Right for life - can you have it both ways?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Right for life - can you have it both ways?

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

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?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?

Post #71

Post by Clownboat »

The Tanager wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:52 pm Suffering is created through abortions as well.

This is true, but to pretend that the suffering is equal is to ignore reality. There is suffering with losing a fetus, but not in the way there is with losing one of your actual children. Not even the same ball park and you seem to be fine to ignore this because there is 'some' suffering.
Joys are kept from future generations through abortions.

I sure hope you don't think you must made a valid argument here. These words need not be said, especially if we are not ignoring the other side of this coin (40 - 50 million unwanted humans born every year).
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.
I do not make such an aguement. I argue the fact that a fetus and a baby do not have the same value. You ignore this and prop up this strawman.
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?
Off topic, so I'll copy/paste to save time: "I argue for doing what is best for societies, not for what is best for a majority."
people should be just as much for that young girl as they are for the baby

Humans do not abort babies.
Follow me if you will. Let's concider a baby gold and a fetus silver for a moment.
You need to stop pretending that you are talking about silver, because you are not. You are talking about gold. Care to join in the actual conversation about silver? Your emotional distractions (again, I'm with you about not liking abortions) and only pretending to talk about the subject at hand are hindering the conversation.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?

Post #72

Post by The Tanager »

nobspeople wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 6:34 amFrom what I've been told, simply being a human is precious enough.

I agree with that. My point was that what “being human” consists of is more than just this physical life and, therefore, missing out on the this one part (i.e., this physical life) of a much bigger concept of what “being human” means does not equal life not being precious.
nobspeople wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 6:34 am
The 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.

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.

What did I use that’s not natural, then complain X isn’t natural?
nobspeople wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 6:34 am
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.

But it may be better. Got it.

The critique I was responding to requires that it is better, so the burden was on brunumb (and you if you are taking up that critique) to show the most reasonable position to take is that it as a better world.
nobspeople wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 6:34 amNot 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.

Sure, I could have worded that better to make it harder to take it out of context. You asked me about whether we pick and choose from what we allow naturally and unnaturally as a response to me talking about natural miscarriages. I was saying that we can’t choose when a natural miscarriage occurs. We can try to limit such things from happening, of course.
nobspeople wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 6:34 amThat's for the INDIVIDUAL to determine for themselves, not for others in this case.

It’s certainly up to the individual to decide what they believe, but that doesn’t mean what they believe is true. And brunumb made a case based on it being objectively true, which means brunumb has the burden to show it is objectively true. If you agree with brunumb and want to take up the discussion on that point, then you have that burden as well.

nobspeople
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 #73

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #72]
My point was that what “being human” consists of is more than just this physical life and, therefore, missing out on the this one part (i.e., this physical life) of a much bigger concept of what “being human” means does not equal life not being precious.
Then you're discounting a part of what makes a life precious. Even you agreed with "simply being a human is precious enough". The only reason why one would need to put a caveat on that is to justify not all life being precious.
What did I use that’s not natural, then complain X isn’t natural?
Not everything is about YOU. I didn't say you complained about anything, simply making a point. Get over yourself.
The critique I was responding to requires that it is better, so the burden was on brunumb (and you if you are taking up that critique) to show the most reasonable position to take is that it as a better world.
Doesn't discount the fact that it MAY be better. But you're discounting that fact for your own agenda. Got it.
Sure, I could have worded that better to make it harder to take it out of context.
You should have worded it better, period.
You asked me about whether we pick and choose from what we allow naturally and unnaturally as a response to me talking about natural miscarriages.
Not entirely. I simply said - yet again - people use things that aren't natural and don't complain on bit about it, then complain when others do things they don't see as natural. That's being a hypocrite. If that applies to you, so be it. If not, move on.
It’s certainly up to the individual to decide what they believe, but that doesn’t mean what they believe is true.
Doesn't mean it's false.
And that still doesn't mean it's anyone else's right to make that decision for them. If that were the case, and I had the ability, I'd ban your precious religious views and make them illegal. How you'd cry if that ever happened. And as much as I would LOVE to see that (for personal reasons), I would never honestly try for the end, as whatever nonsense you want to believe in (or not) is your choice, much like it's your choice to live your life, raise your kids, etc as you see fit until that directly impacts me.
Billy Bob's girlfriend, whom you have no contact with or are related to, shouldn't have to worry about if you care what she does with her pregnancy. You can pontificate about how bad it is, how hell bent she is for doing it, how precious that life (might) have been, but ultimately, the choice of what happens to her pregnancy is. Not. Yours.*
And brunumb made a case based on it being objectively true, which means brunumb has the burden to show it is objectively true.
That's for them to comment on, of course.
If you agree with brunumb and want to take up the discussion on that point, then you have that burden as well.
Not applicable at this time.


But we've gotten sidetracked recently.

The issue at hand is how being pro-life is hypocritical when you're also pro death penalty when one says 'all life is precious'.
If you don't believe 'all life is precious', then you have no dog in this fight, as they say.
If you believe 'all life is precious' and don't support the death penalty, you have no dog in this fight.
Surely, you* can make any excuse you* want to justify your* view, but that doesn't mean you* escape the hypocrisy of it all.

* Said generally, of course.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?

Post #74

Post by The Tanager »

nobspeople wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 11:21 amThen you're discounting a part of what makes a life precious. Even you agreed with "simply being a human is precious enough". The only reason why one would need to put a caveat on that is to justify not all life being precious.

I’m saying a being’s life can be precious without that element. That doesn’t mean, in any logical way, that one who has that element is not precious.
nobspeople wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 11:21 amNot everything is about YOU. I didn't say you complained about anything, simply making a point. Get over yourself.

I’m sorry for thinking it was addressed to me.
nobspeople wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 11:21 amDoesn't discount the fact that it MAY be better. But you're discounting that fact for your own agenda. Got it.

I made an argument. brunumb raised a critique that itself assumes it is necessarily a better world. I’m not discounting that, I’m asking for support.
nobspeople wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 11:21 amAnd that still doesn't mean it's anyone else's right to make that decision for them. If that were the case, and I had the ability, I'd ban your precious religious views and make them illegal. How you'd cry if that ever happened. And as much as I would LOVE to see that (for personal reasons), I would never honestly try for the end, as whatever nonsense you want to believe in (or not) is your choice, much like it's your choice to live your life, raise your kids, etc as you see fit until that directly impacts me.
Billy Bob's girlfriend, whom you have no contact with or are related to, shouldn't have to worry about if you care what she does with her pregnancy. You can pontificate about how bad it is, how hell bent she is for doing it, how precious that life (might) have been, but ultimately, the choice of what happens to her pregnancy is. Not. Yours.

I would gather we are both for making some laws that restrict personal freedom (you probably agree it’s good to restrict a person’s choice to kill an innocent adult, for instance), so the question becomes what should be restricted and what should not. A pregnancy involves an innocent human being. I’m against abortion for the same reason I’m against killing an innocent adult. Jimmy's choice to kill Susan is not yours or mine, but we can still make laws to try to deter it from happening.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?

Post #75

Post by Clownboat »

The Tanager wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:19 pm I’m against abortion for the same reason I’m against killing an innocent adult. Jimmy's choice to kill Susan is not yours or mine, but we can still make laws to try to deter it from happening.
Then your argument fails.
An abortion is the removal of an unwanted fetus that has a less than a 50% chance of becoming an actuality.
An adult is wanted (exceptions to the rule of course) and is an actuality.

You can't even argue from desire. Susan could be argued to desire to live, something a fetus is incapable of. Comparing an unwanted fetus to an adult is a total fail of logic. It being the best you have should give you pause.

I'm with you though. I don't like the idea of abortions being a need as it currently is, but I'm less ok with increasing misery and burdens on society. I just don't happen to care much for unnecessary suffering and seek to lessen it. If there was a god, I assume it would approve of my behavior. Those arguing to increase such, well... they made their bed, they will have to sleep in it (if there is a carring god that is).
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
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 #76

Post by Goat »

1213 wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:44 am
Goat wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 2:57 pm The breath of life. ....
So, if human can't breath on his own, we can kill him?
Does he have breath, even with assistance?
“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

nobspeople
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 #77

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #74]
I’m saying a being’s life can be precious without that element. That doesn’t mean, in any logical way, that one who has that element is not precious.
If you're saying all life is precious with or without any 'element', and are against the death penalty, there's no issue.
If you're saying all life is precious with or without any 'element', and are for the death penalty, you're a hypocrite. Pick one and move on.
I’m sorry for thinking it was addressed to me.
You need to learn the difference between something being said TO you and something being said ABOUT you.
Apology accepted
I made an argument. brunumb raised a critique that itself assumes it is necessarily a better world. I’m not discounting that, I’m asking for support.
Then let's leave it to them to discuss, no?
I would gather we are both for making some laws that restrict personal freedom
Then you need to go back out on another gathering exposition and address each person individually, as I can't speak for the other poster.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?

Post #78

Post by 1213 »

Goat wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 7:20 pm
1213 wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:44 am
Goat wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 2:57 pm The breath of life. ....
So, if human can't breath on his own, we can kill him?
Does he have breath, even with assistance?
I am not sure what you mean with that, but I think so, until someone gives proper explanation why it is not so.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Right for life - can you have it both ways?

Post #79

Post by The Tanager »

Clownboat wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:58 pmThen your argument fails.
An abortion is the removal of an unwanted fetus that has a less than a 50% chance of becoming an actuality.
An adult is wanted (exceptions to the rule of course) and is an actuality.

You can't even argue from desire. Susan could be argued to desire to live, something a fetus is incapable of. Comparing an unwanted fetus to an adult is a total fail of logic. It being the best you have should give you pause.

I am against abortion and killing an innocent adult because I believe (1) it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being and (2) that both adults and fetuses are human beings. I think (2) is clearly the case biologically.
Clownboat wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:58 pmI'm with you though. I don't like the idea of abortions being a need as it currently is, but I'm less ok with increasing misery and burdens on society. I just don't happen to care much for unnecessary suffering and seek to lessen it. If there was a god, I assume it would approve of my behavior. Those arguing to increase such, well... they made their bed, they will have to sleep in it (if there is a carring god that is).

Population control, on those now living, could ease overall suffering and the burden on the rest of society, too. I don’t think that makes it okay. I’m not for increasing suffering in itself; I’m against thinking that easing the overall suffering trumps all else. I’m for people having to sacrifice less, but I don’t think living a life free (or more free) of sacrifice trumps the right to life of other human beings.

User avatar
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 #80

Post by Goat »

1213 wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:56 am
Goat wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 7:20 pm
1213 wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:44 am
Goat wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 2:57 pm The breath of life. ....
So, if human can't breath on his own, we can kill him?
Does he have breath, even with assistance?
I am not sure what you mean with that, but I think so, until someone gives proper explanation why it is not so.
Thus, your question is answered.
“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

Post Reply