We seek to contrast two visions of reality and morality and demonstrate how one vision, the Christian view, centered on God, leads to the Humane and dignified treatment of human beings, while the other view, centered on man, leads to the inhumane and undignified treatment of human beings.
I have been hesitant to throw myself fully in support of any specific pro-life organization. That ends now. Abolish Human Abortion (hereafter A//∀) is a movement which I feel no qualms about putting myself behind. Their mission is stated fairly simply:
Following in the footsteps of former abolitionist movements, we aim to end one of the greatest human miseries and moral evils to ever be entrenched in our world. To this end we seek to encourage informed, rigorous, and consistent thought and action in response to the rampant occurrence of abortion within our community. We seek to instigate discussion centered on whether or not the legally sanctioned system of human abortion-on-demand is just (and we think it is not…), to inspire pro-life individuals to become more assertive and actively involved in the adherence to and expression of a way of life that is truly in favor of life. (A//∀, who we are)
So why do I like this movement so much? Look again at the quote at the beginning of this post. A//∀ is not just about ending human abortion. Instead, it is about the clash of worldviews inherent in the debate. One is the Christian worldview, which values human life in all stages, wanted or unwanted, considered ‘valuable’ or not. The other is the humanistic worldview. This worldview, by removing inherent human value and focusing instead upon a spectrum of valuation, undermines the equality of humans and ultimately defaces humanity.
A//∀ focuses upon this clash between worldviews and grounds itself thoroughly in evangelical Christianity. It presents a challenge to churches to cease their silence and rise up for the helpless. By placing the debate about abortion squarely in the realm of a clash of worldviews, I think that A//∀ does an excellent job of focusing the debate upon whole views, rather than specific issues. As such, the debate is broadened while also being focused. The debate is broadened in the sense that it becomes about worldviews as total pictures of reality as opposed to just the specific arguments for and against abortion. However, it is also focused because this view points out the fact that people’s positions on abortion are part of their worldview and interpreted through their outlook of reality.
The organization also has a large number of posts which deal with common arguments for abortion and against the pro-life position. Their resources for blogs, posters, and social media are superb.
I therefore support A//∀ and its efforts to end the genocide occurring across the world.
Links
Abolish Human Abortion- the homepage of the movement. Be sure to also check them out on Facebook.
The Blog for A//∀- check out A//∀’s blog which has a number of excellent posts.
Pro-Life- my own series of posts on pro-life issues.
Let’s talk about policy / politucs, and not philosophy, for a moment.
Let’s assume this movement gains speed and abortion if illegal in all 50 states with 5 or 10 years. I seriously doubt that will be the case, but let’s assume it is.
What would an appropriate punishment be for a pregnant woman who attempts abortion on her own?
Should there be any exceptions to this prohibition? Rape? Incest? Health of the mother?
I’m just curious about your opinions regarding the magnitude of banning abortion…
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | October 19, 2012, 8:11 AMI’m not sure how that is relevant to the notion that abortion is the murder of an unborn child. It’s like saying “If you make murder wrong, people will have to be punished!”
My response: “Yes, and?”
Posted by J.W. Wartick | October 19, 2012, 3:15 PMThat is precisely my question. Your position is that abortion is murder. Once you ban abortion, should those who commit it anyway be penalized in a manner similar to existing penalties for murder.
That is, in your grand plan, will women who commit post-ban abortion be subjected to life in prison or even capital punishment, as is the case for murderers now?
Is abortion still murder if it is conducted to preserve the life of the mother?
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | October 19, 2012, 3:29 PMOne other idea…
This movement will obviously take some time. In the interim, would you be opposed to instituting programs that will reduce abortions? That is, until your complete ban takes effect?
It should be noted, however, that some of these programs have been met with resistance by those with a Christian worldview. Ideas like contraceptive availability and other-than-abstinence-only sex education. And, it’s been shown these programs are effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies and, thus, abortions.
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cuts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | October 19, 2012, 9:57 AMSee response to “Keith” above.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | October 19, 2012, 3:11 PMEr, below.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | October 19, 2012, 3:18 PMJ.W., I think that your heart and the hearts of the people behind Abolish Human Abortion are in the right place. You believe that abortion is murder and I’m inclined to agree with you. However, I think that you are asking the wrong question. The question is not do we want to have abortions occur, no as unfortunate as they are, they will always occur regardless of their legal status—the women who die from botched “back alley” abortions in countries where they are illegal are a testament to that fact. The question is where do we want them to occur?
Prohibiting things like alcohol, drugs, guns or abortion just flat out doesn’t work; in fact it seems to exacerbate the effects of these things. During Prohibition drinking actually rose and bootlegging was a huge underground industry. In short Prohibition was a huge failure. There has been a decade’s long war on drugs where governments have spent billions fighting drug gangs and pushers. Despite all this time, effort and money the illegal drug trade is a multibillion dollar industry and hundreds of people (both criminals and the innocent) have been murdered in the midst of drug-gang warfare.
Since we know that abortions occur in places where they are illegal I think we should focus on trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place by promoting abstinence and providing contraceptives, instead of trying to outlaw abortions. We can also promote adoptions. We should work to free the sex slaves around the world not only because enslaving someone is evil, but because some sex slaves become impregnated by the scumbags who prey on them. Finally, since we know that abortions will always occur, we should make sure that women who seek them have access to clean, professional abortion clinics staffed by medical professionals who know what they are doing so that women are not injured or killed by incompetent hacks administering illegal abortions.
The last thing that our overburdened prisons need is more prisoners in the form of women and abortion practitioners who would enter the legal system if abortion was made illegal. They are already filled with drug users, dealers and gang members. J.W., I really think that you have the best of intentions, but I think that it is incredibly naïve to think that abolishing abortions would mean that would never happen again. They will happen in the dangerous, uncontrolled underground world of the black market.
Posted by Keith | October 19, 2012, 2:37 PMYou wrote “You believe that abortion is murder and I’m inclined to agree with you.”
Then you wrote: “The question is not do we want to have abortions occur, no as unfortunate as they are, they will always occur regardless of their legal status” and then argued that this followed: ” since we know that abortions will always occur, we should make sure that women who seek them have access to clean, professional abortion clinics staffed by medical professionals who know what they are doing so that women are not injured or killed by incompetent hacks administering illegal abortions.”
Note that what you’ve effectively said is that “abortion is murder, but we should make sure murder takes place in clean environments by professional murderers.”
Sorry, I disagree. If abortion is murder, it should not be made “clean,” it should be made illegal. Think of a similar argument: “Murders are illegal, but they still happen. We should make for suitable murder facilities so that murderers won’t get harmed in the process of killing someone else.”
Frankly, the reasoning is ridiculous.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | October 19, 2012, 3:10 PMYou wrote: “Note that what you’ve effectively said is that “abortion is murder, but we should make sure murder takes place in clean environments by professional murderers.”
Sorry, I disagree. If abortion is murder, it should not be made “clean,” it should be made illegal. Think of a similar argument: “Murders are illegal, but they still happen. We should make for suitable murder facilities so that murderers won’t get harmed in the process of killing someone else.”
Frankly, the reasoning is ridiculous.”
Your murder example is a weak analogy because there is more to consider then just the person being murdered there is also the health of the mother. Regardless of whether abortions are legal they will take place and embryos/fetuses are going to be killed. That’s just a fact. The question is how many people do you want killed during this process? One person or possibly two people if the abortion is botched by an incompetent back alley abortion practitioner. If you could save the life of one of those two people why wouldn’t you?
You haven’t addressed my point about how prohibitions of various types have failed miserably. Somebody on the left could make a similar argument where they claim that the banning of all firearms would eliminate gun deaths. The problem with this argument and with your argument is that driving something into the black market does not eliminate that thing. People who really want guns will find a way to get them on the black market and women who really want abortions will get them just like people who really want illegal drugs can buy them on street corners around the nation.
You also haven’t addressed the possible burden on the legal system if abortions were made illegal. Do you really want to throw some girl who has been raped and impregnated and who gets an abortion in prison? Hasn’t she suffered enough? Would this be the best use of our resources? I think our time and money would be better spent trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies rather than making abortions illegal. Fetuses would be saved (or non-existent); women would be saved; and we wouldn’t further burden our legal system. For me, the bottom line is not whether or not abortions are murder it is the fact that prohibitions fail miserably and tend to exacerbate the problem they are trying to eliminate.
Posted by Keith | October 19, 2012, 4:39 PMKeith,
The health of the mother is very rarely a concern in real life abortions. And you should say her LIFE; her health is affected, there’s no question. But just b/c someone adversely affects one’s HEALTH, one is not justified in killing him.
See the Abolitionist FAQ – it deals with this issue in detail.
http://www.abolishhumanabortion.com/faq
It also deals with the “back alley abortion” canard.
If prohibitions against rape and slavery don’t prevent all rapes or enslaving, I suppose we should just legalise those activities, yes? And murder, since people still murder? You need to address this issue, badly.
I may not be able to tell you with certainty what the legal and judicial implications will be, but the nation faced the same when slavery was abolished. It was still necessary and justified to abolish it.
It is also irrelevant to the actual issue that abortion murders tiny children.
Posted by rhology | October 20, 2012, 6:45 PMKeith,
The health of the mother is very rarely a concern in real life abortions. And you should say her LIFE; her health is affected, there’s no question. But just b/c someone adversely affects one’s HEALTH, one is not justified in killing him.
See the Abolitionist FAQ – it deals with this issue in detail.
http://www.abolishhumanabortion.com/faq
It also deals with the “back alley abortion” canard.
If prohibitions against rape and slavery don’t prevent all rapes or enslaving, I suppose we should just legalise those activities, yes? And murder, since people still murder? You need to address this issue, badly.
I may not be able to tell you with certainty what the legal and judicial implications will be, but the nation faced the same when slavery was abolished. It was still necessary and justified to abolish it.
It is also irrelevant to the actual issue that abortion murders tiny children.
Posted by Rhology | October 20, 2012, 6:44 PMIt is not just legal issues that haven’t been thoroughly thought through by you and Abolish Human Abortion it is the whole premise of comparing slavery to abortion. The problem is that you are trying to compare a and ~a. This problem is most apparent when you analyze the benefits and consequences of abolishing slavery and abortion. What are the consequences of abolishing slavery? The main consequence is that if slavery goes underground the slaves could be treated even worse than they were before, but this would be a very fine distinction if it even really exists because the slaves in the old South were treated very poorly when slavery was legal. I believe that some organized crime has surrounded the modern sex slave industry, but this consequence is quite minimal because the amount of organized crime that surrounds slavery is vastly smaller than the amount that surrounds the illegal drug trade. So, the main benefit of abolishing slavery is that it can prevent human beings from suffering, and the main consequences are quite minimal.
On the other hand, when we compare abolishing abortion the consequences are that the health of women who will seek abortions regardless of their legality could be compromised by ill-trained abortion practitioners. If abortion is made illegal there will no longer be any health regulations placed on abortion providers. An abortion could be performed in an unclean bathroom by someone who has gotten some procedures from the Internet. In a situation like that hemorrhages and infections are quite likely. According to the World Health Organization illegal abortions are the leading cause of maternal death, and it is estimated that 68,000 women die from these abortions around the world. The befit of abolishing abortion is that some women may not seek abortions and children could be saved. However, we know that women in countries where abortion is illegal do still get abortions. We also know from similar prohibitions that they fail. Alcohol consumption actually rose during the Prohibition. Illegal drug use is rampant around the nation. We also know that even though prostitution is illegal it still practiced around the country. So, the main consequence of abolishing abortion is that the health of women could be compromised by unsafe illegal abortions and by not having access to abortions when their health is endangered. The main benefit is that some abortions could be prevented. We have a major consequence and a minor befit. Comparing abolishing slavery to abolishing abortion is like comparing apples to oranges—there is no comparison.
This a to ~a comparison can be seen in greater detail when we look at how difficult it would be to enforce anti-abortion laws. When it comes to slavery, particularly the plantation slavery of the old South, it is very hard to hide slaves while they work the fields especially when they are trying to run away. Even if you try to hide slaves in some warehouse it would only be a matter of time before the operation was discovered and the slaves freed. On the other hand, abortions could be practiced just about anywhere from homes, vans, bathrooms, shacks and underground tunnels as well as in other countries. It is much, much easier to hide abortions than it is to hide hundreds of slaves, especially when you consider that unlike slaves and masters abortion practitioners and abortion seekers will work to keep their illegal activity a secret. Even if it was discovered that a woman had an abortion in her home it would be too late to save the child.
In summation we see that there is no comparison between slavery and abortion–abolishing abortion caries a major consequence while abolishing slavery does not. It is also much harder to enforce anti-abortion laws than anti-slavery laws because it is a great deal easier to conceal abortions.
Since we know that abortions will continue regardless of their legality we should focus our efforts and resources on reducing unwanted pregnancies while ensuring that women who still choose to get abortions have access to facilities that can provide safer abortions.
You said: “If prohibitions against rape and slavery don’t prevent all rapes or enslaving, I suppose we should just legalize those activities, yes? And murder, since people still murder? You need to address this issue, badly.”
No, once again you are trying to compare a to ~a. What are the negative consequences of making rape illegal? I can’t think of any besides false accusations, but our court system should be able to address that. So, I don’t see any reason to not make rape illegal since it harms people. In regards to slavery, I already explained that the benefits of outlawing slavery far outweigh the consequences. Again, when we come to murder I don’t see any consequences of making it illegal (other than the weak false accusation possibility). The issue with all these things is not just that rape, murder, slavery, abortion and drug use have never been irradiated we must also consider the negative consequences of making that thing illegal. In the case of rape, murder and slavery there really are no negative consequences while making abortion and drugs illegal do have major negative consequences. The prohibition of alcohol wasn’t repealed because alcohol national consumption doesn’t carry risks because alcoholism and alcohol related fatalities are very serious issues, no it was because Prohibition failed miserably and it brought serious consequences in the form of organized crime.
This brings me back to the point I made in my first response, that you and Abolish Human Abortion are asking the wrong question. It is not do you want to have abortions? There will always be abortions; embryos/fetuses are going to be killed. It is where do you want them to occur? If embryos and fetuses are going to be killed during abortions then we should ensure that the health of the mother is protected by safer abortions practiced in sterile environment by trained health professionals. A woman who dies because of a botched illegal abortion just makes a bad situation even worse. Not only does the embryo/fetus die, but the mother does too. It’s just plain senseless.
Posted by Keith | October 22, 2012, 10:53 PMBut Keith, we HAVE thought through all that stuff. Always glad to get more sharpening, of course, but to say we haven’t thought a lot about it is ignorant.
when we compare abolishing abortion the consequences are that the health of women who will seek abortions regardless of their legality could be compromised by ill-trained abortion practitioners.
Myth mixed with speculation on your part, and dealt with in our FAQ. Why not interact with what we’ve already said on that issue?
An abortion could be performed in an unclean bathroom by someone who has gotten some procedures from the Internet.
You have an overly rosy view of how many abortuaries are run TODAY. Naive.
The befit of abolishing abortion is that some women may not seek abortions and children could be saved.
AND…the government is not legalising and encouraging the systematic murder of its own children, thus spitting in God’s face all the time. That is very important. Nations that spit in God’s face all the time don’t typically last long.
However, we know that women in countries where abortion is illegal do still get abortions.
Just like slavery still exists.
Just like rape and murder still exist despite their being illegal.
We also know that even though prostitution is illegal it still practiced around the country
Is it MORE or LESS widespread where it is legal (Las Vegas) than where it is illegal (Oklahoma City)?
a comparison can be seen in greater detail when we look at how difficult it would be to enforce anti-abortion laws
Granted, it might be difficult to enforce them in one sense. But if you shut down the abortuaries and prosecute aborticians, you’ve made a lot of progress already.
In summation we see that there is no comparison between slavery and abortion
Um, you didn’t even address our central points about that comparison.
Since we know that abortions will continue regardless of their legality
1) No, we don’t KNOW that. That’s just your speculation.
2) Just b/c they may continue is no good reason to curtail abolition.
3) Abolitionists are out to change the WORLDVIEW that leads to abortion, not merely stop the behavior itself. Change the society, you change people’s thinking it’s OK.
we should focus our efforts and resources on reducing unwanted pregnancies
We do both. Join us instead of sniping from a distance.
What are the negative consequences of making rape illegal?
Easy – people will rape in private locations and in home invasions, etc, rather than out in the open.
I don’t see any reason to not make rape illegal since it harms people
Abortion murders people.
you and Abolish Human Abortion are asking the wrong question.
Coming from a guy who pretends he refuted our argument without even addressing the most central points and who has used self-refuting arguments, this assertion hardly worries me.
A woman who dies because of a botched illegal abortion just makes a bad situation even worse. Not only does the embryo/fetus die, but the mother does too. It’s just plain senseless.
True. It would be far better if the woman didn’t go find some dingy corner to seek a surgical operation. That’s not on us.
Peace,
Rhology
Posted by rhology | October 23, 2012, 1:13 PMYou said: “But Keith, we HAVE thought through all that stuff. Always glad to get more sharpening, of course, but to say we haven’t thought a lot about it is ignorant.”
I believe you when you say that you have thought a lot about it, but from what I’ve seen here and on the AHA website it appears that you haven’t really thought through the negative consequences of abolishing abortion, or you just don’t care that women could be harmed and that abolition would be hard to implement legally.
You said: “’when we compare abolishing abortion the consequences are that the health of women who will seek abortions regardless of their legality could be compromised by ill-trained abortion practitioners.’
Myth mixed with speculation on your part, and dealt with in our FAQ. Why not interact with what we’ve already said on that issue?”
We do know that about 68,000 women die around the world from illegal abortions, so obviously making abortion illegal doesn’t completely stop it, and some of the abortions being done are botched. We also know that similar prohibitions such as the ones against alcohol and drugs have failed and exacerbated the problems they were trying to eliminate.
In regards to the safety of illegal abortions it could vary wildly from clandestine clinics staffed by health care professionals which would be relatively safe to relatively unsafe abortions practiced in homes by people who don’t know what they’re doing.
I did read the Chilean abortion study story on redstate.com and thought that the conclusion was a little misleading. Yes, abortion related deaths went down after abortion was made illegal, but Koch, the study’s author wrote, “”This study uncovers an ongoing ‘fertility paradox’ in maternal health: education is the major modulator that has helped Chile to reach one of the safest motherhood in the world, but also contributes to decrease fertility, excessively delaying motherhood and puts mothers on risk because of their older age.” Thus, an emerging problem nowadays “is not a question of how many children a mother has, but a question of when a mother has her children, specially the first of them.” So, what was really going on was that women were delaying pregnancy, I presume by using birth control, until they were in their 30’s and 40’s because they were so busy going to school and starting their careers. By the time they got around to becoming mothers they were prepared for motherhood and greatly desired their children. Basically, the amount of teenage mothers plummeted due to female professional ambition. This brings me back to the point that we should concentrate on preventing unwanted births through education and making sure that contraceptives are available for those who need them.
You said: “’An abortion could be performed in an unclean bathroom by someone who has gotten some procedures from the Internet.’
You have an overly rosy view of how many abortuaries are run TODAY. Naive.”
First of all, I would never describe this view as “rosy”; it is really quite dark because the fact that women are having illegal abortions performed on them means that embryos/fetuses are dying and women are putting their lives at risk and dying. Secondly, I never said that a certain number of illegal abortion clinics exist. All we know is that x number of abortions clinics exist around the world. Remember that in the world of illegal abortions an abortion could be done just about anywhere by anybody. How can we keep track of clandestine abortions performed in people’s homes unless the women gets sick or dies?
You said: “’However, we know that women in countries where abortion is illegal do still get abortions.’
Just like slavery still exists.
Just like rape and murder still exist despite their being illegal.”
You keep on bringing up these irrelevant comparisons to slavery, rape and murder. Making murder illegal does not exacerbate the problem of murder—it doesn’t make it more prevalent, horrible or likely. A better comparison would be to Prohibition or the War on Drugs. Like slavery, murder and rape Prohibition and the War on Drugs failed or fail to completely stop the illegal thing, but they also brought serious consequences with them and actually made the situation worse.
You said: “’We also know that even though prostitution is illegal it still practiced around the country’
Is it MORE or LESS widespread where it is legal (Las Vegas) than where it is illegal (Oklahoma City)?”
My guess is that it’s pretty widespread. I know in my state where it is illegal there are known streets where prostitutes walk and internet “personal ads” for prostitutes has generated some controversy. According to a Christian Science Monitor story, about 80,000 men are arrested for soliciting prostitutes each year.
You said: “’In summation we see that there is no comparison between slavery and abortion’
Um, you didn’t even address our central points about that comparison.”
Yeah, I know that you’re embracing the symbolism of the Abolitionist Movement. You are the abolitionists and the slaves are the unborn. I think that the degree that slaves suffered and the unborn suffer are not the same because the slaves suffered decades of beatings, mutilations, degradation; hard work; and separation from families while a fetus would experience a moment of pain before dying. Regardless of the details I get the symbolism you’re going after. I also get that you want to compare yourselves to the relatively successful Abolitionist Movement and not to the unsuccessful Temperance Movement, but in effect what you’re talking about is much more like Prohibition than the abolition of slavery. Like Prohibition large pockets of the country did/do not believe that alcohol/abortion should be illegal. Like Prohibition it was/is very hard to stop alcohol distribution/abortions and both carried/carry serious consequences when made illegal.
You said: “’Since we know that abortions will continue regardless of their legality’
1) No, we don’t KNOW that. That’s just your speculation.
2) Just b/c they may continue is no good reason to curtail abolition.”
You can’t prove a negative. The odds are abortions will continue when they’re illegal–to think otherwise is just naïve. We know that x number of illegal abortions are performed in other countries. We also know that similar prohibitions fail.
There is good reason to curtail the abolition of abortion if it makes the situation worse. If both women and fetuses are dying from illegal unsafe abortions then the situation has been made worse. You’ve doubled the fatalities.
You said: “‘we should focus our efforts and resources on reducing unwanted pregnancies’
We do both. Join us instead of sniping from a distance.”
You call it “sniping” I call it trying to keep you grounded in reality. Despite what you may think I’m no fan of abortions—I see them as an unfortunate but necessary evil. This debate is not easy on me because I’m used to debating atheists not fellow Christians. I admire your conviction. I know that you really believe that what you are doing is right just like the women of National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union thought that they would eliminate the evils of booze by prohibiting it. Just like you they played off the Abolitionist Movement. Just like you they had no idea that prohibiting the evil they saw would make it worse. I’m trying to be the voice of reason that helps you to see this.
You said: “’What are the negative consequences of making rape illegal?’
Easy – people will rape in private locations and in home invasions, etc, rather than out in the open.”
I don’t see how a hidden rape it worse than a legal public rape. A rape behind a closed door is just as bad a rape in the middle of a McDonald’s.
You said: “’A woman who dies because of a botched illegal abortion just makes a bad situation even worse. Not only does the embryo/fetus die, but the mother does too. It’s just plain senseless.
True. It would be far better if the woman didn’t go find some dingy corner to seek a surgical operation. That’s not on us.’”
Actually, if you make it so that a women who is seeking an abortion has no choice but to get a less safe illegal home abortion and she dies then I think her death is on you. You willingly withheld a procedure that could have saved her life.
Do you even care about the life of the mother? This last comment of yours leads me to believe that you don’t. What if the woman who is risking her life by desperately seeking an illegal abortion is a friend or family member? What if she is your daughter? I don’t understand how you can so callously just say, “Oh well, she had it coming. At least we don’t have to throw her in prison now,” if she dies. A woman in this state is probably scared, confused and young. Yeah, she’s made some mistakes and poor choices, but we’re all sinners and we all make mistakes. Shouldn’t we be like Jesus and say to her, “I don’t condemn you. Go forth and sin no more”? Shouldn’t we be the ones to refrain from stoning her?
Posted by Keith | October 24, 2012, 3:13 AM- but from what I’ve seen here and on the AHA website it appears that you haven’t really thought through the negative consequences of abolishing abortion, or you just don’t care that women could be harmed and that abolition would be hard to implement legally.-
You haven’t read enough, then.
Women won’t be harmed if abortion were abolished. You’re talking about when it’s banished to the darkness, but that’s not our goal.
You ASSERT it would be hard to implement legally, but as I already said and you didn’t comment on, targeting the providers would get us most of the way there.
-We do know that about 68,000 women die around the world from illegal abortions, so obviously making abortion illegal doesn’t completely stop it,-
Illegalising it is only one step. Not the end goal.
-some of the abortions being done are botched. -
Plenty of legal abortions in for-real “clinics” are botched too. Don’t forget that.
-We also know that similar prohibitions such as the ones against alcohol and drugs have failed and exacerbated the problems they were trying to eliminate.-
How about the prohibitions against rape and murder?
- I presume by using birth control, until they were in their 30’s and 40’s because they were so busy going to school and starting their careers-
A much lesser evil than murdering children in droves, I have to point out.
-This brings me back to the point that we should concentrate on preventing unwanted births through education and making sure that contraceptives are available for those who need them.-
1) Yes, let’s prevent unwanted pregnancies.
2) Yes, let’s educate.
3) Better yet, let’s share the Gospel wide so people will have hearts transformed by Jesus to love holiness.
4) Anyone can buy contraceptives. Too often this is code language for “let’s make sure the gov’t can tax the populace heavily, waste most of its revenues and then give the rest so SOME people can get free condoms and the pill”. The pill is not justifiable. Condoms are fine; let people buy them themselves.
-Secondly, I never said that a certain number of illegal abortion clinics exist.-
You quite missed my point.
-You keep on bringing up these irrelevant comparisons to slavery, rape and murder.-
We have explained why the comparisons are valid and very relevant. Your mere handwaving doesn’t get you anywhere.
-y. A better comparison would be to Prohibition or the War on Drugs. -
Why? Make an argument.
Why is prohibition of alcohol a better comparison to murder than murder is to murder?
-My guess is that it’s pretty widespread-
And so you have conceded your whole point. Appreciated.
-I know that you’re embracing the symbolism of the Abolitionist Movement. You are the abolitionists and the slaves are the unborn.-
Sloppy. You haven’t read very closely.
- I think that the degree that slaves suffered and the unborn suffer are not the same because the slaves suffered decades of beatings, mutilations, degradation; hard work; and separation from families while a fetus would experience a moment of pain before dying-
Right, right, right – it’s far better to be dead than to suffer in this life.
Yet another naked assertion. Where’s the argument?
-The odds are abortions will continue when they’re illegal–to think otherwise is just naïve.-
Which misses the point, again, and doesn’t interact with already-given rebuttals.
-Despite what you may think I’m no fan of abortions—I see them as an unfortunate but necessary evil.-
No evil is necessary.
On what are you setting your hope?
-This debate is not easy on me because I’m used to debating atheists not fellow Christians.-
If you think murdering babies is justifiable, I don’t see any good reason to think you’re a “fellow” Christian. Further, you’re actually opposing abolition. Probably you’re just another self-worshiping idolater, who has made up a religion to suit yourself.
- if you make it so that a women who is seeking an abortion has no choice but to get a less safe illegal home abortion and she dies then I think her death is on you. You willingly withheld a procedure that could have saved her life.-
Are you talking about the infinitessimally small % of total procedures that result in the death of the preborn baby? If not, what are you referring to; what are we “withholding”?
You might as well say that since rape is illegal, now rapists have to put their lives at risk to rape someone; if a rapist dies because a women shoots him or a police officer shoots him, that death is on you.
It’s foolish.
-Do you even care about the life of the mother? -
Yes, and if you’d read any significant portion of our material, you’d know that.
-This last comment of yours leads me to believe that you don’t-
That’s because you’re being unfair and are speaking out of ignorance.
-What if the woman who is risking her life by desperately seeking an illegal abortion is a friend or family member? What if she is your daughter? I don’t understand how you can so callously just say, “Oh well, she had it coming. At least we don’t have to throw her in prison now,” if she dies.-
Maybe she shouldn’t seek out the abortion. You’re acting like she has no choice, but that’s just untrue.
-A woman in this state is probably scared, confused and young.-
And this culture of death has taught her she can ‘get rid’ of the ‘problem’ thru murdering her innocent child.
We aim to change all of that.
-Shouldn’t we be like Jesus and say to her, “I don’t condemn you. Go forth and sin no more”? Shouldn’t we be the ones to refrain from stoning her?-
What in the world are you talking about? Seems like the Emotions took over the steering wheel from the Brain in these last few sentences.
Posted by rhology | October 24, 2012, 12:02 PMYou said: “Women won’t be harmed if abortion were abolished. You’re talking about when it’s banished to the darkness, but that’s not our goal.”
Of course that’s not your goal, but the end result will be abortions banished to the darkness of the black market and to homes just like alcohol was during Prohibition. You have to realize that once Pandora’s Box is open it can never be closed again. Just because you legally prohibit something doesn’t mean that people will never do or consume that thing again. We’ve seen this with Prohibition and we’ve been seeing it for decades with the War on Drugs. Once things enter the black market chaos ensues, and the problems associated with that prohibited thing grows in magnitude.
You said: “‘-some of the abortions being done are botched. –‘
Plenty of legal abortions in for-real “clinics” are botched too. Don’t forget that.”
Of course all medical procedures carry some risk, but at least in a medical environment there is so kind of control. There are procedures that must be followed and there is a certain amount of training for the workers. There also is a certain amount of accountability if procedures are not properly followed. However, when it comes to abortions being done in homes or in the black market it is just pure chaos. There are no procedures that must be followed and practitioners could have no training or experience.
You said: “’-We also know that similar prohibitions such as the ones against alcohol and drugs have failed and exacerbated the problems they were trying to eliminate.-‘
How about the prohibitions against rape and murder?”
Once again this comparison of rape and murder to drugs or abortion is completely irrelevant. There are no real consequences for making rape or murder illegal. You’re trying to compare a violent action to a product or service. This is an apples to orangutans comparison. The similarity you’re seeing is that violent actions will always be done in a fallen world and people will always work to acquire a desired illegal product or service in a fallen world. The difference is that making violent actions illegal does not make that action worse or create a market demand for that action.
“’-This brings me back to the point that we should concentrate on preventing unwanted births through education and making sure that contraceptives are available for those who need them.-‘
1) Yes, let’s prevent unwanted pregnancies.
2) Yes, let’s educate.
3) Better yet, let’s share the Gospel wide so people will have hearts transformed by Jesus to love holiness.
4) Anyone can buy contraceptives. Too often this is code language for “let’s make sure the gov’t can tax the populace heavily, waste most of its revenues and then give the rest so SOME people can get free condoms and the pill”. The pill is not justifiable. Condoms are fine; let people buy them themselves.”
I’m mostly in agreement here. However, I think that you’re being penny wise and pound foolish on the last point. What if a teenager or seriously poor person really can’t afford contraceptives? What if that person gets pregnant? Now you either have a potential abortion on your hands or you have another welfare baby that needs to be supported. One cost is ultimate and the other is much more than the price of contraceptives.
You said: “’-You keep on bringing up these irrelevant comparisons to slavery, rape and murder.-‘
We have explained why the comparisons are valid and very relevant. Your mere handwaving doesn’t get you anywhere.”
And I have explained numerous times why your comparison fails. Repeating weak analogies over and over does not add up to a strong one.
You said: “’-y. A better comparison would be to Prohibition or the War on Drugs. –‘
Why? Make an argument.
Why is prohibition of alcohol a better comparison to murder than murder is to murder?”
We need to analyze Prohibition and murder and then make a comparison to the banning of abortion. Through history we know that alcohol consumption actually went up after it was banned. We know that some people consumed incorrectly made alcohol that caused blindness and other sickness. We also know that organized crime families rose to capitalize on distributing and selling black market booze. After prohibition ended the alcohol black market collapsed and organized crime moved to other things, so the violence surrounding the booze trade subsided. However, issues such as alcoholism and alcohol related injuries and fatalities which existed before, during and after Prohibition remain with us today.
Now, let’s look at some of the causes of murder. There’s definitely a rage component to murder such as in domestic violence when a man beats his wife to death, or a bar fight that gets out of hand and ends in gun fire. There are murders committed in order to get something like gang members fighting over sales territory or the wife who kills her husband in order to get a life insurance check. There can be psychopathic murder where a serial killer gains pleasure from controlling and killing people. There’s also manslaughter where someone behaves recklessly and unintentionally kills someone. Now, when we look at all these different forms of murder we can see that the causes wouldn’t be exacerbated if, theoretically speaking, we were to make murder illegal. The fact that murder is illegal doesn’t make someone want to kill their spouse more. It won’t make you want money or territory more. It also won’t make people more likely to behave recklessly and cause accidents. So, we can see that making murder illegal doesn’t have a negative effect on society and most likely makes people less inclined to commit murder.
We can now compare and contrast Prohibition, murder and the abolishment of abortion. The first thing to note is that alcohol consumption, murder and abortion persists despite its illegality. The prohibition of alcohol and the abolishment of abortion are both bans on a substance or service that some people desire whereas making murder illegal is ban on a violent action that comes naturally to mankind. In the case of Prohibition and the abolishment of abortion serious negative consequences arise such as the rise of crime families in the case of Prohibition and women who die after aborting their fetuses in unsafe and unsanitary illegal home abortions. On the other hand, making murder illegal carries no negative consequences. So, we can finally see that Prohibition and the abolishment of abortion involves banning a substance or service that some people desire and that banning this thing introduces negative consequences that don’t exist before or after the thing is banned. In short, banning alcohol and abortions actually make the problems surrounding them worse while banning murder does not make it worse. This is why the abolishment of abortion is like Prohibition.
You said: “’ -My guess is that it’s pretty widespread-‘
And so you have conceded your whole point. Appreciated.”
Oh no, you misunderstood what I said. When I said that prostitution is wide spread I meant that it is wide spread across the nation from Las Vegas to Oklahoma and from Seattle to Miami. As I said before, there is evidence that illegal prostitution exists in my state and about 80,000 men each year are arrested for soliciting prostitutes in the United States. It’s trite but they don’t call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing.
“’-I know that you’re embracing the symbolism of the Abolitionist Movement. You are the abolitionists and the slaves are the unborn.-‘
Sloppy. You haven’t read very closely.”
Instead of making unhelpful comments just explain what I’m missing.
You said: “’- I think that the degree that slaves suffered and the unborn suffer are not the same because the slaves suffered decades of beatings, mutilations, degradation; hard work; and separation from families while a fetus would experience a moment of pain before dying-‘
Right, right, right – it’s far better to be dead than to suffer in this life.
Yet another naked assertion. Where’s the argument?”
I believe that there are people who feel that way about their lives, but that wasn’t my point. My point has to do with degrees of suffering. I’ll illustrate my point with a question to you. You have two options: option A is that you are a fetus that receives some sensations but have no way to understand what this sense data means. One day your mother aborts you and you feel a moment of pain before dying. Option B is that you are a slave that was raised on a Southern plantation. You have been whipped and beaten numerous times throughout your life. You have been cursed at and degraded all your life. Your wife was raped by the plantation owner. Your children were sold to another plantation. You foot was smashed after you tried to escape. After a hard life you die in your early 50’s. Which option do you choose? For me, option A is the obvious choice.
You said: “’-Despite what you may think I’m no fan of abortions—I see them as an unfortunate but necessary evil.-‘
No evil is necessary.
On what are you setting your hope?”
In this fallen world we live in sometimes there is only a choice between evil and a lesser evil.
My hope is that Jesus will come back sometime soon and set all the wrongs right, and that we will live in a kingdom where there is no suffering.
You said: “’-This debate is not easy on me because I’m used to debating atheists not fellow Christians.-‘
If you think murdering babies is justifiable, I don’t see any good reason to think you’re a “fellow” Christian. Further, you’re actually opposing abolition. Probably you’re just another self-worshiping idolater, who has made up a religion to suit yourself.”
Wow, I didn’t know that you are God. You’re telling me I’m not a Christian so you must know everything about me through your omniscience. Wait there’s a problem because the AHA website says that is justifiable to abort a dying baby if the mother’s life is in danger. Since AHA says that abortion is justified then that means abolitionists aren’t Christians either. This also means that your revelation to me, the AHA website, is evil too so you can’t be God—you’re just a false god. No, you don’t have the faintest clue who I am or about my walk with the true God.
From our limited dialogue I could conclude that you are a self-righteous white washed tomb; and a modern day Pharisee. However, since I’m not God I can’t peer into your heart to see if you are a true follower of Christ or just a religious person who looks clean on the outside but is dirty on the inside, so I’ll just let God judge you. You should do the same.
As to abolition, I’m not on the bandwagon because I think that it would make society worse, not better. I sincerely think that God does not expect us to support things that we think could hurt our neighbors.
You said: “’- if you make it so that a women who is seeking an abortion has no choice but to get a less safe illegal home abortion and she dies then I think her death is on you. You willingly withheld a procedure that could have saved her life.-‘
Are you talking about the infinitessimally small % of total procedures that result in the death of the preborn baby? If not, what are you referring to; what are we “withholding”?
You might as well say that since rape is illegal, now rapists have to put their lives at risk to rape someone; if a rapist dies because a women shoots him or a police officer shoots him, that death is on you.
It’s foolish.”
I’m not sure what your first point is.
Again see this whole rape comparison doesn’t hold. The AHA website says that abortion practitioners would get the severest penalty while the mother would get a lesser penalty. Now, in your rape comparison wouldn’t the rapist be the abortion practitioner? I’m not sure who the mother is maybe she’s an accomplice maybe she’s just a bystander. In any case, we don’t need to multiply victims by letting the mother die.
You said: “’-What if the woman who is risking her life by desperately seeking an illegal abortion is a friend or family member? What if she is your daughter? I don’t understand how you can so callously just say, “Oh well, she had it coming. At least we don’t have to throw her in prison now,” if she dies.-‘
Maybe she shouldn’t seek out the abortion. You’re acting like she has no choice, but that’s just untrue.”
And you’re not viewing things from the standpoint of the girl. Pretend for a moment that you’re not Rhology. You are a pregnant teenage girl who doesn’t think abortion is one of the greatest evils on the face of the earth because you didn’t grow up in youth group. You’re an adolescent so the frontal lobes of your brain haven’t fully developed yet which means that you don’t have the self-control, planning and reasoning abilities of a fully grown adult, so you behave more recklessly than adults do. You are scared about what your parents and friends will think of you now that you’re pregnant. You are scared that your life is over because of your pregnancy. You just want this embryo to go away, so you go to an abortion clinic to get an abortion if abortion is legal or you have your boyfriend do it if abortion is illegal. Can you see that when you are looking at things from her perspective it looks like there is no choice? I agree with you that she shouldn’t seek an abortion, but I don’t think that her life should be jeopardized by having her boyfriend do her abortion. I also don’t think that she should go to prison for making this mistake.
You said: “’-Shouldn’t we be like Jesus and say to her, “I don’t condemn you. Go forth and sin no more”? Shouldn’t we be the ones to refrain from stoning her?-‘
What in the world are you talking about? Seems like the Emotions took over the steering wheel from the Brain in these last few sentences.”
I’m alluding to John 8:1-11.
Rhology, I’m glad that education is part of AHA’s mission, but I just don’t think that I can fully support your cause because I believe that prohibitions only make things worse. Pandora’s Box is opened and no laws or abolitionist movement is going to put abortion back in that box. If you could absolutely guarantee that women won’t continue to get abortions, and that no woman will die from an improperly done abortion then I could support your cause. I just don’t think that banning abortion can be justified if the ban just leads to mother and child dying during a home abortion.
Posted by Keith | October 25, 2012, 9:03 PM-Just because you legally prohibit something doesn’t mean that people will never do or consume that thing again-
So we should have never have prohibited rape or murder.
I’m tired of hitting this same topic with you. Either make some progress or just repeat yourself in your own echo chamber.
-at least in a medical environment there is so kind of control-
You’d think, but the evidence shows otherwise.
Plus, an abortuary is not a medical environment. Its very reason for existence grossly violates the Hippocratic Oath. These are for-profit death houses.
-There also is a certain amount of accountability if procedures are not properly followed. However, when it comes to abortions being done in homes or in the black market it is just pure chaos.-
Like Kermit Gosnell’s “clinic”!
-There are no real consequences for making rape or murder illegal. You’re trying to compare a violent action to a product or service. -
What if I just, like you, redefine murder as a “service”? See? All better!
-. What if a teenager or seriously poor person really can’t afford contraceptives? -
That’s stupid.
1) Condoms are cheap.
2) You don’t HAVE to have sex, you know.
- Now you either have a potential abortion on your hands or you have another welfare baby that needs to be supported. -
Or adoption.
But the abolitionist drive is to convert the culture so that
1) such situations as this are not numerous
2) people love to adopt.
-he prohibition of alcohol and the abolishment of abortion are both bans on a substance or service that some people desire whereas making murder illegal is ban on a violent action that comes naturally to mankind-
1) Abortion is a violent action that comes naturally to mankind too.
2) Murder is often hired out. Ever heard of a hit man?
Your rationalising doesn’t make any sense.
And you keep forgetting that
a) we want to change the culture
b) a nation that persistently murders its children faces God’s judgment, which is fearful
-On the other hand, making murder illegal carries no negative consequences-
Sure it does. We throw people in jail for it, tie up court systems, and have to execute citizens at times. And that is also very negative for the murderer.
You’re just making stuff up, and it’s not working.
- When I said that prostitution is wide spread I meant that it is wide spread across the nation from Las Vegas to Oklahoma and from Seattle to Miami.-
But it’s MORE widespread in Vegas. Why?
Because it’s legal there.
-they don’t call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing.-
BTW, that is a really ludicrous adage.
FARMING is the oldest profession. Sheesh.
-Instead of making unhelpful comments just explain what I’m missing.-
Consider my criticism an opportunity to read what’s already been written on our site. I’m not going to retype it for you.
-Which option do you choose? For me, option A is the obvious choice.-
1) You don’t know that the preborn child feels what you said he feels. You’re guessing.
2) You left out God’s command not to murder, that God loves human life.
3) “Option B” enjoyed good things in his life, too. Got to enjoy the beauty of God’s creation, had a wife, had the ability to move around and breathe and eat and live.
I’m not saying he was Bill Gates. I’m saying you can’t do any of that if you’re dead.
4) You don’t have any idea what it’s like never to have lived. Whether you prefer Option A is irrelevant, for you are unqualified to make any judgment on the matter.
-In this fallen world we live in sometimes there is only a choice between evil and a lesser evil.-
Untrue.
-My hope is that Jesus will come back sometime soon and set all the wrongs right, and that we will live in a kingdom where there is no suffering.-
if I were you, I wouldn’t be impatient to see Jesus come back. He doesn’t take kindly to those who spend their time defending baby murder.
Repent, while you still have time.
-Wow, I didn’t know that you are God. -
SMH
That’s the refuge of the shallow thinker who can’t really engage the issue at hand, and who has no idea what it means that God has entrusted His people with a proclamation to repeat after Him what He has already said.
- Wait there’s a problem because the AHA website says that is justifiable to abort a dying baby if the mother’s life is in danger.-
That’s sloppily stated. What else is new?
-Since AHA says that abortion is justified then that means abolitionists aren’t Christians either. This also means that your revelation to me, the AHA website, is evil too so you can’t be God—you’re just a false god.-
[speechless at the foolishness]
-From our limited dialogue I could conclude that you are a self-righteous white washed tomb; and a modern day Pharisee. -
If you were to make that accusation, you’d reveal that you don’t have any idea what “Pharisee” means, or what Jesus meant in Matthew 23 when He said “whitewashed tomb”.
-As to abolition, I’m not on the bandwagon because I think that it would make society worse, not better-
Yes, Keith thinks it is BETTER to continue murdering babies. 54 million dead, that’s BETTER.
-. I sincerely think that God does not expect us to support things that we think could hurt our neighbors.-
What about MURDERING your neighbors? I guess God’s totally Ok with that as long as you think you can rationalise that away, and as long as you arbitrarily un-label them “neighbors”.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
- You are a pregnant teenage girl who doesn’t think abortion is one of the greatest evils on the face of the earth because you didn’t grow up in youth group.-
I didn’t learn abortion is evil from “youth group”, FYI, but OK.
- Can you see that when you are looking at things from her perspective it looks like there is no choice?-
Yuo didn’t say “SHE THINKS there is no choice” before. You’re moving the goalposts. You’d said “there is no choice”. Whether she knows about that choice is a totally different question.
-I’m alluding to John 8:1-11.-
1) Are you aware that’s a textual variant and not actually in the original manuscript of the book of John?
2) Who’s condemning anyone? Calling abortion sin = condemnation?
3) Sounds like you’d want to give the post-abortive girl a pat on the back and an “attagirl”. You seem like a big fan of abortion to me.
4) Stoning? I mean, I don’t even know what to say to this. So stupid.
- I just don’t think that I can fully support your cause because I believe that prohibitions only make things worse.-
No, you believe that prohibitions of SOME things only make things worse, and you’re too shallow or biased to see how your rationalisations are idiotic.
-I just don’t think that banning abortion can be justified if the ban just leads to mother and child dying during a home abortion.-
The ban wouldn’t lead to that. The decision of the person to defy the ban would lead to it.
“I just don’t think that banning murder can be justified if the ban just leads to a murderer dying by lethal injection. -Keith”
Posted by rhology | October 26, 2012, 7:14 AMRhology,
Does the AHA website’s FAQ page discuss when the life that begins at conception may be deemed human? …having achieved sentience, etc?
I’m unconvinced in this debate and am curious about AHAs position on this.
Also, just a suggestion for your organization: considering the rising tide of the “nones” (atheists, agnostics, or the otherwise unaffilated), you could do well to expand your arguments from a secular standpoint. Otherwise, you’re largely ignoring a huge (and growing) demographic.
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | October 24, 2012, 8:39 AM-Does the AHA website’s FAQ page discuss when the life that begins at conception may be deemed human? …having achieved sentience, etc?-
Yes.
-I’m unconvinced in this debate and am curious about AHAs position on this.-
Go for it.
- considering the rising tide of the “nones” (atheists, agnostics, or the otherwise unaffilated), you could do well to expand your arguments from a secular standpoint.-
We address that very thing in our FAQ.
Posted by rhology | October 24, 2012, 12:04 PM“Yes.”
Could you link me to it? I didn’t see it.
“We address that very thing in our FAQ.”
I know. I read the part about pro-life atheists. My point is if you’re goal is truly abolition of abortion, perhaps don’t push your ideas from the theistic standpoint so hard, so as not to alienate people who sympathize with your cause who aren’t theists. I mean, its your thing, do whatever you want. I’m merely offering a suggestion.
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | October 24, 2012, 2:40 PMSure, it starts here and is bolstered all through the entire FAQ.
My point is if you’re goal is truly abolition of abortion, perhaps don’t push your ideas from the theistic standpoint so hard
We know that abolition won’t happen without a change in the society’s worldview.
As for you, you are stubbornly refusing to bow to the Lord Jesus. Repent; you stand condemned in your unbelief and sin. You know God exists and have no good arguments against His existence.
I’m merely offering a suggestion.
Well, thanks. I’m not angry or anything, but there is every biblical reason not to take spiritual advice from a blind guide, dead in his sin.
Posted by Rhology | October 25, 2012, 8:50 AM“…you stand condemned in your unbelief and sin.”
Okay man, thanks for the warning of hell. http://goo.gl/P0gZT
I guess I’ll take my chances!
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | October 26, 2012, 9:48 AMBummer; all this time I thought you were engaging seriously. Never mind.
Posted by rhology | October 29, 2012, 3:58 PMWhat do you mean “deemed human”? It is human from the very first moments of conception. What else could it be?
Are you driving at “when does it have a right to life”? It has a right to life simply because it is a human. There are no humans who lack a right to their own life. No one has to satisfy some set of criteria to garner a right to live. I think this is the natural way to view humans. I hope you agree with me on this very important point. The next link is that humans are humans from the very beginning. Thus, if humans are always human and all humans have a right to their own life, we are logically committed to the idea that humans have a right to life from the moment of conception. Abortion necessarily kills a human without due process, and is morally reprehensible.
Now, this naturally leads to the question, why do humans have a right to life? I suppose a secularist can accept this as a brute fact about the world but that hardly seems satisfying. I see no reason on the worldviews of the “nones” you listed to accept this. It would be arbitrary on those worldviews to hold that position. It makes far more sense to accept this moral reality by recognizing that God is the foundation for why people are unique and special. Humans have a right to live because God has made them in his own image. That provides a satisfying account for the moral obligations we all feel about not killing another human.
Posted by Pchem | October 26, 2012, 8:50 PMI was engaging seriously…don’t feel like you wasted your time! I may disagree with you but it’s all good food for thought.
I just tend to exit the conversation when theists such as yourself start telling people they’re going to hell. It really isn’t pertinent to the conversation and, well, I’m not afraid of hell or death, so I just move on…
Posted by Andrew Marburger (@AndrewMarburger) | October 30, 2012, 8:03 AMRhology said: “’-Just because you legally prohibit something doesn’t mean that people will never do or consume that thing again-‘
So we should have never have prohibited rape or murder.
I’m tired of hitting this same topic with you. Either make some progress or just repeat yourself in your own echo chamber.”
I’m tired of hitting this topic with you too. I have tried several different ways to explain why this rape/murder comparison doesn’t make any sense. I’m going to try one last time. Think of a large scale where there is a pro side and a con side. Now when we’re weighing whether or not to make rape and murder illegal we put a one pound weight on the pro side that stands for the preventative nature of making rape/murder illegal. Then you place a half pound weight on the con side because you know that some people will still do it and will need to go through the legal system. You look at the scale and see that it is tilted towards the pro side, so you make rape/murder illegal because it is best for the overall functioning of society.
Next we decide to weigh whether or not to make abortion illegal, so we put a one pound weight on the pro side that stands for the preventative nature of making abortion illegal. Then you place a half pound weight on the con side because women are still going to get abortions and women, practitioners and perhaps the men who got the women pregnant are going to have to go through the legal system. Next we put a one pound weight down because women who seek those illegal abortions are going to not only kill their fetuses but possibly themselves too because of getting less safe home and black market abortions. We look at the scale and see that it is tipped towards the con side, so we decide not to make abortion illegal because it introduces more harm than good. This is not to say abortion is right or good it is to say that making abortion legal is not to in the best interest of society.
“’-There also is a certain amount of accountability if procedures are not properly followed. However, when it comes to abortions being done in homes or in the black market it is just pure chaos.-‘
Like Kermit Gosnell’s “clinic”!”
Kermit is in prison where he belongs and several Pennsylvanian health officials were fired by the governor for negligence as they should have been. Are you trying to say because Kermit’s clinic was run horribly all clinics are run like this? That’s the fallacy of composition. It’s like if I said that most American are decent people, and you said, “Like Ted Bundy.” Just because Ted Bundy was an American serial killer doesn’t mean that all Americans are serial killers.
You said: “’-There are no real consequences for making rape or murder illegal. You’re trying to compare a violent action to a product or service. –‘
What if I just, like you, redefine murder as a “service”? See? All better!”
That doesn’t make any sense. Is a man killing his wife out of rage a service? Is a reckless driver that hits and kills a pedestrian a service? Is a gang member killing a rival gang member a service? Is there a market demand for any of these things? There is a murder service, contract killing, that you mentioned in your last response, but that service is not created because murder is illegal. Hiring a hit man is just outsourcing your murder. You don’t want to get your hands dirty or you don’t have it in you to do it yourself so you hire a hit man. If murder were legal people would still hire hit men and they wouldn’t be in danger of a felony for hiring them.
You said: “’-. What if a teenager or seriously poor person really can’t afford contraceptives? –‘
That’s stupid.
1) Condoms are cheap.
2) You don’t HAVE to have sex, you know.”
Well, if condoms are so cheap then we can afford to supply them to people who can’t afford them like high school students who get an allowance and must choose between gas money or contraceptives.
This second point sounds a lot like the just say no to drugs program. Here we are about two decades after just say no and the War on Drugs still rages on. The problem with just say no to sex is that you’re not taking into account peer pressure, the reckless behavior of teenagers due to their still developing frontal lobes; the powerful drive that is sex; and the fact that our culture is obsessed with sex. I wish that young adults would wait for marriage to have sex as abstinence is 100% safe, but it’s not realistic to think that the average teenager is going to wait until they are in their 20’s or 30’s to have sex.
You said: “’- Now you either have a potential abortion on your hands or you have another welfare baby that needs to be supported. –‘
Or adoption.
But the abolitionist drive is to convert the culture so that
1) such situations as this are not numerous
2) people love to adopt.”
Ok, this is something I can support.
You said: “’-the prohibition of alcohol and the abolishment of abortion are both bans on a substance or service that some people desire whereas making murder illegal is ban on a violent action that comes naturally to mankind-‘
1) Abortion is a violent action that comes naturally to mankind too.
2) Murder is often hired out. Ever heard of a hit man?
Your rationalising doesn’t make any sense.
And you keep forgetting that
a) we want to change the culture
b) a nation that persistently murders its children faces God’s judgment, which is fearful”
1) Abortion does have a long history; it is thought to have first been practiced around 2700 BC by the Chinese. Murder has a longer history. According to Genesis the first murder occurred after one generation of humans.
2) See my answer above about why making murder does not introduce a new market demand.
a) Great!
b) Perhaps, what evidence do you have that God has ordered us to make abortion illegal?
You said: “’On the other hand, making murder illegal carries no negative consequences-‘
Sure it does. We throw people in jail for it, tie up court systems, and have to execute citizens at times. And that is also very negative for the murderer.
You’re just making stuff up, and it’s not working.”
According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission violent offences accounted for just 2.9% of the total US convictions in 2010. This means that murder, which is a subset of violent crimes, accounted for less than 2.9% of total convictions. That’s a tiny percentage when compared to drug offences which accounted for 30% of convictions and immigration offences which accounted for 32% of convictions. I think that > 2.9% of convictions is a good trade off for the preventative nature of making murder illegal.
You said: “’- When I said that prostitution is wide spread I meant that it is wide spread across the nation from Las Vegas to Oklahoma and from Seattle to Miami.-‘
But it’s MORE widespread in Vegas. Why?
Because it’s legal there.”
Is it? What data do you have to support that claim? 80,000 men being arrested for soliciting prostitutes in states not named Nevada sounds like a lot.
You said: “’-Instead of making unhelpful comments just explain what I’m missing.-‘
Consider my criticism an opportunity to read what’s already been written on our site. I’m not going to retype it for you.”
There’s no need to retype it. Cut and paste is the lazy man’s blessing. See, here below is text from your home page. Does this text capture what I was missing?
Following in the footsteps of former abolitionist movements, we aim to end one of the greatest human miseries and moral evils to ever be entrenched in our world. To this end we seek to encourage informed, rigorous, and consistent thought and action in response to the rampant occurrence of abortion within our community. We seek to instigate discussion centered on whether or not the legally sanctioned system of human abortion-on-demand is just (and we think it is not…), to inspire pro-life individuals to become more assertive and actively involved in the adherence to and expression of a way of life that is truly in favor of life.
You said: “’-Which option do you choose? For me, option A is the obvious choice.-‘
1) You don’t know that the preborn child feels what you said he feels. You’re guessing.
2) You left out God’s command not to murder, that God loves human life.
3) “Option B” enjoyed good things in his life, too. Got to enjoy the beauty of God’s creation, had a wife, had the ability to move around and breathe and eat and live.
I’m not saying he was Bill Gates. I’m saying you can’t do any of that if you’re dead.
4) You don’t have any idea what it’s like never to have lived. Whether you prefer Option A is irrelevant, for you are unqualified to make any judgment on the matter.”
1) That’s partially true. Research shows that fetuses respond to sounds played through the mother’s abdomen, so they’re feeling something. We also know that perception, the ability to understand what sensory data means doesn’t come until well after birth.
2) This is irrelevant to your choice.
3) Wow, ever the optimist. You wouldn’t be moving around so well after your foot was smashed.
4) It’s pretty easy to imagine. You had your brief time in your mother’s comfortable womb and then you died. It’s just a much shorter version of option B minus the beatings and having your children taken from you.
You said: “’-In this fallen world we live in sometimes there is only a choice between evil and a lesser evil.-‘
Untrue.”
Oh really, how about when Hitler was sweeping across Europe? Isn’t there a choice between war which is an evil or letting Hitler take over the world which would be a greater evil?
“’-My hope is that Jesus will come back sometime soon and set all the wrongs right, and that we will live in a kingdom where there is no suffering.-‘
if I were you, I wouldn’t be impatient to see Jesus come back. He doesn’t take kindly to those who spend their time defending baby murder.
Repent, while you still have time.”
Arguing against your poorly thought out abolitionist movement which would do more harm than good is not a sin. Having a more nuanced view about the abortion debate is not a sin. God gave me the ability to see the world in more than just black and white absolutes for a reason.
You said: “SMH
That’s the refuge of the shallow thinker who can’t really engage the issue at hand, and who has no idea what it means that God has entrusted His people with a proclamation to repeat after Him what He has already said.”
So, God told you that I’m not a Christian? Yes, there was some sarcasm in my previous response to you, but the fact remains that you don’t know anything about me or my faith. According to you almost everybody is going to hell—even people associated with the Republican national platform wouldn’t be a Christian because there are some exceptions for abortion. It’s just crazy. What part of the Gospel includes needing to believe in a total ban on abortion? This only abolitionists go to heaven clause is just something that you’ve made up.
“’-. I sincerely think that God does not expect us to support things that we think could hurt our neighbors.-‘
What about MURDERING your neighbors? I guess God’s totally Ok with that as long as you think you can rationalise that away, and as long as you arbitrarily un-label them “neighbors”.
Nothing to see here. Move along.”
I’m not murdering anyone. All I’m saying is that we should focus our efforts on trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education, contraceptives, adoption and the Gospel or whatever means works, and in order to be prepared for the worst case scenario, keep well run abortion facilities open in case our efforts don’t work for everyone. Hopefully, one day these facilities can be shut down because no one wants to use them anymore. Until then let’s keep them open so mother and child don’t end up dying during a botched home abortion.
You said: “’- Can you see that when you are looking at things from her perspective it looks like there is no choice?-‘
Yuo didn’t say “SHE THINKS there is no choice” before. You’re moving the goalposts. You’d said “there is no choice”. Whether she knows about that choice is a totally different question.”
You’re still not seeing things from her perspective. In her world there is not option. Yes, it’s not rational, but people don’t always make rational choices.
You said: “’-I’m alluding to John 8:1-11.-‘
1) Are you aware that’s a textual variant and not actually in the original manuscript of the book of John?
2) Who’s condemning anyone? Calling abortion sin = condemnation?
3) Sounds like you’d want to give the post-abortive girl a pat on the back and an “attagirl”. You seem like a big fan of abortion to me.
4) Stoning? I mean, I don’t even know what to say to this. So stupid.”
1) Yes, of course, we’ve all seen the note in our Bibles about this section. If you want to cut it out of your Bible that’s up to you. I’m keeping it in my mine because I think it’s beautiful story about mercy and forgiveness, and I think that it’s exemplary of the awesomeness of Jesus.
2) Calling abortion sin is fine, but the question is, is there mercy for women who repent? Is there mercy for abortion providers who repent? I think there is.
3) Do you think that Jesus was patting the woman caught in adultery on the back for her adultery? Do you think that Jesus is a big fan of adultery?
4) Really, Rhology, I just don’t know; I’m not sure what you would do.
You said: “’- I just don’t think that I can fully support your cause because I believe that prohibitions only make things worse.-‘
No, you believe that prohibitions of SOME things only make things worse, and you’re too shallow or biased to see how your rationalisations are idiotic.”
Alcohol and guns are involved in the deaths of millions of people. Do you support banning those things too? I mean the War on Drugs was a fantastic victory for our nation and the world, so why not ban more things? No one will ever die of alcoholism or a gunshot ever again. Just like the effects of drugs have disappeared off of the face of the earth so too will all the evils associated with alcohol and guns. No one will ever want to touch alcohol or guns ever again because they’ll be illegal. Just imagine the utopia we’ll live in after the government has banned all evils in the world.
Rhology, on one hand I admire your adamantine convictions and your unyielding belief in your cause. Wanting to end abortion is a good thing. On the other hand, I’m disturbed by the short sighted obsession with ending it all costs. You’re like Captain Ahab, who is obsessed with destroying your white whale, which is the embodiment of evil. Like Ahab you don’t see the dangers associated with realizing your goal. You don’t care if the ship sinks as long as you kill your white whale.
This is my last response, as I don’t think we’re really getting anywhere. Starbuck didn’t get anywhere with Ahab either. Our visions are just too different. Regardless of competing visions I do hope to see a day when mothers and children don’t die from abortions. I want to thank you all for dialoging with me. It was an interesting debate. God bless.
–Keith
Posted by Keith | October 27, 2012, 2:47 AMThe “weights on both sides” thing doesn’t work. A crime may be rejoiced over by lots of people. Or you may murder a homeless person. Yet God has commanded that we not murder. It’s pretty simple.
You might rape and murder an orphan girl who was your mail-order bride from Russia and then dispose of her body. Nobody ever knew.
Yet God knows of this crime, and it was not morally justifiable.
Further, assigning weights to the different factors you named is entirely arbitrary. Who is to say how much weight goes on which side? And what if you forget a certain factor?
Contrast that with the method wherein you merely listen to what God said.
- Are you trying to say because Kermit’s clinic was run horribly all clinics are run like this? -
Of course not.
The point is that MANY abortuaries are poorly-run and do not care much for women. Only money. Gosnell is merely one egregious example, yet why wasn’t he shut down way before?
-Is a man killing his wife out of rage a service?
-
It could be considered that way, sure. Like if she were up for a promotion that a competitor later got b/c the man’s wife was killed.
-There is a murder service, contract killing, that you mentioned in your last response, but that service is not created because murder is illegal-
What does that sentence mean? “that service is not created”? Then why are hits sometimes undertaken?
-Well, if condoms are so cheap then we can afford to supply them to people who can’t afford them like high school students who get an allowance and must choose between gas money or contraceptives.-
Why would we want to do that?
Now YOU are committing the fallacy of composition, only this time for real.
To render ONE service (ie, give someone a condom) is cheap.
Then by your logic, giving 2 million kids 10 condoms each is also cheap.
YOu need to make an argument to the effect that I as a taxpayer am justifiably on the hook to provide some horny kid a condom so he can fornicate.
Why doesn’t he just buy one himself?
Perhaps you’re a Communist; you think that we should all pay 95% of our income to the state so the state can provide us what we need. This is not justifiable in God’s eyes either. This is not a biblical worldview.
-The problem with just say no to sex is that you’re not taking into account peer pressure, the reckless behavior of teenagers due to their still developing frontal lobes; the powerful drive that is sex; and the fact that our culture is obsessed with sex-
None of that changes the fact that I was right – you don’t HAVE to have sex.
People are going to have sex, sure, probably. Just like people are going to eat too much McDonalds. there are consequences. It’s not my job to ensure you escape all consequences for your actions.
-what evidence do you have that God has ordered us to make abortion illegal?-
Because God commanded us not to murder.
-According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission violent offences accounted for just 2.9% of the total US convictions in 2010. This means that murder, which is a subset of violent crimes, accounted for less than 2.9% of total convictions.-
And how many man-hours and appeals processes were there for those offenses? Taxpayer cost for indigent defense counsel? The cost of running prisons with high security to prevent violent offenders from escaping?
-80,000 men being arrested for soliciting prostitutes in states not named Nevada sounds like a lot.-
Sure does. Yet hookers walk around on the streets in Vegas without much police intervention.
-Does this text capture what I was missing?-
Yes, that’s a start.
You’ll need to read more, though, before you find the answer to why your challenge was ignorant.
-We also know that perception, the ability to understand what sensory data means doesn’t come until well after birth.-
No, you don’t **KNOW** that. This is more guesswork and assumption.
And no, I don’t know of a way that one could find out for sure one way or the other. Thus, my position should be the default – we don’t kill something if we’re not sure if it’s human or not. We don’t spray playgrounds with machine gun fire just b/c we THINK recess is over.
-2) This is irrelevant to your choice.-
LOL, so whether God commands us not to murder is irrelevant?
You want to know why I warned you about God’s judgment? Exhibit A. Your worldview is profoundly unbiblical. Why in the world would anyone think you love Jesus first and foremost, and have repented of all your sin and idolatrous thinking, with comments like these?
-You wouldn’t be moving around so well after your foot was smashed.-
Crud, you’re right. I guess we should put all handicapped people to death. They’ll never experience another minute of joy or glorify God in any way after their injury.
-You had your brief time in your mother’s comfortable womb and then you died. It’s just a much shorter version of option B minus the beatings and having your children taken from you.-
Interesting – you can imagine being put to death as a preborn child? Based on what experience, exactly?
Yeah, you’re blowing hot air. YOu have no idea what it would be like, and so you’re in no position to tell anyone about such a comparison.
- Isn’t there a choice between war which is an evil or letting Hitler take over the world which would be a greater evil?-
I don’t grant that the mere fact of engaging in war is evil, as a matter of fact. You need to find a different analogy or prove from the Scripture that undertaking war is necessarily evil.
-Having a more nuanced view about the abortion debate is not a sin-
Now you’re just trying to explain your sin away. That may work with some, but it doesn’t work with me and it certainly won’t with Jesus. Your view is not nuanced. You think murdering babies is a merciful and good thing to do.
- God gave me the ability to see the world in more than just black and white absolutes for a reason.-
You may not be aware that our faculties can be used for good or evil.
-God told you that I’m not a Christian?-
No, you told me.
- According to you almost everybody is going to hell-
You don’t know anything about me. Shame on you for putting words in my mouth, you bigot.
-What part of the Gospel includes needing to believe in a total ban on abortion? -
The Epistle of James makes it clear that a regenerate heart produces works in keeping with repentance. THat would include a heart that doesn’t say, for example, that God’s command on a given issue doesn’t matter.
-This only abolitionists go to heaven clause is just something that you’ve made up.-
No, it’s something YOU made up. I have never said it, and I don’t believe it.
-I’m not murdering anyone.-
I didn’t say you were. I said you don’t care if other people murder.
-All I’m saying is that we should focus our efforts on trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education, -
Now you’re retreating and trying to distract. THat is NOT all you’ve been saying.
-Hopefully, one day these facilities can be shut down because no one wants to use them anymore.-
Oh, right, and you’re working SO VERY HARD toward that end. Defending aborticians and all, making excuses, saying God’s command doesn’t matter. Go ahead, give yourself a solid pat on the back.
-I’m keeping it in my mine because I think it’s beautiful story about mercy and forgiveness, and I think that it’s exemplary of the awesomeness of Jesus.-
Wow, what a solid argument. You’re keeping it in because you like it.
-2) Calling abortion sin is fine, but the question is, is there mercy for women who repent? Is there mercy for abortion providers who repent? I think there is.-
Ummmm, abortion providers aren’t repenting, by and large. Notice that? Instead, they’re lying to women and making $millions.
Yes, there is mercy for those who repent. And they won’t repent unless they’re shown that what they’ve done is a sin against God.
-3) Do you think that Jesus was patting the woman caught in adultery on the back for her adultery? Do you think that Jesus is a big fan of adultery?-
No, I sure don’t. That’s a great point, Keith. Maybe you should take it to heart.
-4) Really, Rhology, I just don’t know; I’m not sure what you would do.-
LOL Let me review for you.
1) I am making arguments that abortion should be abolished. You know, arguments. Using words. Mostly on the Internet.
2) I also do public agitation, trying to convince people. You know, convince. Using words.
3) You come in and draw the analogy to stoning.
4) Because I’m using words.
5) I mock the idea that words are analogous to stoning.
6) You completely miss the point.
7) Which brings us to the present.
It’s idiotic to compare what abolitionists are doing to stoning. Just foolishness.
You said it right earlier – God gave you a brain. Engage it, yeah?
-Alcohol and guns are involved in the deaths of millions of people. Do you support banning those things too?-
So are cheeseburgers and cigarettes and cars.
Abortion is the direct action that results in death of an innocent. This wouldn’t be so complicated for you if you weren’t such a dogged abortion apologist.
- Wanting to end abortion is a good thing. -
This is the first time you’ve given any indication you think so. that should trouble you.
-On the other hand, I’m disturbed by the short sighted obsession with ending it all costs. -
Transfer this criticism about immediatism to slavery, rape, or murder. Then we’ll talk.
-Like Ahab you don’t see the dangers associated with realizing your goal. You don’t care if the ship sinks as long as you kill your white whale.-
SMH
-God bless.-
Do yourself a favor and don’t pray or say things like that.
Proverbs 28:9 – He who turns away his ear from listening to the law; even his prayer is an abomination.
-Rhology
Posted by rhology | October 31, 2012, 3:29 PMAt the risk of wasting more of my time I’m choosing to respond to you, Rhology, because I think I see a way to shed some light on this debate by clarifying what our positions actually are, as opposed to what we mistakenly think the other person’s viewpoint is.
So, now I’m going to clearly state what my position is and what I believe your position to be. My position is that it is wrong and a sin for individuals to kill embryos/fetuses. I believe that we are in agreement here. I believe that Christians should try to influence the greater public through educating the community about the importance of human lives; abstaining from premarital sex; and the option of adoptions in the case of unwanted pregnancy. I think that we’re in agreement here. I also believe that we as Christians should evangelize, not only to prevent abortions but to save people’s souls. I think that we are also in agreement on this point. I think that one point we differ on is the way to fight unwanted pregnancies. I believe that sex education should include the promotion of abstinence as well as information about how to properly use contraceptives and their failure rates. I believe this not because I think that premarital sex is awesome, no I believe this because studies have shown that states with an abstinence only sex education programs have higher rates of teenage pregnancy and overall birth rates than states with comprehensive sex education.
I think that our biggest point of disagreement is about whether abortion should be made illegal. You believe that abortion is murder and therefore we as a nation should make it illegal regardless of any negative consequences that would follow. I, on the other hand, think that abortions should not be make illegal, not because I think abortions are awesome, but because I believe that history shows that prohibitions not only fail to stop the thing that is made illegal but they actually make the problems surrounding that thing worse. For example, when we prohibited alcohol the consumption of it remained very high, by some estimates it actually went up, and organized crime families rose up to capitalize on the black market booze industry. The only reason why the St Valentine’s Day Massacre happened was because alcohol was illegal and two rival mafias were battling for control of the local black market. In the case of abortion we also know that thousands of women die of botched abortions each year in countries where abortion is illegal. So, not only are fetuses dying but mothers are too—this is a situation made worse. For me, the bottom line is that prohibitions fail and are not in the best interest of society. When I say that abortions should be legal I’m not saying that they are good or right I’m simply saying that because prohibitions fail and exacerbate the problems surrounding the thing made illegal prohibiting abortion is not in the best interest of our society.
Have I correctly characterized your position?
You said: “The “weights on both sides” thing doesn’t work. A crime may be rejoiced over by lots of people. Or you may murder a homeless person. Yet God has commanded that we not murder. It’s pretty simple…
Further, assigning weights to the different factors you named is entirely arbitrary. Who is to say how much weight goes on which side? And what if you forget a certain factor?
Contrast that with the method wherein you merely listen to what God said.”
We’re talking about two completely different things here. The weighing of issues is not to determine what is morally right, as I said before just because we come to the conclusion that it is not in the best interest of society to prohibit abortion does not mean that it is morally good to abort fetuses. Humans are not in a position to determine what is objectively morally right and wrong. Objective morals and duties are metaphysically grounded in God’s perfectly good being. So, just because the Nazis believed that is virtuous to kill Jewish people doesn’t mean that it is objectively right to kill Jews.
What’s being weighed is what is best for the functioning of our society. It is in the best interest of society to make murder and rape illegal because the benefits far outweigh the negatives. It is not in the best interest of society to prohibit abortion because it introduces more problems than it solves.
Ephesians 5:18 says, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” That is our personal commandment from God. This does not necessarily mean that He wants us to reinstate Prohibition in order to protect the country from alcohol, especially since we know what a disaster Prohibition was. I think that you are conflating personal commands with national commands. Yes, God said do not commit murder. This is our personal command. Where is the command to make abortion illegal? I can see the extension of do not commit murder to do not have an abortion, but I don’t see the command to make abortion illegal.
You said: “’- Are you trying to say because Kermit’s clinic was run horribly all clinics are run like this? –‘
Of course not.
The point is that MANY abortuaries are poorly-run and do not care much for women. Only money. Gosnell is merely one egregious example, yet why wasn’t he shut down way before?”
Thanks for the clarification. Although, saying that MANY abortion clinics are poorly-run is a little ambiguous. How do we define poorly run and how many are we talking about?
You said: “’-Is a man killing his wife out of rage a service?’
It could be considered that way, sure. Like if she were up for a promotion that a competitor later got b/c the man’s wife was killed.”
When I say service I’m not talking about whether or not someone could benefit from someone’s death. The service I’m talking about is an exchange of money for work of some kind. If you pay to have your car’s oil changed by a mechanic then that’s a service. If you hire a maid to clean your house then that’s a service. The public has a demand for service x that it is met by agent y for an exchange of z amount of money. This is why I say that a man killing his wife is not a service—there’s no market demand for spousal homicide.
You said”’-There is a murder service, contract killing, that you mentioned in your last response, but that service is not created because murder is illegal-‘
What does that sentence mean? “that service is not created”? Then why are hits sometimes undertaken?”
I mean that contract killers would exist whether or not murder is illegal because contract killing is not a new market created by making murder illegal. Contrast this with Prohibition. When Prohibition took effect the old legal market for alcohol closed down and a new black market opened up. The black market for booze only exists if alcohol is illegal. This is not the case with murder because just about anybody can commit murder on their own regardless of the legality of it. Someone may choose to hire a hit man because they don’t have the courage to do it themselves or they don’t want to get their hands dirty. This service would still exist even if murder was legal.
You said: “’-Well, if condoms are so cheap then we can afford to supply them to people who can’t afford them like high school students who get an allowance and must choose between gas money or contraceptives.-
Why would we want to do that?
Now YOU are committing the fallacy of composition, only this time for real.
To render ONE service (ie, give someone a condom) is cheap.
Then by your logic, giving 2 million kids 10 condoms each is also cheap.
YOu need to make an argument to the effect that I as a taxpayer am justifiably on the hook to provide some horny kid a condom so he can fornicate.
Why doesn’t he just buy one himself?
Perhaps you’re a Communist; you think that we should all pay 95% of our income to the state so the state can provide us what we need. This is not justifiable in God’s eyes either. This is not a biblical worldview.”
That’s true that one box of condoms is much cheaper than 2 million condoms, but you need to weigh the cost of buying 2 million condoms with the alternative of a potential abortion or the cost helping out a poor family with another kid. How do we even put a value on preventing an abortion? If you prevent an abortion because a pregnancy never happened then you have saved one and possible two lives (the mother and the child). The cost of a welfare baby is quantifiable and is in the 1,000’s of dollar range per year.
No, I’m not a communist. Nobody’s tax rate is going to be anywhere near 95% because some condoms were handed out. I’m not sure how much the government spends on birth control products, but I do know that on a pie chart of government spending it would be a nearly invisible line.
You said: “’Does this text capture what I was missing?-‘
Yes, that’s a start.
You’ll need to read more, though, before you find the answer to why your challenge was ignorant.”
I’ve looked through all the FAQ topics and there is not one that addresses prohibitions and why the prohibition of abortion won’t fail like the prohibitions against alcohol and drugs. If you don’t address this issue then you haven’t scratched the surface of my concerns about this movement.
You said: “’-We also know that perception, the ability to understand what sensory data means doesn’t come until well after birth.-‘
No, you don’t **KNOW** that. This is more guesswork and assumption.
And no, I don’t know of a way that one could find out for sure one way or the other. Thus, my position should be the default – we don’t kill something if we’re not sure if it’s human or not. We don’t spray playgrounds with machine gun fire just b/c we THINK recess is over.”
It is difficult to tell what people who can’t talk are thinking, but the studies use eye tracking devices to gather inferences about what the infant is thinking.
Once again, you’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying. My degree of suffering point is not an argument for why we should abort fetuses. I’m simply saying that the comparison you’re trying to make between a fetus that is aborted and the suffering of a slave is not quite equal. The fetus suffers for a moment while the slave suffers for decades.
You said: “’-2) This is irrelevant to your choice.-‘
LOL, so whether God commands us not to murder is irrelevant?
You want to know why I warned you about God’s judgment? Exhibit A. Your worldview is profoundly unbiblical. Why in the world would anyone think you love Jesus first and foremost, and have repented of all your sin and idolatrous thinking, with comments like these?”
Once again you are completing misunderstanding my point. I didn’t ask you to choose between killing a fetus and torturing a slave. I asked you to decide if you’d rather be a fetus who gets aborted or a slave that gets tortured for decades. Whichever person you are God will be grieved about your suffering right? I’m not saying that God’s commands are irrelevant in general I’m just saying that, in this hypothetical dilemma about degrees of suffering, God’s command to you is irrelevant because you’re not murdering anyone; you are an innocent suffering person.
You said: “’-You wouldn’t be moving around so well after your foot was smashed.-‘
Crud, you’re right. I guess we should put all handicapped people to death. They’ll never experience another minute of joy or glorify God in any way after their injury.”
Again, you’ve completely missed my point—I’m starting to see pattern here. My point had nothing to do with putting injured people to death. I’m just surprised that someone would choose to suffer for decades rather than just a moment of suffering.
You said: “’- Isn’t there a choice between war which is an evil or letting Hitler take over the world which would be a greater evil?-‘
I don’t grant that the mere fact of engaging in war is evil, as a matter of fact. You need to find a different analogy or prove from the Scripture that undertaking war is necessarily evil.”
No, no, no when someone talks about choosing between an evil and a lesser they don’t mean evil in the moral sense. They mean evil in the sense of something being harmful or unpleasant. To phrase it differently, it’s a choice between a bad situation and an even worse situation. So, in my example the choice is between a bad situation, war, which is incredibly destructive and in the case of WWII killed millions of people, or the even worse situation of Hitler terrorizing the world and killing millions of people.
You said “’-Having a more nuanced view about the abortion debate is not a sin-‘
Now you’re just trying to explain your sin away. That may work with some, but it doesn’t work with me and it certainly won’t with Jesus. Your view is not nuanced. You think murdering babies is a merciful and good thing to do.”
There’s no sin here. I don’t think that abortions or “murdering babies” is a merciful or good thing to do. What I do think is that prohibitions fail to stop the thing they make illegal, and they make the problems surrounding the thing worse. I see a tremendous amount of similarities between Prohibition and this prohibition of abortion you’re talking about. The great experiment, Prohibition, was a train wreck, so I don’t understand why you would want to repeat history by instituting another prohibition. If abortion is made illegal a black market for abortion will form and women will have abortions in their homes. Fetuses are still going to be killed and black market abortions are going to be less safe endangering the lives of mothers. I don’t understand how you can’t see this.
To be able to accept your position I would have to 1) ignore what I know about prohibitions and 2) not care about the repercussions of instituting another prohibition i.e. the fetuses and women who will be killed by black market abortions. I don’t know how I can conscientiously do this as a Christian or a human being.
You said: “’- God gave me the ability to see the world in more than just black and white absolutes for a reason.-‘
You may not be aware that our faculties can be used for good or evil.”
Just as you may not be aware that dogmatism can be used for good or evil.
You said: “’-God told you that I’m not a Christian?-‘
No, you told me.”
No, actually, I told you that I’m a Christian.
You said: “’- According to you almost everybody is going to hell-‘
You don’t know anything about me. Shame on you for putting words in my mouth, you bigot.”
Oh really. You said, “If you think murdering babies is justifiable, I don’t see any good reason to think you’re a “fellow” Christian.” Now, from your interaction with Andrew, I know that you believe that all non-Christians are condemned in their sins, and so are going to hell. As a Christian I agree with you; I may not have phrased my response to our friend as harshly as you did, but never-the-less I agree with you. Now, a Gallup US public opinion report shows that 74%-84% of the population supports abortions in the case of rape and 81%-90% of the population supports abortions to save the health or life of the mother. That means that most of the US public thinks that abortion is justified in some cases. According to the CIA Fact Book 77% of the US population identifies as some sort of Christian. I think you can see the discrepancy between professing Christians and your stipulation that someone who thinks abortion is justified in some cases is not a Christian. So, according to your rules almost everyone in the US is going to hell. This means that assuming that everyone who is opposed to abortion in all cases is a true follower of Christ (which is probably a poor assumption) only 19% to 10% of the US population is not going to hell.
You said: “’-What part of the Gospel includes needing to believe in a total ban on abortion? –‘
The Epistle of James makes it clear that a regenerate heart produces works in keeping with repentance. THat would include a heart that doesn’t say, for example, that God’s command on a given issue doesn’t matter.”
I take all of God’s commands seriously, but that doesn’t mean that I think that Hindus should be imprisoned or executed even though God said to have no other gods before us. I also don’t think that adulterers should be imprisoned or executed even though God said not to commit adultery. I also don’t think that an atheist who takes the Lord’s name in vain should be imprisoned or executed because God told us not to.
You said: “’-3) Do you think that Jesus was patting the woman caught in adultery on the back for her adultery? Do you think that Jesus is a big fan of adultery?-‘
No, I sure don’t. That’s a great point, Keith. Maybe you should take it to heart.”
Just as Jesus wasn’t patting the woman caught in adultery on the back for her adultery I am not patting the woman who gets an abortion on the back. I am disappointed and dismayed by her decision, but I think that she is deserving of mercy if she repents.
You said: ”’4) Really, Rhology, I just don’t know; I’m not sure what you would do.-‘
LOL Let me review for you.
1) I am making arguments that abortion should be abolished. You know, arguments. Using words. Mostly on the Internet.
2) I also do public agitation, trying to convince people. You know, convince. Using words.
3) You come in and draw the analogy to stoning.
4) Because I’m using words.
5) I mock the idea that words are analogous to stoning.
6) You completely miss the point.
7) Which brings us to the present.
It’s idiotic to compare what abolitionists are doing to stoning. Just foolishness.
You said it right earlier – God gave you a brain. Engage it, yeah?”
You misunderstood what I was saying, but it is my fault because I was being vague here. What I was saying (or not saying) is that from our dialogue you seem like a very self-righteous and judgmental person and I could picture you among the crowd of people, in the story of the woman caught in adultery, with a rock in your hand. I also wouldn’t be surprised if after Jesus said, “He who is without sin cast the fist stone,” that a stone would come flying out of your hand. This is probably not a very fair characterization of who you are as a person, but this is the impression I get.
You said: “’-Alcohol and guns are involved in the deaths of millions of people. Do you support banning those things too?-‘
So are cheeseburgers and cigarettes and cars.
Abortion is the direct action that results in death of an innocent. This wouldn’t be so complicated for you if you weren’t such a dogged abortion apologist.”
I’m not an abortion apologist. I’m an apologist for reason and common sense. I’m trying to help you see that prohibitions only make things worse.
You said: “’- Wanting to end abortion is a good thing. –‘
This is the first time you’ve given any indication you think so. that should trouble you.”
No, actually I’ve been saying it all along you just haven’t paid attention to what I have been really saying. You have some cartoonish image of me as a demonized abortion supporter that is clouding your eyes to my arguments. I actually think that abortions are destructive, so I’m not pro-abortion. I am anti-prohibition though and that’s where we disagree. However, don’t mistake my anti-prohibition stance for a pro-abortion stance. They are two different things.
You said: “’-On the other hand, I’m disturbed by the short sighted obsession with ending it all costs. –‘
Transfer this criticism about immediatism to slavery, rape, or murder. Then we’ll talk.”
I’ve already explained numerous times why making slavery, rape and murder illegal carries more positives than negatives.
You said: “’-Like Ahab you don’t see the dangers associated with realizing your goal. You don’t care if the ship sinks as long as you kill your white whale.-‘
SMH”
I actually wasn’t joking here—I was 100% stone cold serious. You don’t have Ahab’s power, of course, but you do share his blatant disregard for the consequences of achieving the goals you obsess about.
You said: “’-God bless.-‘
Do yourself a favor and don’t pray or say things like that.
Proverbs 28:9 – He who turns away his ear from listening to the law; even his prayer is an abomination.”
I am not under the law, I am under grace.
Posted by Keith | November 2, 2012, 3:35 AM- My position is that it is wrong and a sin for individuals to kill embryos/fetuses-
And you spend your time defending the availability of such murders.
With friends like you….
-I believe this because studies have shown that states with an abstinence only sex education programs have higher rates of teenage pregnancy and overall birth rates than states with comprehensive sex education.-
That is wrongheaded, though.
Abstinence is 100% successful in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc.
The problems start when you STOP ABSTAINING.
By contrast, if you use a condom or something, then you have a, what? Let’s be generous – 90% success in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc. You start getting lower %s when when you STOP USING CONDOMS.
So you can go with 100% if yes and a lot lower results if no.
Or you can go with 90% if yes and the same lot lower results if no.
- I, on the other hand, think that abortions should not be make illegal,-
You are saying that you don’t want murder to be illegal.
- I think abortions are awesome, but because I believe that history shows that prohibitions not only fail to stop the thing that is made illegal but they actually make the problems surrounding that thing worse-
Right, like murder, rape, slavery, and pædophilia. We’ve already talked about that.
-Have I correctly characterized your position?-
I think so, yes.
- Humans are not in a position to determine what is objectively morally right and wrong.-
We DISCOVER what is objectively morally right and wrong BECAUSE GOD HAS SPOKEN.
-So, just because the Nazis believed that is virtuous to kill Jewish people doesn’t mean that it is objectively right to kill Jews. -
We can know that because God has spoken.
We wouldn’t know that is true if God hadn’t spoken.
-It is in the best interest of society to make murder and rape illegal because the benefits far outweigh the negatives. It is not in the best interest of society to prohibit abortion because it introduces more problems than it solves.-
You are stumbling at the same place where the pro-aborts stumble.
If the preborn child is a human being, it’s the exact same as murder. You presuppose this is not the case. YOu need to explain why.
-Yes, God said do not commit murder. This is our personal command. Where is the command to make abortion illegal?-
Actually, this is a poor and biblically illiterate analogy.
1) The proscription against murder was first given with Cain/Abel, and that didn’t turn out well for Cain. And he WAS the society at the time.
2) Genesis 9:6 affirms God’s command IN GENERAL. It’s not “personal”.
3) The MOsaic Law affirms capital punishment for capital crimes – murder. FOr the society.
4) Romans 13 mentions the sword for capital crimes – this is societal as well.
- How do we define poorly run and how many are we talking about?-
Since their buddies in the government protect them from being closely analysed, it’s impossible to know for sure. Are you unfamiliar with the dozens of women who get sick/go into septic shock/end up with uterine performations/hemorrhage/die from abortions in the US every year?
-This is why I say that a man killing his wife is not a service—there’s no market demand for spousal homicide. -
If there weren’t, there wouldn’t be hit men. There’d be no money in it.
-you need to weigh the cost of buying 2 million condoms with the alternative of a potential abortion or the cost helping out a poor family with another kid.-
don’t be so cynical. There’s far more to “a kid” than just another mouth to feed. There are plenty of poor, and yet many are able to grow into educated, productive citizens. We might as well cull poor people, by this logic. Again your bias is against the very young. You wouldn’t want us to go around gassing every fifth poor person, but you don’t care if we tear up every third preborn child.
-The cost of a welfare baby is quantifiable and is in the 1,000’s of dollar range per year.-
Yet human beings have a right not to be murdered. The right to be given free condoms is imaginary.
-Nobody’s tax rate is going to be anywhere near 95% because some condoms were handed out.-
You miss the point. Make a consistent argument why we should stop with free condoms. Why not free everything?
BTW, just in case, “that’s a slippery slope argument!” is not an answer.
-I’m simply saying that the comparison you’re trying to make between a fetus that is aborted and the suffering of a slave is not quite equal-
And I asked you to prove it. And you couldn’t. That was my point.
- The fetus suffers for a moment while the slave suffers for decades.-
And your standard of measurement seems to be nothing more than your mere opinion. I challenge your opinion. Yet how does one measure suffering? It doesn’t weigh anything, has no atomic weight, takes up no volume.
-I asked you to decide if you’d rather be a fetus who gets aborted or a slave that gets tortured for decades. -
And that’s irrelevant, as I pointed out.
- I’m just surprised that someone would choose to suffer for decades rather than just a moment of suffering. -
Maybe because there’s more to life than just suffering?
-They mean evil in the sense of something being harmful or unpleasant. -
Well, then, my suggestion would be to say “harmful or unpleasant” in that case.
But “harmful” usually is a stand-in in people’s minds for “evil”. That is an assumption that must be substantiated, not asserted and then taken for granted.
-. I don’t understand how you can’t see this. -
And I don’t understand how you don’t get it either. But I’ve already explained myself many times.
-Just as you may not be aware that dogmatism can be used for good or evil.-
Of course it can.
-No, actually, I told you that I’m a Christian.-
Your disregard for putting God’s commands over your instinctive opinions about prohibitions (even granting for the moment that they’re not horribly flawed) shows that Jesus is not your Lord. He is not your Master. If He were, you’d do what He says.
- According to the CIA Fact Book 77% of the US population identifies as some sort of Christian. I think you can see the discrepancy between professing Christians and your stipulation that someone who thinks abortion is justified in some cases is not a Christian.-
What you’re missing is that there are many foolish Christians who have not thought these things through out there. But there’s a difference between not thinking things through and rejecting the obvious and the obviously-commanded-by-God when it is presented to them. You are among the latter, sadly. Repent.
-I take all of God’s commands seriously, but that doesn’t mean that I think that Hindus should be imprisoned or executed even though God said to have no other gods before us-
True, but that’s a category error.
-Just as Jesus wasn’t patting the woman caught in adultery on the back for her adultery I am not patting the woman who gets an abortion on the back-
The abortician doesn’t care about your pat on the back. He cares about the $millions your inaction allows him to steal from women whom he has betrayed. Legally.
-What I was saying (or not saying) is that from our dialogue you seem like a very self-righteous and judgmental person and I could picture you among the crowd of people, in the story of the woman caught in adultery, with a rock in your hand. -
B/c I think I am right? You know, you seem like a very self-righteous and judgmental person and I could picture you among the crowd of people, in the story of the woman caught in adultery, with a rock in your hand.
- I’m trying to help you see that prohibitions only make things worse. -
Been over that, Keith. You’re leaving tons of challenges on the table, just repeating yourself.
-I am not under the law, I am under grace.-
One who ignores the law shows that he cares neither about law nor about grace. Based on your statements here, you are an idolater and have created your own confession of faith that materially differs from the faith communicated in the Scripture.
Posted by rhology | November 6, 2012, 12:55 PMKeith,
You said” “My position is that it is wrong and a sin for individuals to kill embryos/fetuses.”
You also said that “I, on the other hand, think that abortions should not be make illegal, not because I think abortions are awesome, but because I believe that history shows that prohibitions not only fail to stop the thing that is made illegal but they actually make the problems surrounding that thing worse.”
Given that abortion very often entails the brutal dismemberment of an unborn human being, your stated position is, in essence, equivalent to the following:
“I believe that it is wrong for individuals to brutally dismember an innocent human being who has not yet passed through his/her mother’s birth canal. Yet, I think that the practice of brutally dismembering such human beings, tearing them apart, limb by limb, piece by piece, is something that should not be made illegal. Granted, I don’t think that tearing human beings apart limb by limb, piece by piece, is awesome. But, I think the history of prohibitions shows that outlawing the brutal dismemberment of human beings will not only fail to stop that practice, but that making it illegal to take the lives of the most helpless and innocent members of the human race in this brutal and horrific manner will actually make ‘surrounding problems’ worse.”
Such an ideology is callous and brutal, and I do not see how anyone can hold to such a view who has any modicum of compassion, or respect for human life. How can so-called ‘surrounding problems’ even be mentioned in the same breath as the legalized practice of brutally dismembering the most innocent and helpless members of our human race? Do not the rights and needs of the victim far supersede the rights and needs of the assailant and oppressor? Only a mind warped and twisted by sin could conclude otherwise.
But these considerations aside, consider the following:
1. Governments often prohibit things that are not morally wrong, such as the consumption of alcohol or various “controlled substances.” The use of such things is not immoral, though the abuse of such things is. It is not surprising that the prohibition of things that are not morally wrong will go badly and have bad consequences. However, you admit that abortion is a moral wrong, so these examples do not provide prima facie support to notion that the same will be true of the prohibition of abortion.
2. Governments have a moral duty to protect innocent life – to punish those who commit murder (Rom. 13:4, Gen. 9:6). Therefore, governments ought to punish those who perform abortions.
3. Under your framework, however, governments only have a moral duty to protect innocent life if it somehow is “in the best interest of the society.” Many in Nazi Germany argued that it was better for their society for the Jews to be exterminated. According to them, the Jews being around simply caused more problems than they solved. Given your framework, who are you to say that the Nazi’s were doing anything wrong? From your framework, their actions were justified, since they were doing what would accomplish, in their minds, the best outcome for their society.
4. If God is pleased with and blesses the nation that upholds justice and righteousness, that punishes the oppressor and protects the weak and helpless, and is displeased with a nation that fails to do this (Is. 1:12-17), then who are you to say that society will be worse off for outlawing abortion? Would we not be better off removing God’s displeasure upon us for tolerating this evil? Is any matter of state or society more important (or “in the better interest of society”) than gaining God’s approval, and avoiding His displeasure? Only a person who does not fear God would answer affirmatively.
5. If abortion is outlawed, there will be some women who will seek to have illegal abortions anyway, and some of them may experience injury (or perhaps death) as a result of these illegal procedures. But how is this an argument against the abolition of abortion? The woman is committing murder! Do we raise a ruckus when a serial killer injures himself in the process of slashing his victim to death? Do we say that this “occupational hazard” to the serial killer should be reason to legalize his acts of murder? If not, then why say that potential injury to the woman is a reason to legalize the murder of her unborn child? Do not the needs and rights of the victim supersede the needs and rights of the assailant? Only a mind warped and twisted by sin could conclude otherwise.
You say that “I am not under the law, I am under grace.” Yet, you should heed what the Apostle Paul says in context to this: “Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” (Rom. 6:13-15). Paul also stated that “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law….Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Rom. 3:28,31).
You may think yourself a follower of Christ, but heed His words, Who said that “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Examine yourself (2 Cor. 13:5), and repent.
Posted by Matthew C. Martellus | November 7, 2012, 12:14 AM