Typically, christians don't approve of abortion, citing the 'preciousness of life', among other things.
Do these same christians oppose the death penalty? Should they?
For discussion:
Is it hypocritical to oppose abortion but support the death penalty? Or, like all things christian, you simply ignore one aspect of this faith while holding on tight to another to support your POV?
Is the 'abortion vs. death penalty' thinking (abortion = bad death penalty = good) nothing more than a male dominated religion further suppressing women? Maybe this helps understand why god's considered male and not female?
Right for life - can you have it both ways?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?
Post #61I think you missed the point CB was making. But as you said, your 'word on the subject would be meaningless', past a simple opinion on the matter.tam wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 12:55 pm Peace to you,
I don't think the two should be compared the way Clownboat compared them, because diminishing the severity of the trauma and grief that comes after a miscarriage or stillbirth, as experienced by the mother and the father, can be just as belittling and discounting to those people and their grief. Studies have shown that it is a misconception to think that a mother (and father) do not deeply grieve this traumatic loss, simply because the child was not yet born, or even because it might have happened early in the pregnancy. Those misconceptions can even make the grieving process harder.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 12:08 pmWhat you're responding to is the intentional belittling and discounting people do to others to justify their (often misguided and uninformed) belief. It's running RAMPANT in the USA ever since donny decided to showcase his inbred-status (opinion not a fact - or at least a fact I can show) on a world stage. And they don't care whom else they hurt.Clownboat wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 12:02 pmBabies have much more value than a fetus. Since their values are not equal, they are treated as such.1213 wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 4:57 amWhat is the meaningful difference between a baby and fetus that makes it ok to kill the fetus?Goat wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:10 pmOf course, it doesn't become a baby until after birth. Before then, it's a fetus.1213 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:45 pmOnly if the baby deserves death penalty. But, if the baby doesn't deserve death penalty, is it ok to sacrifice him anyway so that the parents would get a better life as a reward?nobspeople wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:45 am ...
Is it hypocritical to oppose abortion but support the death penalty?...
Why do you pretend that a fetus has as much value as a baby?
How crazy of a belief it would be to actually think a mother would choose the loss of a 2 year old (for example) over the loss of a fetus that has less then a 50% chance of making it to baby status. The loss of a wanted fetus is sad, the loss of a baby is a travesty. You ignore this and pretend they are equal.
I have friends that lost their 5 year old (bad flu strain caused brain death due to a lack of oxygen). They lost countless fetuses while trying to conceive the first time around and then years after following the loss of their baby girl. I can only imagine the look on their faces if they were to hear you say such a thing. Losing fetuses for them was a disapointment each time, the tragic loss of their baby girl doesn't even compare. I dare you to look such a person in the eye and tell them a baby has the same value as a fetus. I would imagine you would be seeing the world through one good eye after saying such a thing.
This intentional discounting is vile, disgusting and down right sinful.
I've never had a miscarriage, so my word on the subject would be meaningless, but here are some studies on the subject (including common misconceptions about the grieving process from miscarriage or stillbirth), some psychologists findings, and some experiences by women who had miscarriages:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3384447/Although parents have not built up a relationship with their infant, grief after pregnancy loss does not differ significantly in intensity from other loss scenarios. As has been found in bereavement involving first-degree relatives, grief symptoms usually decrease in intensity over the first 12 months.8,9 Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that in a normal grieving process, grief declines over a period of 2 years after the pregnancy loss.8,10 Perinatal losses have also been shown to have a substantial psychological impact on parents and families, and are associated with post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, and sleeping disorders.11,12 Overall, high levels of CG are generally associated with a poorer state of mental health.13
Another common misunderstanding about miscarriage is that a woman will experience less grief if she loses the baby early in her pregnancy. But most researchers have not been able to find an association between the length of gestation and intensity of grief, anxiety or depression (Research in Nursing & Health). A woman who has lost her child at 11 weeks may be as distraught as a woman who has lost her child at 20 weeks, says Jaffe's co-author, Martha Diamond, PhD.
"While the medical experience might vary, it depends on the meaning of the pregnancy to that person," Diamond says. "By labeling it a traumatic loss, we validate the experience."
Still, for women who miscarry early, their grief is less socially acceptable than the anguish of someone who miscarries later in their pregnancy, says Jaffe. "With later losses, people can have a funeral or memorial service. When it's an early miscarriage or even a failed IVF cycle, it is often unacknowledged by others, [yet] these are invisible losses that feel disenfranchised and not validated."
"We've had some very touching emails from older women, even women who are now grandmothers," she says. "It's still very relevant and very sad for many women decades after a loss."
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/miscarriage
https://www.seleni.org/advice-support/2 ... ef-is-real"The assumption that women emotionally attach in proportion to the length of the pregnancy is not always true. Eighty percent of pregnancy losses are first trimester miscarriages. Women often don't tell others about their pregnancy during the first trimester and may try to "keep from getting too excited" due to fears about a loss. However, a woman who miscarries at 8 weeks’ gestation may experience it as the loss of a child and grieve it as such, while someone else may have a later loss and experience it with less intensity." –Donna Rothert, PhD, "Attachment in Pregnancy," 2004
"A miscarriage is such a statistically common event (at least one in five pregnancies end in a miscarriage) that it is often overlooked or minimized, but it was 'your' baby that didn’t survive, and the pain you feel is real." –Janet Jaffe, PhD, "Pregnancy Loss and Miscarriage," 2014
When you lose a living person, most people accept that your grief will not follow a prescribed timeline. Not so, I discovered, when you have an early pregnancy loss. When I lost a pregnancy at "only" 8 1/2 weeks, some felt my grief was disproportionate to my loss, and they expected me to "get over it" and "move on."
Miscarriage grief is hard on Mother's Day and other holidays.
"...[Y]ou are not the only one. Somewhere over a silly Mother's Day breakfast, there is a woman faking a smile who feels just like you do. Somewhere in a very silent house with no one to call, there is a woman who is tending the ache of her loss, just like you. Somewhere standing in a shower there is a woman who is feeling it all and letting the tears come, just like you." –Jen, "In Case Mother's Day Is Hard for You," May 12, 2013
Peace again to you and to you all.
So thanks for that.
None of that still doesn't negate the fact that people are discounting others' lives for political (and sometimes) their own spiritual gain.
Which, itself, is, as I said, disgusting, vile and sinful.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6443
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Contact:
Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?
Post #62Peace to you,
[Replying to nobspeople in post #61]
No, I got the point. The articles and studies that you may (or may not) have bothered to read, are disputing, even refuting, that point.
And 1213 said nothing to diminish the trauma and very real grief of the loss of a two year old.
Clownboat was (even if unintentionally) diminishing the trauma and very real grief of the loss of an unborn child. Saying that the unborn is just a fetus, and not a baby, and has less value than a baby or child... is insensitive to the very real grief and loss experienced by mothers and fathers. Clownboat was quick to suggest 1213 would be seeing out of only one eye should he tell a parent grieving the loss of a born child that a fetus has the same value. Well, what do you think would happen if Clownboat told the mother (or father) of the loss of a baby during pregnancy that her unborn baby has LESS value than a child who is born, that it was not a baby at all.
Since I don't assume Clownboat realized how dismissive his comments were to those parents grieving the loss of their unborn child, I put up information from experts that refute the errant things that he said.
Peace again to you all.
[Replying to nobspeople in post #61]
No, I got the point. The articles and studies that you may (or may not) have bothered to read, are disputing, even refuting, that point.
And 1213 said nothing to diminish the trauma and very real grief of the loss of a two year old.
Clownboat was (even if unintentionally) diminishing the trauma and very real grief of the loss of an unborn child. Saying that the unborn is just a fetus, and not a baby, and has less value than a baby or child... is insensitive to the very real grief and loss experienced by mothers and fathers. Clownboat was quick to suggest 1213 would be seeing out of only one eye should he tell a parent grieving the loss of a born child that a fetus has the same value. Well, what do you think would happen if Clownboat told the mother (or father) of the loss of a baby during pregnancy that her unborn baby has LESS value than a child who is born, that it was not a baby at all.
Since I don't assume Clownboat realized how dismissive his comments were to those parents grieving the loss of their unborn child, I put up information from experts that refute the errant things that he said.
Peace again to you all.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality
- For Christ (who is the Spirit)
- For Christ (who is the Spirit)
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?
Post #63[Replying to tam in post #62]
You're right and everyone else is wrong. That's what you want us all to say.
You're done here.
Move along.
Not according to your response. But I'm sure you're not lying so we will have to agree to disagree then.No, I got the point.
I've learned not to care about, or respond to, 1213 in any way for months. So your comment to me, about 1213, it nothing more than you wanting to hear yourself talk and defending something irrelevant to our conversation.And 1213 said nothing to diminish the trauma and very real grief of the loss of a two year old.
That's an insanely wrong sentence. Proof you had ZERO idea of the concept CB was offering. But even IF CB was (which they weren't), you offer nothing to counter the opposite side of the coin, unsurprisingly.Clownboat was (even if unintentionally) diminishing the trauma and very real grief of the loss of an unborn child.
You're right and everyone else is wrong. That's what you want us all to say.
You're done here.
Move along.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6443
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Contact:
Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?
Post #64Peace again to you all,
Really?
So are you saying that it does not diminish the trauma and very real grief to say to parents who suffer the loss of an unborn child that their unborn child was not actually a baby at all? Or that their unborn child (not a baby at all) has less value than an actual baby or child. That the loss of the unborn is LESS than the loss of a baby who survived to term (and beyond). Sad, but not a travesty. Losing fetuses is disappointing, but not tragic. Would you say those things TO parents suffering such a loss?
Did you read the info from the articles I posted?
Might be more clear if you answer the questions asked just above.
Peace again.
Or you could simply enlighten me on what the actual point might have been instead.quote=nobspeople post_id=1076753 time=1651685834 user_id=15266]
[Replying to tam in post #62]
Not according to your response. But I'm sure you're not lying so we will have to agree to disagree then.No, I got the point.
That doesn't change the fact that 1213 said nothing to diminish the trauma and very real grief of the loss of a two year old.I've learned not to care about, or respond to, 1213 in any way for months.And 1213 said nothing to diminish the trauma and very real grief of the loss of a two year old.
Dismissed as an irrelevant accusation.So your comment to me, about 1213, it nothing more than you wanting to hear yourself talk and defending something irrelevant to our conversation.
That's an insanely wrong sentence.Clownboat was (even if unintentionally) diminishing the trauma and very real grief of the loss of an unborn child.
Really?
So are you saying that it does not diminish the trauma and very real grief to say to parents who suffer the loss of an unborn child that their unborn child was not actually a baby at all? Or that their unborn child (not a baby at all) has less value than an actual baby or child. That the loss of the unborn is LESS than the loss of a baby who survived to term (and beyond). Sad, but not a travesty. Losing fetuses is disappointing, but not tragic. Would you say those things TO parents suffering such a loss?
Did you read the info from the articles I posted?
Proof you had ZERO idea of the concept CB was offering.
Might be more clear if you answer the questions asked just above.
You mean like the articles and studies that I posted? From scientists, psychologists, experts? Including some personal testimonial accounts of women who have gone through miscarriages?But even IF CB was (which they weren't), you offer nothing to counter the opposite side of the coin, unsurprisingly.
Dismissed as an irrelevant accusation.You're right and everyone else is wrong. That's what you want us all to say.
Sorry, but that is not up to you. You don't like the information (including the facts) that I posted. Feel free to ignore them and me. But for anyone who cares to know the facts of the matter, well, have a read. Or research the matter yourself.You're done here.
Move along.
Peace again.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality
- For Christ (who is the Spirit)
- For Christ (who is the Spirit)
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?
Post #65The breath of life. And , of course, only if the woman chooses. No one else can choose to.1213 wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 4:57 amWhat is the meaningful difference between a baby and fetus that makes it ok to kill the fetus?Goat wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:10 pmOf course, it doesn't become a baby until after birth. Before then, it's a fetus.1213 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:45 pmOnly if the baby deserves death penalty. But, if the baby doesn't deserve death penalty, is it ok to sacrifice him anyway so that the parents would get a better life as a reward?nobspeople wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:45 am ...
Is it hypocritical to oppose abortion but support the death penalty?...
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
OnlineThe Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5069
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?
Post #66nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 10:50 amIf this physical life is all there was to a human life, then missing out on it would probably mean the life wasn't precious. However, according to Christian beliefs, this physical life is not all there is to a human life. Thus, what is a "precious" human life will take more into account.
Walk me through the logic of those sentences, please. I don't follow.
If being viewed as precious consists of X and X is denied a human, then that would mean that this human is not viewed as precious. Christianity denies that “being viewed as precious consists of X”, where X is “this physical life alone”.
nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 10:50 amThe way our natural world is set up will allow for natural miscarriages.
But the 'natural world' didn't allow for computers, but some don't seem to have an issue with that.
You’ve misunderstood. In my usage, the natural world does allow for computers because of the matter, laws, and human intelligences that populate that natural world. So, what I was saying was that a necessary feature of the nature of our physical world, our bodies, is the possibility of natural miscarriages.
nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 10:50 amA world without that would be a different kind of world. I'm not sure it's a clearly better world, but if you want to have a go at proving it is, I'm reading.
Are you saying, here, a world without natural miscarriages may not be a better world?
Given what I just said above (about what I mean by saying “the natural world”), what I was saying here was that a different kind of world with different kind of bodies, etc. would not necessarily be a better overall world just because there are less natural miscarriages.
nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 10:50 amBut this would net the same end result, potentially: sending them to heaven. Are we to pick-n-choose what we allow naturally and what we allow unnaturally?
We have no control over what naturally happens. We do have control over our actions. As it is up to us, we ought to seek life within the environment we find ourselves in.
nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 10:50 amI also don't think the kind of utilitarian calculus you offer is a valid way to judge morality.
Some would say the same about god. I suppose drowning an entire planet is moral, simply because it's 'evil' - an evil god refused to stop up to that point, huh?
Yet, many flock to it as a means to morality.
Humans are amazing - they can convince themselves even the most evil things are OK when it fits their chosen lifestyle agenda!
Of course some say that. The question is which case is better. brunumb’s critique seems to rest on utilitarianism being true, which means brunumb (or you if you agree) has the burden to show utilitarianism is true for the critique to succeed. That’s what I’m asking for.
-
OnlineThe Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5069
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?
Post #67Clownboat wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 10:54 amThe drains are not equal, therefore you should not just ignore the suffering that would be created due to not allowing humans to have abortions currently. You argue for additional unneeded suffering for millions of humans directly and for societies as a whole.
Do unto others comes to mind.
I’m not sure if calculating the drains is as simple as that. Suffering is created through abortions as well. Joys are kept from future generations through abortions. I think it may be too complex a thing to really calculate in this way. I’m open to hearing your argument that shows it’s not too complex, though.
There are different types of utilitarianism. One type could conceivably result in what’s best for one individual (a “utility monster”), for instance. But, whatever you want to call your moral theory, what is your argument for it being how one should morally judge?
Clownboat wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 10:54 amIt is a thing and I submit that there would be humans that would take pleasure with the idea (for example) that a young girl that had sex and got pregnant is now paying/suffering for her immoral choice to have sex before marriage. Harder to assume some would take pleasure in knowing the baby will also suffer, but there would be a demographic for that as well.
I surely did not mean to claim anything about you in this regard and appreciate you allowing me to clarify as I see it was sloppy how I plopped it in without further explanation.
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, that is, unfortunately, a very real thing. True “pro-life” (as though “pro-choice” people aren’t seeking what they view as good for lives and as though “pro-life” people aren’t for allowing freedom of choice in ways that don’t harm the lives of others, but I digress) people should be just as much for that young girl as they are for the baby (not to mention just as much for the baby after it is born as they are for before its birth, but I may be digressing again).
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?
Post #68[Replying to The Tanager in post #66]
From what I've been told, simply being a human is precious enough.If being viewed as precious consists of X and X is denied a human, then that would mean that this human is not viewed as precious. Christianity denies that “being viewed as precious consists of X”, where X is “this physical life alone”.
I didn't misunderstand. But using something that's not natural, then complaining X isn't natural, is illogical and hypocritical, no matter the 'usage'. But it's not illegal to be illogical and hypocritical.You’ve misunderstood. In my usage, the natural world does allow for computers because of the matter, laws, and human intelligences that populate that natural world.
But it may be better. Got it.Given what I just said above (about what I mean by saying “the natural world”), what I was saying here was that a different kind of world with different kind of bodies, etc. would not necessarily be a better overall world just because there are less natural miscarriages.
Not entirely true. Humans can stave off natural death at certain times, vaccines, medicines, airbags, etc. Humans have had an enormous impact on 'natural happenings'. Your statement, as worded, is wrong.We have no control over what naturally happens.
That's for the INDIVIDUAL to determine for themselves, not for others in this case.Of course some say that. The question is which case is better.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!