Terryl Givens Weighs in on Ethics of Abortion

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Rivers said:

 For what it’s worth, here’s a great Facebook post from Hannah Seariac who is host of the FAIR Voices podcast.

 

“I am a faithful Latter-day Saint woman and I oppose abortion politically, morally, and religiously except in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother or child.

As I have articulated elsewhere, I consider myself pro-life in a more full sense than anti-abortion in the sense that I support comprehensive sex education, many forms of elective birth control, ending police brutality, access to better education and health care, etc.. 

I do not advocate *just* to make abortion illegal, but also advocate for supporting women to become financially stable, literate, and autonomous, smoother adoption processes, education and birth control (not mandated upon private institutions for the latter to preserve religious freedoms, especially for Catholic et al. brothers and sisters), etc. all in tandem with making abortion illegal. Comprehensive pro-life approaches and not merely "make abortion illegal" approaches are critical in spreading the message that every life has inherent meaning. 

That being said, I still think making abortion illegal is critical because of my worldview. Lest I be accused of being pro-life only because I am religious, I shall add a disclaimer: I write this post specifically to those in my faith community and have in other places offered my reasons from an irreligious perspective. 

Laws exist to preserve the freedom of individuals; they maximize our agency provided that we do not harm one another. Not to sound brash, but you can't exercise rights if you are dead. Preserving the agency of women comes in the restrictions I mentioned above: rape, incest, or health of the mother or child. In other instances, the woman chose to engage in sexual activity. 

A baby differs genetically than the mother and yes, depends on the mother, but is not the mother. The unique DNA imprint of a baby means that abortion infringes upon the baby's ability to choose, as you cannot choose if you are killed. I support both the agency of the mother and the baby, but I do not find that supporting a mother in using agency to suppress the agency of a separate person is morally defensible. 

Regarding this matter, President Oaks says: "Using arguments of "choice" to try to justify altering the consequences of choice is a classic case of omitting what the Savior called "the weightier matters of the law."...If we say that we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God's servant shave defined as serious sins."

President Oaks articulates that all criminalization of behavior rests upon moral principles, so to a degree, we cannot escape legislating morality. In this instance, we protect an idea of freedom and choice derived from both the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the Constitution. 

President Nelson says: "A woman's choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life-- and a lifetime of choices that her child would make." It is true that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not favor a legislative position on abortion, so this is my opinion. 

My opinion is that the moral imperative against abortion justifies making abortion illegal. I do not think pragmatic impacts of policy justify an inherently immoral position when we could, in fact, achieve similar effects without having abortion be legal provided that we create more economic stability and improve adoption. I find abortion morally reprehensible and do not think my support of it is effective when I can support ending the need for it at the same time that I support ending it as a legal practice. 

I won't be boxed in. I will be pro-life in all instances where life can be preserved, but I will also support legislation that ends abortion as a legal practice because I do not think our society should support suppressing anyone's rights. 

I find that a lot of conservatives take an intellectually lazy position on this and I also find the justifications to keep abortion legal wrong. We need the best of both worlds: no need for abortion and abortion as an illegal practice. Being pro-life to me means actively finding ways to reduce the need for abortion while making it illegal because I want everyone's rights, freedoms, and lives to be protected.”

 

What in your opinion is great about this post?

[smac97]

On 11/6/2020 at 12:00 PM, pogi said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565785/

You talk yourself about the fundamental right to bodily autonomy.  That includes your innards, no?  The law therefore reaches into your body. 

...unless we are talking about the bodily autonomy of a human being in the womb.  They don't count for some mysterious reason.

How do you balance that with the right to life?  It seems to me that life is more fundamental. 

A common saying is that your rights end where my (or any other nose) begins.  This means that your autonomy shouldn't trump any other right to life and autonomy.

If all you care about is protecting women's rights in this issue - so, what if the fetus is a female?  Shouldn't we protect her bodily autonomy then?   Why does the more developed women deserve greater rights to bodily autonomy and protection?  How is this equal rights?

I'm reminded of this article I posted about back in 2011:

Quote

This story has some interesting things to say about the "moral" argument about abortion:

Quote

Mara Hvistendahl is worried about girls. Not in any political, moral or cultural sense but as an existential matter. She is right to be. In China, India and numerous other countries (both developing and developed), there are many more men than women, the result of systematic campaigns against baby girls. In "Unnatural Selection," Ms. Hvistendahl reports on this gender imbalance: what it is, how it came to be and what it means for the future.

In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that's as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events.

Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China's and India's populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120.

What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion. If the male number in the sex ratio is above 106, it means that couples are having abortions when they find out the mother is carrying a girl. By Ms. Hvistendahl's counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence.

The article discusses some of the sociological effects of gender imbalance. Then this:

Quote

Ms. Hvistendahl is a first-rate reporter and has filled "Unnatural Selection" with gripping details. She has interviewed demographers and doctors from Paris to Mumbai. She spends a devastating chapter talking with Paul Ehrlich, the man who mainstreamed overpopulation hysteria in 1968 with "The Population Bomb"—and who still seems to think that getting rid of girls is a capital idea (in part because it will keep families from having more and more children until they get a boy).
...
Ms. Hvistendahl also dredges up plenty of unpleasant documents from Western actors like the Ford Foundation, the United Nations and Planned Parenthood, showing how they pushed sex-selective abortion as a means of controlling population growth. In 1976, for instance, the medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Malcom Potts, wrote that, when it came to developing nations, abortion was even better than birth control: "Early abortion is safe, effective, cheap and potentially the easiest method to administer."

The following year another Planned Parenthood official celebrated China's coercive methods of family planning, noting that "persuasion and motivation [are] very effective in a society in which social sanctions can be applied against those who fail to cooperate in the construction of the socialist state."

Lovely stuff, eh?

Strangely enough, though, the author of the book is apparently pro-abortion:

Quote

Ms. Hvistendahl is particularly worried that the "right wing" or the "Christian right"—as she labels those whose politics differ from her own—will use sex-selective abortion as part of a wider war on abortion itself. She believes that something must be done about the purposeful aborting of female babies or it could lead to "feminists' worst nightmare: a ban on all abortions."

It is telling that Ms. Hvistendahl identifies a ban on abortion—and not the killing of tens of millions of unborn girls—as the "worst nightmare" of feminism. Even though 163 million girls have been denied life solely because of their gender, she can't help seeing the problem through the lens of an American political issue.

This is where the discussion gets interesting. The author of the book impliedly concedes that gender-based abortion is bad:

Quote

Yet, while she is not willing to say that something has gone terribly wrong with the pro-abortion movement, she does recognize that two ideas are coming into conflict: "After decades of fighting for a woman's right to choose the outcome of her own pregnancy, it is difficult to turn around and point out that women are abusing that right."

So abortion to avoid having a girl amounts to "abusing" the right to abortion? Why is that? Why is aborting a baby girl "wrong" but aborting for some other non-medically-necessary reason A-Okay?

Quote

Late in "Unnatural Selection," Ms. Hvistendahl makes some suggestions as to how such "abuse" might be curbed without infringing on a woman's right to have an abortion. In attempting to serve these two diametrically opposed ideas, she proposes banning the common practice of revealing the sex of a baby to parents during ultrasound testing. And not just ban it, but have rigorous government enforcement, which would include nationwide sting operations designed to send doctors and ultrasound techs and nurses who reveal the sex of babies to jail. Beyond the police surveillance of obstetrics facilities, doctors would be required to "investigate women carrying female fetuses more thoroughly" when they request abortions, in order to ensure that their motives are not illegal.

Uh, yeah. Good luck with that. Once the idea of abortion-for-any-reason-or-no-reason-at-all takes root, it's kinda hard to backtrack and say "well, unless you want to abort little girls, 'cuz that kind of abortion is morally repugnant."

The article ends with a bang:

Quote

Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of "choice." For if "choice" is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against "gendercide." Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother's "mental health" requires it. Choice is choice. One Indian abortionist tells Ms. Hvistendahl: "I have patients who come and say 'I want to abort because if this baby is born it will be a Gemini, but I want a Libra.' "

This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it.

Interesting that the author of this article used the word "calamities" to describe the consequences of this sort of behavior. Where have I heard this before? Oh, right here:

Quote

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
...
The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.
...
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rivers]

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What in your opinion is great about this post?

It’s well rounded.  It addresses many of the complexities of the issue while still affirming the sacredness of unborn human lives.

[Rivers]

I am reminded of the scene in Night at the Museum where Ben Stiller’s character says something like, “Stop fighting.  The war is over.  Slavery is bad.”

 I just want to say, “Killing babies is bad.”

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Rivers said:

I am reminded of the scene in Night at the Museum where Ben Stiller’s character says something like, “Stop fighting.  The war is over.  Slavery is bad.”

 I just want to say, “Killing babies is bad.”

Then why worship God?  If we are to take it all seriously, far more fetus' lives ended by the hand of "natural" consequence than by elective abortion, as we call it.  All of natural consequence are due to God, since he started this all, knowing how to make it play out, any unknown action (like fetus' dying) is only known by Him and only stopped by Him.   

[pogi]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Then why worship God?  If we are to take it all seriously, far more fetus' lives ended by the hand of "natural" consequence than by elective abortion, as we call it.  All of natural consequence are due to God, since he started this all, knowing how to make it play out, any unknown action (like fetus' dying) is only known by Him and only stopped by Him.   

So, are you arguing that God is bad (a red herring derail) or that killing babies is good?

Apparently, those are the only two options you leave us.

I suppose if killing babies is good, killing anyone is good, since God allows for natural death and accidents in all stages of life!  Why stop at legalizing killing babies?

Edited November 18, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

I am reminded of the scene in Night at the Museum where Ben Stiller’s character says something like, “Stop fighting.  The war is over.  Slavery is bad.”

I just want to say, “Killing babies is bad.”

Then why worship God? 

Because He is our Father in Heaven.  Because He is perfect in every respect.

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If we are to take it all seriously, far more fetus' lives ended by the hand of "natural" consequence than by elective abortion, as we call it. 

Your postulation only works if you attribute selfish or evil motives to God.  We don't.  

A relevant quote from Joseph Smith:

Quote

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

And another:

Quote

Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, the idea that he actually exists;

Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes;

Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive. But with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

God's perspective and knowledge is infinitely greater than ours, to wit:

• "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8
• "{God} comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." - D&C 88:41
• "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." - Abr. 3:19
• "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." - 2 Nephi 2:24
• "For now we see through a glass, darkly..." - 1 Cor.13:12

Applying the foregoing precepts, I conclude that God is perfect.  He is all-powerful and all-knowing.  He is perfectly righteous.  He is perfectly just.  He is the ultimate arbiter of "right" and "wrong."  So whatever He commands is, by definition, "right."  Our perception is blinkered and finite, and is therefore subordinate to His.

There is a Latin legal maxim which may have some application here: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo." This is generally translated as "Your motive gives the name to your act."  If this is so, then an act, in and of itself, is devoid of morality.  It is the context, the motive behind the act that is determinative of whether it is "right" or "wrong."  This is why a police officer can be hailed as a hero shooting and killing an armed suspect on the cusp of killing an innocent, while a thug who shoots and kills a person so as to rob him is a murderer.  The motive matters.  The motive is determinative.

I therefore draw a qualitative and quantitative difference between everything that God does and what we do.  Our actions are a mish-mash, some well-intended, some not.  Some done in ignorance, some deliberately.  Some done righteously, some wickedly.  And so on.  But none of that applies to God.  There is no mish-mash.  No evil or impure motives or actions.  Whatever He does is by definition good, even if we can't see that in the moment.

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

All of natural consequence are due to God, since he started this all, knowing how to make it play out, any unknown action (like fetus' dying) is only known by Him and only stopped by Him.   

I would again refer you to the foregoing scriptures.  If God has the attributes we understand Him to have, then He cannot do any evil or unjust thing.  We, however, can.  To wit: Most elective abortions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

So, are you arguing that God is bad (a red herring derail) or that killing babies is good?

Neither.  I'd argue the God concept that most people seem to conceive of is problematic.  I'm not convinced that aborting a fetus is killing a baby.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Apparently, those are the only two options you leave us.

I suppose if killing babies is good, killing anyone is good, since God allows for natural death and accidents in all stages of life!  Why stop at legalizing killing babies?

WEll...God has commanded, apparently, the murder of many people, over the course of human history.  

[stemelbow]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because He is our Father in Heaven.  Because He is perfect in every respect.

So your imagination suspects.  

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your postulation only works if you attribute selfish or evil motives to God.  We don't.  

Not really.  We simply see how things have played out.  If God is the definer of good and evil, and he does what we would call evil, then it is us who is mistaken.  Thus, if God planned for the death of fetus' through nature, then that is not evil, apparently.  If man, after throwing aside waiting for God to teach, devised how to help save the life of the fetus and mother, then it is assumed God planned that man would eventually evolve to that point.  Of course previous to that all fetus' who were aborted could only be stopped by him, unless of course they were considered elective or forced upon a woman by another human.  

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A relevant quote from Joseph Smith:

And another:

God's perspective and knowledge is infinitely greater than ours, to wit:

• "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8
• "{God} comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." - D&C 88:41
• "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." - Abr. 3:19
• "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." - 2 Nephi 2:24
• "For now we see through a glass, darkly..." - 1 Cor.13:12

Applying the foregoing precepts, I conclude that God is perfect.  He is all-powerful and all-knowing.  He is perfectly righteous.  He is perfectly just.  He is the ultimate arbiter of "right" and "wrong."  So whatever He commands is, by definition, "right."  Our perception is blinkered and finite, and is therefore subordinate to His.

As such, if God says, kill that baby, then it is only perfectly righteous to do just that, right?  

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is a Latin legal maxim which may have some application here: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo." This is generally translated as "Your motive gives the name to your act."  If this is so, then an act, in and of itself, is devoid of morality.  It is the context, the motive behind the act that is determinative of whether it is "right" or "wrong."  This is why a police officer can be hailed as a hero shooting and killing an armed suspect on the cusp of killing an innocent, while a thug who shoots and kills a person so as to rob him is a murderer.  The motive matters.  The motive is determinative.

I therefore draw a qualitative and quantitative difference between everything that God does and what we do.  Our actions are a mish-mash, some well-intended, some not.  Some done in ignorance, some deliberately.  Some done righteously, some wickedly.  And so on.  But none of that applies to God.  There is no mish-mash.  No evil or impure motives or actions.  Whatever He does is by definition good, even if we can't see that in the moment.

I would again refer you to the foregoing scriptures.  If God has the attributes we understand Him to have, then He cannot do any evil or unjust thing.  We, however, can.  To wit: Most elective abortions.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Because He is our Father in Heaven.  Because He is perfect in every respect.

So your imagination suspects.  

It's a doctrine I choose to believe, yes.  I didn't come up with the idea.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Your postulation only works if you attribute selfish or evil motives to God.  We don't.  

Not really.  We simply see how things have played out. 

Not sure what this means.  We don't see "how things have played out" vis-à-vis spontaneous abortions.  We are all acting on belief.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If God is the definer of good and evil,

I'm not sure that's so.  I think God is subject to eternal laws.  I would say He has a perfect understanding and ability to differentiate between good and evil.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

and he does what we would call evil, then it is us who is mistaken. 

Yes.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thus, if God planned for the death of fetus' through nature, then that is not evil, apparently.

Yes.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If man, after throwing aside waiting for God to teach, devised how to help save the life of the fetus and mother, then it is assumed God planned that man would eventually evolve to that point. 

I don't understand what you are saying here.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course previous to that all fetus' who were aborted could only be stopped by him, unless of course they were considered elective or forced upon a woman by another human.  

Again, I don't understand what you are saying.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As such, if God says, kill that baby, then it is only perfectly righteous to do just that, right?  

I reject the premise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not convinced that aborting a fetus is killing a baby.    

Are you a science denier, or just playing semantics with human life?

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a doctrine I choose to believe, yes.  I didn't come up with the idea.

Not sure what this means.  We don't see "how things have played out" vis-à-vis spontaneous abortions.  We are all acting on belief.

I'm not sure that's so.  I think God is subject to eternal laws.  I would say He has a perfect understanding and ability to differentiate between good and evil.

Yes.

Yes.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Again, I don't understand what you are saying.

I reject the premise.

Thanks,

-Smac

If God showed up and told you to murder another, you'd reject Him as not God?  Or are you saying God would never do that?  If God planned for the abortion of fetus' and there was during most of human history, nothing we could do about it, then why assume abortions are bad?  

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If God showed up and told you to murder another, you'd reject Him as not God? 

Again, I reject the premise.

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Or are you saying God would never do that? 

God would never do that.

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If God planned for the abortion of fetus' and there was during most of human history, nothing we could do about it, then why assume abortions are bad?  

I don't assume.  I conclude.  Based on scriptures, reasoning, evidence, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

17 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Then why worship God?  If we are to take it all seriously, far more fetus' lives ended by the hand of "natural" consequence than by elective abortion, as we call it.  All of natural consequence are due to God, since he started this all, knowing how to make it play out, any unknown action (like fetus' dying) is only known by Him and only stopped by Him.   

I don't find this a very productive point in a debate about morality and legality, both of which share a common value that human beings can act.

God or not, human beings can still impact each other and by the way we can impact the rate of spontaneous abortions too. As far as I can tell, studies show that while stress does not cause miscarriages, it can worsen conditions that cause miscarriage. So preventative medicine and people helping people can help prevent all types of abortion, not just the medically induced ones.

 

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I reject the premise.

God would never do that.

I don't assume.  I conclude.  Based on scriptures, reasoning, evidence, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

If they are bad, and nearly all abortions are due to God not acting, or acting in a way to cause them as some trial for the people involved, then what does that say?  If it is true that some women who have abortions pray and seek God as part of the decision and God answers them, then why assume they are bad?  Or are you saying God is bad?  

[pogi]

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If they are bad, and nearly all abortions are due to God not acting, or acting in a way to cause them as some trial for the people involved, then what does that say?  If it is true that some women who have abortions pray and seek God as part of the decision and God answers them, then why assume they are bad?  Or are you saying God is bad?  

By the same logic it must not be bad to kill anyone since God allows natural death of all ages. 
 

This is more an argument against God (a misconceived one at that) than it is an effective pro-choice argument - red herring. 

Edited November 20, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If they are bad,

That's way too facile.

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

and nearly all abortions are due to God not acting,

There is a tremendous difference between spontaneous and elective abortions.

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

or acting in a way to cause them as some trial for the people involved, then what does that say? 

I reject the premises.  Also, see the scriptures cited above.

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If it is true that some women who have abortions pray and seek God as part of the decision and God answers them,

In the main, I reject the premise.  

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

then why assume they are bad? 

It's a conclusion, not an assumption.

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Or are you saying God is bad?  

Sigh.  I had hoped you were treating this topic seriously.  It seems you are not.

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

By the same logic it must not be bad to kill anyone since God allows natural death of all ages. 
 

This is more an argument against God (a misconceived one at that) than it is an effective pro-choice argument - red herring. 

Its not a pro-choice argument.  It's a point to question whether the moral snootiness of believers carries consistency.  If God does not care about abortion and does not see it as a question of morality (I mean how can he since he promoted them from the beginning) then why would anyone today think it an evil thing?  As it is any one or every one of the elective abortions performed could be God's will.  The individual prays to God and feels inspired by God to proceed with the decision.  

It wasn't until humans learned to keep mother and child safe did we contravene God's plan of seeing most fetus' dying to flipping the script.  If we say it was God who inspired humans to learn to keep mother and child safe, then why did he wait so long?  He cold have inspired such millennia ago and saved millions of millions from abortion.  
It certainly makes it seem like God does not view fetus' as real people to begin with.  The ending of a fetus' life is something akin to the ending of a planted seeds life.  It seems likely on the notion of God that God does not feel concerned whether fetus' live or die.  If most of them die, that was how it was supposed to be anyway, to teach mothers and fathers lessons.  If they live it's all because of his grace in letting one come to full term.  Or would you say believers were wrong to view it that way?  

If we take the position that God is opposed to abortions then we have a number of questions, it seems to me.  If God opposes abortions and the only way to have stopped most abortions was He intervening to stop them, then why did he not intervene?  To teach humans a lesson?  If that is true, then it seems teaching some a lesson at the expense of other's being able to live, is far more important to him.  That is to say what is more important than human life, in God's view?  Well it certainly seems that human life is expendable in order to teach his favored and unfavored a lesson.  Human life matters less to him than to keep people meek and humbled..apparently.

If we suggest that in the past only God's grace could help women carry to full term and keep the mother safe, then it is apparently all on God.  When mother or fetus died, it was only God who could have changed things.  If this is all true, then when women elect to abort today maybe God's decision to inspire such a decision has some of these things in mind.  Maybe it is his will, and as such he doesn't see fetus' as children or people at all. 

And yet, it seems, many of his follower today are simply fighting against God's eternal will.

So if one suggests something like, "well in the past the abortions that happened which far outnumber elective abortions today, were done because of nature.  They just naturally happened, and we don't know, exactly, what caused them or if God could intervene."  One could say that, but such is not being very consistent.  If God couldn't intervene then he ceases to be God.  If God commands the mountains to move, or waters to divide, then He, too, can command the fetus to live.  So he could intervene, and believers of the past felt inspired to think he did intervene in order to save fetus and mother's lives when they were saved.  It is true, then, God could have changed nature so abortion did not happen.  But He did not.  God could have intervened individually or large scale and stopped them, but he did not.  God could have inspired humans to implement practices the lessened the frequency of these mother and fetus killings, but He did not.  

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's way too facile.

There is a tremendous difference between spontaneous and elective abortions.

And what is that difference?  

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I reject the premises.  Also, see the scriptures cited above.

In the main, I reject the premise.  

It's a conclusion, not an assumption.

Sigh.  I had hoped you were treating this topic seriously.  It seems you are not.

-Smac

I did treat it serious.  It doesn't appear you have thought this in the big picture type of way.  If God doesn't care whether abortion happens, He's used it to teach lessons to people in the past, and may even be behind inspiring people to decide to abort these days, then why would any believer think it a moral issue?  Maybe it doesn't matter at all, the abort fetus isn't spirited.   

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Its not a pro-choice argument.  It's a point to question whether the moral snootiness of believers carries consistency.  If God does not care about abortion and does not see it as a question of morality (I mean how can he since he promoted them from the beginning) then why would anyone today think it an evil thing?  As it is any one or every one of the elective abortions performed could be God's will.  The individual prays to God and feels inspired by God to proceed with the decision.  

It wasn't until humans learned to keep mother and child safe did we contravene God's plan of seeing most fetus' dying to flipping the script.  If we say it was God who inspired humans to learn to keep mother and child safe, then why did he wait so long?  He cold have inspired such millennia ago and saved millions of millions from abortion.  
It certainly makes it seem like God does not view fetus' as real people to begin with.  The ending of a fetus' life is something akin to the ending of a planted seeds life.  It seems likely on the notion of God that God does not feel concerned whether fetus' live or die.  If most of them die, that was how it was supposed to be anyway, to teach mothers and fathers lessons.  If they live it's all because of his grace in letting one come to full term.  Or would you say believers were wrong to view it that way?  

If we take the position that God is opposed to abortions then we have a number of questions, it seems to me.  If God opposes abortions and the only way to have stopped most abortions was He intervening to stop them, then why did he not intervene?  To teach humans a lesson?  If that is true, then it seems teaching some a lesson at the expense of other's being able to live, is far more important to him.  That is to say what is more important than human life, in God's view?  Well it certainly seems that human life is expendable in order to teach his favored and unfavored a lesson.  Human life matters less to him than to keep people meek and humbled..apparently.

If we suggest that in the past only God's grace could help women carry to full term and keep the mother safe, then it is apparently all on God.  When mother or fetus died, it was only God who could have changed things.  If this is all true, then when women elect to abort today maybe God's decision to inspire such a decision has some of these things in mind.  Maybe it is his will, and as such he doesn't see fetus' as children or people at all. 

And yet, it seems, many of his follower today are simply fighting against God's eternal will.

So if one suggests something like, "well in the past the abortions that happened which far outnumber elective abortions today, were done because of nature.  They just naturally happened, and we don't know, exactly, what caused them or if God could intervene."  One could say that, but such is not being very consistent.  If God couldn't intervene then he ceases to be God.  If God commands the mountains to move, or waters to divide, then He, too, can command the fetus to live.  So he could intervene, and believers of the past felt inspired to think he did intervene in order to save fetus and mother's lives when they were saved.  It is true, then, God could have changed nature so abortion did not happen.  But He did not.  God could have intervened individually or large scale and stopped them, but he did not.  God could have inspired humans to implement practices the lessened the frequency of these mother and fetus killings, but He did not.  

If you can't see the moral difference between allowing for natural death and allowing for unnatural killing, I can't help you.  

If you are questioning moral consistency, perhaps you should examine pro-choice arguments as to why it is moral to intentionally kill one innocent human baby and not another.   Why is it moral to kill one human being if they are perceived as a burden, but not all human beings?  Totally inconsistent. 

Edited November 20, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you can't see the moral difference between allowing for natural death and allowing for unnatural killing, I can't help you.  
 

That's certainly not the distinction, particularly from a naturalist perspective.  At what point is a collection of cells a person?  I get if one wants to assume that some collection of cells called fetus is granted human status and is a person all because one assumes a spirit or an eternal being.  I am certain you are not going to grant a position because I've already seen you complain that a fetus is a human and thus it must be a killing.  But again, if a natural death is all due to God, then a natural death is simply a killing to.  

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you are questioning moral consistency, perhaps you should examine pro-choice arguments as to why it is moral to intentionally kill one innocent human baby and not another.   Why is it moral to kill one human being if they are perceived as a burden, but not all human beings?  Totally inconsistent. 

You are assuming a certain collection of cells is a human with rights and privileges.  If a collection of cells known as a fetus is simply a growing seed and is not a person that changes things.  I'm certainly not a free for all abortion advocate, but I also can imagine why this issue is far more complicated than the way you wish to paint it.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

And what is that difference?  

Spontaneous abortions are, well, spontaneous.  All elective abortions are a matter of volition, and most of them terminate the fetus for reasons that we would otherwise not find acceptable if applied in other contexts.

Quote

I did treat it serious. 

Asking me if I am "saying God is bad" seems pretty unserious.

Quote

It doesn't appear you have thought this in the big picture type of way. 

I think I have.

Quote

If God doesn't care whether abortion happens,

I reject the premise.

I'm noticing a trend here . . .

Quote

He's used it to teach lessons to people in the past, and may even be behind inspiring people to decide to abort these days, then why would any believer think it a moral issue? 

Again, i reject the premise.

Quote

Maybe it doesn't matter at all, the abort fetus isn't spirited.   

Maybe 19th-slavery didn't matter at all, since the slaves were chattel, not persons.

Denying the personhood of slaves was integral to the justification of slavery.  Denying the personhood of fetuses is integral to the justification of elective abortion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 20, 2020 by smac97

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's certainly not the distinction, particularly from a naturalist perspective.  At what point is a collection of cells a person?  I get if one wants to assume that some collection of cells called fetus is granted human status and is a person all because one assumes a spirit or an eternal being.  I am certain you are not going to grant a position because I've already seen you complain that a fetus is a human and thus it must be a killing.  

I am talking strictly from a biological level.  It is a human being.  This is the scientific consensus of Biologists. You are not in line with science if you argue otherwise (which you have in the past).  Person vs human being - that is just a semantic game.  And you are arguing that pro-lifer's are morally inconsistent when it is pro-choice people who justify killing babies through semantic games?  Sheesh!  It is all the same kind of life simply in different stages of development.  Whether or not the fetus is arbitrarily defined as a "person" (since there is no scientific classification or nomenclature for "person") by legislators should not affect our moral judgments toward killing human beings.  Person is a legal term, not a scientific one.  I don't know about you, but I am not one to let political/legislative definitions dictate my morality.   I trust science more than politics when it comes to defining human life. 

Quote

But again, if a natural death is all due to God, then a natural death is simply a killing to. 

Death is not "due" to God however, it is due to Adam.  A natural consequence of his actions.  God did not create the eternal laws - he is subject to them.  He simply warned of the natural consequences. 

Allowing for natural death does not morally equate to intentional unnatural killing.  Big moral difference. 

If God were to intervene and prevent all natural death, then the eternal laws and plan of God would be thwarted and God would cease to be God, and we would all be doomed.  I suppose you think that is a more moral choice.  I don't. 

You are assuming that your perspective of the eternal order of things, and the nature of God is the only possible one.  Not so.  There are many ways to approach this.  You don't need to assume that God is evil.  But your line of argument is a derail. 

Edited November 20, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Spontaneous abortions are, well, spontaneous.  All elective abortions are a matter of volition, and most of them terminate the fetus for reasons that we would otherwise find acceptable if applied in other contexts.

Asking me if I am "saying God is bad" seems pretty unserious.

I think I have.

I reject the premise.

I'm noticing a trend here . . .

Again, i reject the premise.

Maybe 19th-slavery didn't matter at all, since the slaves were chattel, not persons.

Denying the personhood of slaves was integral to the justification of slavery.  Denying the personhood of fetuses is integral to the justification of elective abortion.

Thanks,

-Smac

The debate gets complicated I do think.  I don't know that it's on the abortion advocates to prove a collection of cells called a fetus is a person.  The fetus is not a collection of cells that can get along on by itself.  

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The debate gets complicated I do think.

Yes.  But the debate can also become simplified.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that it's on the abortion advocates to prove a collection of cells called a fetus is a person.

Again, denying the personhood of slaves was integral to the justification of slavery.  That is what you are doing here.

What is the difference between you and "a collection of cells?"

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The fetus is not a collection of cells that can get along on by itself.  

My oldest son was born in February.  In March of that year he could not "get along" by himself.  He was 100% reliant on others to feed him, clothe him, keep him safe.  So was he a person in March?

Thanks,

-Smac