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!

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 #61

Post by nobspeople »

tam wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:55 pm Peace to you,
nobspeople wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:08 pm
Clownboat wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:02 pm
1213 wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:57 am
Goat wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 6:10 pm
1213 wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:45 pm
nobspeople wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:45 am ...
Is it hypocritical to oppose abortion but support the death penalty?...
Only 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?
Of course, it doesn't become a baby until after birth. Before then, it's a fetus.
What is the meaningful difference between a baby and fetus that makes it ok to kill the fetus?
Babies have much more value than a fetus. Since their values are not equal, they are treated as such.
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.
What 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.
This intentional discounting is vile, disgusting and down right sinful.
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.

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:
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
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3384447/
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
"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
https://www.seleni.org/advice-support/2 ... ef-is-real



Peace again to you and to you all.
I 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.
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!

User avatar
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 #62

Post by tam »

Peace 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.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

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 #63

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to tam in post #62]
No, I got the point.
Not according to your response. But I'm sure you're not lying so we will have to agree to disagree then.
And 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. So your comment to me, about 1213, it nothing more than you wanting to hear yourself talk and defending something irrelevant to our conversation.
Clownboat was (even if unintentionally) diminishing the trauma and very real grief of the loss of an unborn child.
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.
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!

User avatar
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 #64

Post by tam »

Peace again to you all,
quote=nobspeople post_id=1076753 time=1651685834 user_id=15266]
[Replying to tam in post #62]
No, I got the point.
Not according to your response. But I'm sure you're not lying so we will have to agree to disagree then.
Or you could simply enlighten me on what the actual point might have been instead.
And 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.
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.
So your comment to me, about 1213, it nothing more than you wanting to hear yourself talk and defending something irrelevant to our conversation.
Dismissed as an irrelevant accusation.
Clownboat was (even if unintentionally) diminishing the trauma and very real grief of the loss of an unborn child.
That's an insanely wrong sentence.


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.
But even IF CB was (which they weren't), you offer nothing to counter the opposite side of the coin, unsurprisingly.
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?

You're right and everyone else is wrong. That's what you want us all to say.
Dismissed as an irrelevant accusation.
You're done here.
Move along.
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.



Peace again.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

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 #65

Post by Goat »

1213 wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:57 am
Goat wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 6:10 pm
1213 wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:45 pm
nobspeople wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:45 am ...
Is it hypocritical to oppose abortion but support the death penalty?...
Only 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?
Of course, it doesn't become a baby until after birth. Before then, it's a fetus.
What is the meaningful difference between a baby and fetus that makes it ok to kill the fetus?
The breath of life. And , of course, only if the woman chooses. No one else can choose to.
“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

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 #66

Post by The Tanager »

nobspeople wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:50 am
If 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 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.
nobspeople wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:50 am
A 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 am
I 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.

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 #67

Post by The Tanager »

Clownboat 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.
Clownboat wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:54 amI argue for doing what is best for societies, not for what is best for a majority.

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism
/yo͞oˌtiləˈterēəˌnizəm/
noun
the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.

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).

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 #68

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #66]
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”.
From what I've been told, simply being a human is precious enough.
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.
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.
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.
We have no control over what naturally happens.
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.
Of course some say that. The question is which case is better.
That's for the INDIVIDUAL to determine for themselves, not for others in this case.
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 #69

Post by 1213 »

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?

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 #70

Post by 1213 »

Clownboat wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:02 pm ...
Why do you pretend that a fetus has as much value as a baby?
...
Why do you think I am pretending?

Post Reply