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 #41

Post by Clownboat »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:18 pm
Perhaps my stance has been clarified a little better. Thanks for making some comments that helped me to do so. Please ask further questions if you feel I’m still unclear at points.
There are 40 - 50 million abortions per year. Please deal with this real fact and not espouse a pipe dream where this reality is not a reality. I'm trying to deal with reality here. Therefore, is 40 - 50 million unwanted babies enough, or should we strive for more? Would the world be a better place if we had 1 billion unwanted babies per year? (To follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion).

I also share with you the feeling that I wish there were 0 abortions per year, but there are 40 - 50 million and you are ignoring this reality for some utopia we do not have on this planet. There is nothing wrong with responsible parenting about birth control and I agree this is something we should strive as a society to do better on, but back to reality.... 40 - 50 million unwanted fetuses per year is the fact I'm trying to get you to realize and deal with. Stating for example: "If everything were just flowers and sparkles instead" would fail to address this fact.

Your comments/answers on the bold above would be appreciated. You can still hate abortions by the way, even if you see it as a necessary animal in the world we currently live in.
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: 4977
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 #42

Post by The Tanager »

Clownboat wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:04 pmThere are 40 - 50 million abortions per year. Please deal with this real fact and not espouse a pipe dream where this reality is not a reality. I'm trying to deal with reality here. Therefore, is 40 - 50 million unwanted babies enough, or should we strive for more? Would the world be a better place if we had 1 billion unwanted babies per year? (To follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion).

Are you asking me which of these I would choose:

(1) 40-50 million abortions and the current number of unwanted babies (assuming you mean these are being neglected by our current system)

or

(2) 0 abortions and the current number of unwanted babies plus 40-50 million more

Or something else?

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 #43

Post by Clownboat »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:37 pm
Clownboat wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:04 pmThere are 40 - 50 million abortions per year. Please deal with this real fact and not espouse a pipe dream where this reality is not a reality. I'm trying to deal with reality here. Therefore, is 40 - 50 million unwanted babies enough, or should we strive for more? Would the world be a better place if we had 1 billion unwanted babies per year? (To follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion).

Are you asking me which of these I would choose:

(1) 40-50 million abortions and the current number of unwanted babies (assuming you mean these are being neglected by our current system)

or

(2) 0 abortions and the current number of unwanted babies plus 40-50 million more

Or something else?
I'm truly lost as to why you are struggling. :blink:

There are 40 - 50 million abortions per year. Should we seek to have all 40 - 50 million be born instead?
What if the number was 150 million. Should we still seek to have all 150 million be born instead?
Let's follow this to its logical conclusion. 1 billion abortions per year. Should we seek to have them all born instead?

Would the world be a better place if we had 1 billion unwanted babies per year?

My belief is that the world/society is better of by having a lessened amount of unwanted babies being born each year.
What are your thoughts? How much unwant is the perfect amount? How much burden on society should we strive for?

The obvious conclusion for me is that we should seek to lessen burdens on our society, not increase them. With that said, we currently need abortions to meet this goal. I'm on board for lessening the need for abortions, but that would be for another thread and ignores the reality of the 40 - 50 million abortions we do have each year.
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: 4977
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 #44

Post by The Tanager »

Clownboat wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 3:17 pmI'm truly lost as to why you are struggling. :blink:

There are 40 - 50 million abortions per year. Should we seek to have all 40 - 50 million be born instead?
What if the number was 150 million. Should we still seek to have all 150 million be born instead?
Let's follow this to its logical conclusion. 1 billion abortions per year. Should we seek to have them all born instead?

Would the world be a better place if we had 1 billion unwanted babies per year?

My belief is that the world/society is better of by having a lessened amount of unwanted babies being born each year.
What are your thoughts? How much unwant is the perfect amount? How much burden on society should we strive for?

The obvious conclusion for me is that we should seek to lessen burdens on our society, not increase them. With that said, we currently need abortions to meet this goal. I'm on board for lessening the need for abortions, but that would be for another thread and ignores the reality of the 40 - 50 million abortions we do have each year.
Yes, I think all 40-50 million should be born. Even if the number was 150 million or more, no matter how big. I think a bigger burden on the world is better than killing humans. I don't see how these speculations are more "reality" than my earlier response of how we should seek that these conceptions would never take place at all. If 40-50 million is the reality than supposals about "what if there were 1 billion" is ignoring the reality just as much. Ultimately, I'm all for lessening the burden on the world, as long as we aren't taking more life in order to do so.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

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

Post #45

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #44]

Up to three quarters of all conceptions fail to reach term without any human intervention. Many people desperate to have children lose them this way. One would think that if human life was so precious, God would have designed a far more reliable system for reproduction. Can God be regarded as the greatest abortionist of all?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Online
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 #46

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
quote=nobspeople post_id=1071766 time=1647963928 user_id=15266]
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?
As others have said, I would suggest that it depends upon the reason a person supports one and opposes the other. It may or may not be hypocritical.

**Just to be clear, I understand hypocrisy to be judging others for something you, yourself, do. For example, the preacher going around condemning prostitutes while also (most often secretly) engaging the services of prostitutes. If the preacher and the prostitutes are both male, then you probably get a 2-4-1 deal on hypocrisy (prostitution and homosexuality). Said preachers are of course saying one thing, pretending to be one thing, but doing another thing... all the WHILE judging others for the same behavior.

However... opposing abortion (and judging those who support it or have it)... WHILE supporting and/or calling for bombs to be dropped on another nation (something that will kill newborns and children)... that sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Clownboat wrote: Thu Apr 14, 2022 2:48 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?
You attempt to make this emotional when you use the language you use.
Or he's attempting to show a difference between abortion and the death penalty. Abortion is not a penalty. There were no actions taken by the unborn for them to receive a penalty. Supporting one and not the other is not necessarily hypocritical. It depends.


Peace again.
- 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 #47

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to brunumb in post #45]
As others have said, I would suggest that it depends upon the reason a person supports one and opposes the other. It may or may not be hypocritical.
Disregard
Last edited by nobspeople on Tue May 03, 2022 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 #48

Post by Clownboat »

The Tanager wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 5:06 pm Yes, I think all 40-50 million should be born. Even if the number was 150 million or more, no matter how big.

Thank you for your honest reply.
Readers, imagine such a thing happening. The uneeded suffering from the unwanted baby all they way up to the drain on society. I cannot stand behind such a stance and support uneeded misery.
Ultimately, I'm all for lessening the burden on the world, as long as we aren't taking more life in order to do so.
I'm all for lessening the burden of humans as well, as long as we are not causing uneeded misery in order to do so. I just cannot stand with you here even though I agree that abortions are terrible.

scha·den·freu·de
/ˈSHädənˌfroidə/
noun
pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.

The idea of having an additional 40 - 50 million suffering babies is not something I can encourage. I also acknowledge that people make up societies and I cannot support placing such a burden on humans when it is not necessary. I still hate the idea of abortions though. So we do have common ground there.
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

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 #49

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to tam in post #46]
Supporting one and not the other is not necessarily hypocritical. It depends.
Please provide examples of each scenario for review.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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 #50

Post by The Tanager »

brunumb wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 7:38 pmUp to three quarters of all conceptions fail to reach term without any human intervention. Many people desperate to have children lose them this way. One would think that if human life was so precious, God would have designed a far more reliable system for reproduction. Can God be regarded as the greatest abortionist of all?
I've heard of studies positing 10 to 20 percent as the standard numbers, not 75%. Regardless, even 10% is a lot. I'm not following your reasoning here, though. It doesn't seem to take into account the eternal nature of human lives within Christianity or the Creator-creature distinction, where God is ultimately responsible for 100% of people dying, anyway.

Post Reply