is good for society by free labor. So both of them CAN benefit society, whereas both CAN harm society. You have your perspective, and I can present another one.

I think the only way you could adaquetly prove that slavery and abortion are not similar is by proving that abortion does not damage the right's of the baby's. Can you do so?

Quote:

BUT P! The same is true for slavery. All the anti-slavery people had was their opinion that slaves are people...

I think our discussion is getting too muddy, we need to narrow it down a little.
_________________
simul justus et peccator

the Protestant pub

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject:

sofyst wrote:

I think that individual rights and societal rights are both very good reasons. I cannot tell you which is more important; they are both vitally important, and furthermore they are tied together. You cannot have a good society without strong individual rights, and you cannot have strong individual rights without a good society. For that reason I can't really answer your question; these two things are inseparable.

sofyst wrote:

Quote:

You can argue that if you want, but it's a purely academic argument. No reasonable person would agree with you in any practical sense.

Academic or practical, is it a valid argument?

It depends on your point of view and definition of valid. As far as I can see, it isn't a logically invalid argument. It is invalid in the sense that practically nobody would be convinced by it, and ultimately arguments are only as good as their convincing ability.

sofyst wrote:

Quote:

And my argument that abortion rights enhance the individual rights, powers, and freedoms of women is an argument for the good of the individual.

But the argument can be posed that the slaver's rights enhance the individual rights, powers and freedoms of the slave-owner is an argument for the good of the individual as well...

Quote:

Yes, I can. According to my definition of person, a fetus is not a person, so abortion doesn't harm anyone's rights. According to your definition, the opposite is true. But it would be completely wrong for you to impose your definition onto everyone in society. Do you agree that this would be wrong?

Unless you can find some kind of higher power such as a holy book to support your definition, then we're at an impasse. I've got my definition, and you've got yours, and there's no way to settle the argument.

Now, if some higher power told us that you were right, then things would be more interesting. But remember, the Bible DOESN'T say this. We started this whole debate with the Bible, and we were at an impasse there as to whether or not it said that abortion is murder. Then we moved off into the secular world and tried to settle the argument there. And now we're back to needing an objective definition of personhood, but the Bible doesn't give us that!

This is why I'm bringing in orthogonal arguments to attack your position with such as the argument that imposing your views onto others who don't want them is un-American and violates generally accepted principles of human rights. This avoids the definitional impasse.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

sofyst
Tiger

Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830

Location: Tejas

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject:

P123 wrote:

No, I wouldn't agree this is wrong at all. Why you may ask? Becuase we do it all the time, and have done it before.

According to the slave-owner's defiition of a person, a slave was not a person, so slavery didn't harm anyone's rights. According to your's and mine and other decent people's definition, the opposite is true. But it WASN'T completely wrong for you nor I nor our Father's to impose our definition onto everyone in society. We did so because we recognized their definition was faulty and they were stupid.

Quote:

Unless you can find some kind of higher power such as a holy book to support your definition, then we're at an impasse. I've got my definition, and you've got yours, and there's no way to settle the argument.

Oh but we tried this and you rejected Scripture. Jeremiah was a person, Jeremiah was in the womb (according to Scripture), therefore the Jeremiah in the womb was a person.

Again, don't muddy this with thoughts of souls or not. We don't know where the soul plays into it. All we know is that according to clear Scripture the person of Jeremiah was in the womb.

And please don't give me the fallacious argument of 'well people refer to bodies as people all the time'. You know as well as I do that we cannot plead to the stupidity of people for defense. People FALLACIOUSLY refer to bodies of people as people all the time. They do so wrongly. Their error does not justify another error. GOD referred to the thing within the womb as Jeremiah. Therefore, either we conclude that God was mistaken, as other people are, and God was really calling a 'lifeless body' by name, or we accept what has been plainly laid out before us that God referred to this 'thing' as 'Jeremiah' and therefore it must have been 'Jeremiah' (not his body).

Quote:

This is why I'm bringing in orthogonal arguments to attack your position with such as the argument that imposing your views onto others who don't want them is un-American and violates generally accepted principles of human rights. This avoids the definitional impasse.

This doesn't really. For I have shown that we Americans do this all the time. We impose the populus' views onto others who don't want them all the time. We don't allow the pedophiles to have their views, as we seem them as perverted. We don't allow the crazy cultist to have their views and bunker up somewhere, because we see them as destructive. We don't allow the slave-owners to have their views, becuase we think it is wrong. So you cannot plead to this as though what I am presenting is completely anti-American. It is not. Unless of course you are in denial and think that everything America does is completely and utterly agreed upon by every American.
_________________
simul justus et peccator

the Protestant pub

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject:

sofyst wrote:

You're making a false analogy. With slavery, there was consensus among good people everywhere that slavery is wrong. With abortion, not only is there no consensus, but it is far from clear that abortion is wrong. You can't compare the two.

sofyst wrote:

You have yet to point out where in the Bible it clearly states that the vessel of a person's body can not be referred to by that person's name.

sofyst wrote:

This doesn't really. For I have shown that we Americans do this all the time.

It is only ok to impose your viewpoints onto others when it is the right thing to do. Abolishing slavery was the right thing to do. Abolishing abortion is not.

sofyst wrote:

We impose the populus' views onto others who don't want them all the time.

Only when it's the right thing to do.

sofyst wrote:

We don't allow the pedophiles to have their views, as we seem them as perverted. We don't allow the crazy cultist to have their views and bunker up somewhere, because we see them as destructive. We don't allow the slave-owners to have their views, becuase we think it is wrong. So you cannot plead to this as though what I am presenting is completely anti-American. It is not.

Yes, it most certainly is. When people's rights are taken away, there had better well be a darned good reason for it. That is the American way. Nobody can come up with a good reason for taking away abortion rights that drastically outweighs the reasons for keeping them.

That anti-abortion arguments are FAR too weak to justify taking away women's rights, and causing all of the other problems associated with banning abortions.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Abortion Debate	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
Page 11 of 11