Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[ttribe]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is hard for people like you, who support elective abortion - the elective killing of in utero babies -, to justify/defend that practice on a moral/ethical plane, so you

A) retreat to circumlocutions which describe these elective killings with comfortable euphemisms like "choice" and "healthcare," or

B) accuse anti-abortion folks (see what I did there?) of hating women, wanting to subjugate them. etc. (our favorite local user of neo-marxist claptrap, Dan McClellan, did this a lot), or

C) literally dehumanize the babies in question (using words like chattel property "clump of cells," "parasite," and so on), or

D) deny or refuse to address the personhood of the babies in question, or

E) some or all of A-D.

Thanks,

-Smac

You know I haven't even told you my position on abortion, right? But go ahead and ascribe things to me I've never said, nor agree with, to further demonstrate your strong commitment to good faith argumentation. It's working out wonderfully. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church opposes and condemns the elective killing of in utero babies.

Your church supports the right of women to choose to kill their own babies under certain circumstances. (Using your words not mine). 

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Your church supports the right of women to choose to kill their own babies under certain circumstances. (Using your words not mine). 

I am fine with discussing the exceptions the Church has articulated for the statistically minute instances of rape, incest or the life of the mother.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am fine with discussing the exceptions the Church has articulated for the statistically minute instances of rape, incest or the life of the mother.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is that the euphemism you use for the killing of innocent babies? “Exceptions”? If a woman was raped, can she kill her baby after it’s born? What’s the difference before birth?

Edited February 11, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's also a position of science and biology.

The Church opposes and condemns the elective killing of in utero babies.

Thanks,

-Smac

In case of rape the church allows it. And I believe it would be caught quickly. ETA: looks like I am late to the party.

Edited February 11, 2025 by Tacenda

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I believe it would be caught quickly.

Sometimes, sometimes not (fear can lead to avoidance).  Girls don’t always have consistent periods, plenty of women too. Excuses get made to protect their mental state which is already extremely vulnerable as the result of rape.  Many just act like they can forget it.

Edited February 11, 2025 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Just now, Calm said:

Sometimes, sometimes not (fear can lead to avoidance).

Yes, and I'm very torn, on how to handle these situations.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is that the euphemism you use for the killing of innocent babies? “Exceptions”? If a woman was raped, can she kill her baby after it’s born? What’s the difference before birth?

The consent of the mother. 

First, let's look at the Church's position:

Quote

Abortion

Overview

See the Church’s official statement on abortion on the Newsroom site.

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today’s society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord’s declaration, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

Here's the next part:

Quote

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Do you disagree with any of these possible exceptions?  If so, could you lay out your reasoning?

Quote

But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

Do you disagree with the foregoing sentiment?  If so, could you lay out your reasoning?

Quote

When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption.

Do you disagree with the foregoing sentiment?  If so, could you lay out your reasoning?

I think the Church's position - which I find reasonable - is based on the presupposition that a woman who consents to sex ipso facto consents to the natural and foreseeable risk that a pregnancy might arise from the sexual act.  When consent is absent (due to  rape or incest), the moral calculus potentially changes from the otherwise straightforward application of D&C 59:6.

As for the next possible exception (medically-confirmed jeopardy to the life of the mother) I think the Church's position is that this circumstance - which is already quite rare and becoming more rare as advances in medicine develop - creates a genuine moral dilemma in which a person must choose one life or the other.  Again, the moral calculus potentially changes from the otherwise straightforward application of D&C 59:6.

The last possible exception (medically-confirmed "severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth"), I think this also creates a genuine moral dilemma, which again potentially alters the moral calculus otherwise arising from the straightforward application of D&C 59:6.

The Church's position condemns essentially all elective abortions, but does include a very few potential exceptions for a very view terrible circumstances.  

Now, your turn.

1. When does personhood attach to in utero babies?  Please explain your reasoning.

2. What restrictions do you find reasonable for abortions?  Please be specific.

3. Do you support post-birth abortions?  If not, why not?

4 .If "bodily autonomy" is the metric whereby you justify abortion, do you oppose all other restraints on that autonomy?

5. Do you support gender-based abortions (as have been widespread in China)?

6. Do you support abortion based on the child having Down Syndrome?

7. Does widespread access to "abandonment" options for the child ("Safe Haven" laws, adoption, etc.) alter your perspective on abortion?

8. Why is abortion legal for convenience or preference, but killing a newborn is infanticide?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 11, 2025 by smac97

[Tacenda]

@smac97I hope you don't mind my asking, but wondering if this has gone too far. If you don't mind watching at 40 seconds in. Or, if you care not to watch. Trump is saying there is no need to buy Gaza, but will just take it. Does this sound okay?

https://youtu.be/Osu8NPxbHPw?si=aGG1VOUoS-Hgzyqj

 

Edited February 11, 2025 by Tacenda

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

@smac97I hope you don't mind my asking, but wondering if this has gone too far. If you don't mind watching at 40 seconds in. Or, if you care not to watch. Trump is saying there is no need to buy Gaza, but will just take it. Does this sound okay?

https://youtu.be/Osu8NPxbHPw?si=aGG1VOUoS-Hgzyqj

I want to watch this play out a bit.  "Method to madness" and all that.

There is a lot of "not saying the quiet part out loud" as regarding the Palestinians.  I think the root problem is the virulent hatred of Jews, as preserved and perpetuated by Hamas, that is endemic in Palestinian society.  But for that hatred and Hamas' perpetuation of it, I think a lot of these difficulties would have been solved years ago.

I think this summary, though clearly "pro-Israel," is substatively accurate:

See also here:

Again, I think the terrible behavior of Palestinians over decades in various countries, as laid out in the above video, is largely unknown or forgotten or ignored or obscured in the West.

And here:

This last one is interesting, as it is pretty selective in its recitation of the history of Palestinians throughout the Middle East:

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's also a position of science and biology.

Nope.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church opposes and condemns the elective killing of in utero babies.

Yes, but originally only after the fetus had “quickened”. It was only in the 1970s that we discovered that life begins at conception and our apostate Protestant friends taught us this and we bandwagoned right in. Who needs revelation?

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I want to watch this play out a bit.  "Method to madness" and all that.

There is a lot of "not saying the quiet part out loud" as regarding the Palestinians.  I think the root problem is the virulent hatred of Jews, as preserved and perpetuated by Hamas, that is endemic in Palestinian society.  But for that hatred and Hamas' perpetuation of it, I think a lot of these difficulties would have been solved years ago.

I think this summary, though clearly "pro-Israel," is substatively accurate:

See also here:

Again, I think the terrible behavior of Palestinians over decades in various countries, as laid out in the above video, is largely unknown or forgotten or ignored or obscured in the West.

And here:

This last one is interesting, as it is pretty selective in its recitation of the history of Palestinians throughout the Middle East:

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah, nope. The Palestinians tried and many continue to try peaceful protesting their mistreatment. This goes back to the 1930s when the idea of the Jewish state were still being considered. It doesn’t work. The primary indicator that it doesn’t work is that people keep saying they should try it as if none of them have up until now.

The primary problem is that large groups of people have been held in an unsustainable legal limbo for over a generation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ9PKQbkJv8&t

The solution is not to pick the “right” side.

 

[jkwilliams]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don’t remember how to do the multi-quotes, so I apologize in advance. I’m sure I’ll regret this. 

1. When does personhood attach to in utero babies?  Please explain your reasoning.

Fetal viability. A viable fetus has a degree of autonomy (in the ability to survive without dependence on the mother’s body) that a non viable fetus does not have. Absent a definitive “life begins at” definition that all would agree on, that’s a decent place to draw the line.

2. What restrictions do you find reasonable for abortions?  Please be specific.

I oppose abortions past fetal viability unless the mother’s life is at risk or the fetus would not survive. The mother’s life takes precedence, though obviously it’s the parents’ decision. In the case of a pregnancy where there is some catastrophic problem with the fetus, it would be cruel to force the mother to carry the pregnancy to term.

3. Do you support post-birth abortions?  If not, why not?

Obviously not. Again, killing an autonomous person is unacceptable.

4 .If "bodily autonomy" is the metric whereby you justify abortion, do you oppose all other restraints on that autonomy?

Thats not my metric, and I’ve never “justified abortion.” 

5. Do you support gender-based abortions (as have been widespread in China)?

I don’t support abortion.

6. Do you support abortion based on the child having Down Syndrome?

I don’t support abortion.

7. Does widespread access to "abandonment" options for the child ("Safe Haven" laws, adoption, etc.) alter your perspective on abortion?

Nope.

8. Why is abortion legal for convenience or preference, but killing a newborn is infanticide?

See above. 

Seems to me the church allows for abortion in certain cases, including the termination of otherwise healthy pregnancies. This suggests that the church does not assign “personhood” to a fetus in utero. So, it just comes down to disapproval of the motivation behind each abortion. I am in no position to impose my judgment about acceptable motivations, so I leave these decisions to the parents and their doctors. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am fine with discussing the exceptions the Church has articulated for the statistically minute instances of rape, incest or the life of the mother.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Church didn’t articulate those. They copied them from the Baptists.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Church's position condemns essentially all elective abortions, but does include a very few potential exceptions for a very view terrible circumstances.

In other words your church sanctions the killing of babies in certain circumstances. Including situations where the baby is healthy and there is no immediate threat to the health of the mother. Correct? Sometimes it’s just ok to kill a baby. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

killing of babies

This is a position of faith that you take,

It's also a position of science and biology.

Nope.

Yep.  There is no reasonable dispute that an abortion is, by definition, the "killing" of a living thing.

There is no reasonable dispute that the living thing is an in utero human child.  A "baby."

No "faith" is needed to make these statements, which are instead statements of fact.

Again, I know it is difficult for the pro-abortion crowd to defend their position in straightforward ways, hence the circumlocutions, personal attacks, dehumanization, etc.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

The Church opposes and condemns the elective killing of in utero babies.

Yes, but originally only after the fetus had “quickened”. It was only in the 1970s that we discovered that life begins at conception and our apostate Protestant friends taught us this and we bandwagoned right in. Who needs revelation?

As per usual, you don't offer anything of substance here.  No reasoning.  No citations or quoted references.  Just drive-bys and snark and potshots. 

As far as I can tell, your reference to "quickening" in the context of the leaders of the Church speaking of - and plainly condemning - elective abortions is a contrivance of your own making.  AFAICS, Brigham Young made this statement:

Quote

All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions on millions of others. This is our home, built expressly for us by the Father of our spirits, who is the Father, maker, framer and producer of these mortal bodies that we now inherit, and which go back to mother earth. When the spirit leaves them they are lifeless; and when the mother feels life come to her infant it is the spirit entering the body preparatory to the immortal existence.

This is not a sermon about abortion.

Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith:

Quote

While the Church has never issued an official declaration on this subject, President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

"The time of quickening is when the mother feels the life of her unborn infant. President Brigham Young has left us this explanation of the time when the spirit enters the body: 'When the spirit leaves them [mortal bodies] they are lifeless; and when the mother feels life come to her infant, it is the spirit entering the body preparatory to the immortal existence. But suppose an accident occurs and the spirit has to leave this body prematurely, what then? All that the physician says is—'It is a still birth,' and that is all they know about it; but whether the spirit remains in the body [i.e, in its own body] a minute, an hour, a day, a year, or lives there until the body has reached a good old age, it is certain that the time will come when they will be separated, and the body will return to mother earth, there to sleep upon that mother's bosom. That is all there is about death.'  On other occasions, also, President Young taught that we should have hope for the resurrection of stillborn children. 'They are all right,' he said, and nothing in the way of sealings or ordinances need be done for them." (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.280)

[See also Will a Miscarried Child Be Resurrected?; Stillborn Children; Teachings About Premortal Life home page; Premortal Salvation of the Dead; Basic Beliefs home page; Teachings About the Family home page; Teachings About Children home page.]

Also not a discussion about abortion.

For those of you who actually are interested in exploring the Church's historical approach to abortion, I recommend this article by Prof. Lynn Wardle: 

Teaching Correct Principles: The Experience of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Responding to Widespread Social Acceptance of Elective Abortion

The article is a fairly straightforward read.  Prof. Wardle begins with the Joseph Smith era by addressing the 1831 revelation in D&C 59:6.

Next, the 1841 historical events associated with John C. Bennett and his performance of abortions (which, inter alia, resulted in his excommunication).

Next, in the early Utah era of the Church, "{m}ore than twenty public sermons delivered by Church leaders between 1857 and 1885 strongly condemning abortion were published in the Journal of Discourses."  Several of these are quoted at length.  Prof. Wardle sums up: "So LDS condemnation of elective abortion by the Church leaders in the nineteenth century was a clear, strong, and oft-expressed position."

Next, there was not much treatment of abortion by leaders of the Church in the early 20th century.  Again from Prof. Wardle:

Quote

The nineteenth-century LDS General Authority statements condemning abortion defined a very clear doctrine and position sufficient for the needs and issues of the times until more than a decade after World War II. Then, a variety of medical, demographic, and social changes created new challenges and pressures relating to elective abortion. Since then, the number and frequency of General Authority statements condemning and rejecting elective abortion has dramatically increased.

Prof. Wardle goes on to trace more modern treatments of abortion by the leaders of the Church.

So contrary to Nehor's characterization, the Church has a long history of addressing - and condemning - elective abortions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[longview]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

@smac97I hope you don't mind my asking, but wondering if this has gone too far. If you don't mind watching at 40 seconds in. Or, if you care not to watch. Trump is saying there is no need to buy Gaza, but will just take it. Does this sound okay?

https://youtu.be/Osu8NPxbHPw?si=aGG1VOUoS-Hgzyqj

What is YOUR solution? Israel literally pulled their citizens OUT of Gaza and gave the WHOLE strip to the Palestinians with full autonomy and self rule. They even gifted the productive greenhouses and wonderfully developed properties and infrastructure. Strangely the Palestinians trashed all of that and started building secret tunnels with the intent to launch terrorist attacks.

There is NO Palestine. This word was just a play on the name Philistines used by the Roman Empire to rub the Jews' face in it. Today it is just mostly migrant Arabs from Egypt and other areas. They are dregs of the failed Ottoman Empire. Even Yasser Arafat (PLO terrorist) was born in Cairo, Egypt in 1926 (well before the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel). He falsely claimed to be Palestinian. There are reports that he was trained by the Russian KGB.

When Hamas was elected by Gazans, they imposed indoctrination on all children to learn to be terrorists and to advocate for genocide and to hunt Jews the world over. It was NOT just "from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean)" but to completely annihilate ALL Jews.

Gazans have a SERIOUS problem. Egypt do NOT want them. Saudi Arabia says NO. The Kingdom of Jordan was forced into a civil war with the so-called "Palestinians" that resulted in the death of 30,000 of them. Kuwait also had to deal forcefully with them. Lebanon used to be an egalitarian country before it was ruined by its "Palestinian" residents.

Gaza is a total disaster that was self-inflicted. It is an unlivable war zone. Hamas remain extremely determined to commit Jihad against Israel and to murder ALL Jews. Oslo Accords did NOTHING because the so-called "two state" solution was NOT what they wanted. They wanted genocide.

Trump stunned the world by offering resettlement for Gazans with full amenities and housing. But it will have to be outside the Middle East. There is NO placating Hamas. It is going to take a LONG time to de-toxify the war zone and redevelop.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no reasonable dispute that an abortion is, by definition, the "killing" of a living thing.

There is no reasonable dispute that the living thing is an in utero human child.  A "baby."

No "faith" is needed to make these statements, which are instead statements of fact.

Again, I know it is difficult for the pro-abortion crowd to defend their position in straightforward ways, hence the circumlocutions, personal attacks, dehumanization, etc.

If there were no “reasonable dispute” over these issues, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. These are not statements of fact but opinions about complex issues of biology and morality. And I love how you end with a personal attack while decrying such attacks. Brilliant. 

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, nope. The Palestinians tried and many continue to try peaceful protesting their mistreatment.

They "tried" by . . . electing Hamas?

See also here:

Quote

If Israel just allowed the Palestinians to have a state of their own, there would be peace in the Middle East, right?

That’s what you hear from ambassadors, European diplomats, and most college professors.

But what if I told you that Israel has already offered the Palestinians a state of their own, and not just once, but on five separate occasions?

Don’t believe me? Let’s review the record.

Go ahead and read the article.  And also read up from any other sources.

Also read up on how Palestinians have behaved

• in Jordan (PLO actions after the Six Day War, the PFLP's hijacking of multiple airplanes, the Black September assassination),
• in Lebanon (colluding with Marxist/Socialist movements against the government, leading to civil war), 
• in Kuwait in 1991 (supporting Iraq's invasion),
• and, of course, we all know the depravities of October 7.

From this video: "In short, Palestinian organizations have not just attacked Israel.  They have sowed unrest in many of the neighboring Arab and Muslim countries as well.  And this has led those governments to the conclusion that allowing for mass immigration or even just refugee camp resettlement within their borders would lead to domestic unrest for their own countries.  And this, of course, only exacerbates the humanitarian crisis for those Palestinian noncombatants caught in the middle.  The problem is, as long as terrorist organizations like Hamas and others are elected to represent the Palestinian people, their plight will most likely continue, as neither Israel, nor, apparently, the surrounding Arab nations want to see their own populations threatened by terrorist groups."

I think this is an apt and fair summary.

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This goes back to the 1930s when the idea of the Jewish state were still being considered. It doesn’t work.

Right.  There are plenty of other ethnic states which have a right to exist, but the single Jewish does not have that right.  "It doesn't work."

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The solution is not to pick the “right” side.

Most sociopolitical issues like this are complex.  That said, I'm pretty sure Hamas, what with its call for the worldwide extermination of Jews, is not "the 'right' side."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, longview said:

ump stunned the world by offering resettlement for Gazans with full amenities and housing.

Inviting someone out to eat for dinner and then refusing to pick up the check is not treating people to dinner.

And making vague promises without a plan in place with signed agreements is not offering solutions.

Edited February 11, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Inviting someone out to eat for dinner and then refusing to pick up the check is not treating people to dinner.

You make it sound like its a one night invitation. He is offering full scale, subsidized community development in a peaceful area. Disjointed much?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

There is no reasonable dispute that an abortion is, by definition, the "killing" of a living thing.

There is no reasonable dispute that the living thing is an in utero human child.  A "baby."

No "faith" is needed to make these statements, which are instead statements of fact.

Again, I know it is difficult for the pro-abortion crowd to defend their position in straightforward ways, hence the circumlocutions, personal attacks, dehumanization, etc.

If there were no “reasonable dispute” over these issues, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Sure we could.  There are all sorts of discussions about issues which are beyond reasonable dispute.

The key word is "reasonable."

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

These are not statements of fact

An abortion is, by definition, the "killing" of a living thing.

The living thing killed during an abortion is an in utero human child.  A "baby."

No "faith" is needed to make these statements, which are instead statements of fact.  

That we are not having a "discussion" about this, just a rote, asserted denial by you of the foregoing facts, is pretty good evidence that a "reasonable dispute" about them is absent.

The execrable Bill Maher put the pro-abortion position in pretty clear terms, including "saying the quiet part out loud":

"I scold the Left when they {pro-lifers} say 'Oh, you know what?  They just hate women.' ... They don't hate women.  They just made that up.  They think it's murder.  And it kind of is.  I'm just okay with that.  I am.  There's 8 billion people in the world.  I'm sorry, we won't miss you. ... Is that not your position if you're 'pro-choice?'"

Well, at least he's . . . candid.  He is willing to say the quiet part of the "pro-choice" position out loud.

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

but opinions about complex issues of biology and morality.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.  An abortion is, by definition, the "killing" of a living thing.  The living thing killed during an abortion is an in utero human child.  A "baby."

These are statements of fact.

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And I love how you end with a personal attack while decrying such attacks. Brilliant. 

Not sure what you are referencing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

The Church's position condemns essentially all elective abortions, but does include a very few potential exceptions for a very view terrible circumstances.

In other words

SU, whenever you begin a post with "In other words," it's pretty much always to misstate and distort what I have already plainly said.

To wit:

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

your church sanctions the killing of babies in certain circumstances.

In extraordinarily rare circumstances, it does allows - with much prayer and spiritual guidance - a mother to make a horrible decision arising from a profound moral dilemma or the deprivation of her ability to choose.  "But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Seems to me the church allows for abortion in certain cases, including the termination of otherwise healthy pregnancies....

If @smac97 is genuinely interested in a good-faith discussion, he should engage with these questions directly:

1. If someone commits an act of first-degree murder (i.e., with premeditation, willfulness, and intent), what should the legal consequence be?
2. If someone has an abortion with premeditation, willfulness, and intent, does that constitute first-degree murder?
3. Should the legal repercussions for having an abortion—even in the first trimester—be identical to those for first-degree murder?
4. If a woman has a miscarriage, should a criminal investigation be launched to determine whether involuntary manslaughter or a more serious charge is warranted?

If he does not believe that abortion should carry the same legal consequences as first-degree murder, then his claims about fetal personhood and associated rights seem inconsistent. If a fetus is legally a person, why wouldn’t its deliberate termination be prosecuted like any other homicide?

But beyond this legal contradiction, the real issue isn’t just whether abortion is morally right or wrong in the abstract. The real question is: Do we want the government in the business of criminalizing abortion? And if so, what should the laws be, and what punishments should apply for breaking them?

Moral debates are one thing. Legislation, enforcement, and consequences are another. If smac wants to argue for fetal personhood, he needs to address what that means in practical, legal terms—not just theory. I look forward to his response.

Edited February 11, 2025 by Analytics

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure we could.  There are all sorts of discussions about issues which are beyond reasonable dispute.

The key word is "reasonable."

An abortion is, by definition, the "killing" of a living thing.

The living thing killed during an abortion is an in utero human child.  A "baby."

No "faith" is needed to make these statements, which are instead statements of fact.  

That we are not having a "discussion" about this, just a rote, asserted denial by you of the foregoing facts, is pretty good evidence that a "reasonable dispute" about them is absent.

The execrable Bill Maher put the pro-abortion position in pretty clear terms, including "saying the quiet part out loud":

"I scold the Left when they {pro-lifers} say 'Oh, you know what?  They just hate women.' ... They don't hate women.  They just made that up.  They think it's murder.  And it kind of is.  I'm just okay with that.  I am.  There's 8 billion people in the world.  I'm sorry, we won't miss you. ... Is that not your position if you're 'pro-choice?'"

Well, at least he's . . . candid.  He is willing to say the quiet part of the "pro-choice" position out loud.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.  An abortion is, by definition, the "killing" of a living thing.  The living thing killed during an abortion is an in utero human child.  A "baby."

These are statements of fact.

Not sure what you are referencing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m interested in when you think an embryo/fetus achieves personhood. And no, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to disagree about whether aborting a nonviable fetus is “killing” a “baby.”