Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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:

I’m using your language of “killing” and “babies”. If you don’t like the language, then don’t use it. 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

it does allow

Right. It allows for the killing of healthy babies that pose no threat to the health of the mother. (Using your terminology). Now that we’ve determined that it’s ok to kill “a baby”in some circumstances we are just “ haggling over price”. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

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

Has he given any details?  Like an actual agreement of the country he expects them to relocate to while this great plan is happening and not just saying everyone will be happy about it as if him saying so is some sort of magical guarantee?  Has he promised to guarantee return of land to the current property owners even if they leave Gaza and others pay for the redevelopment? Sincere question.

Would you start packing, sell your home, quit your job and get ready to move out of the country based on a job offer with only those kinds of details provided?  Would you do so if you knew the man making the offer ignore the contracted agreement with a number of workers for the company he worked for?

This is the man who doesn’t feel the obligation to follow through on promised, contracted humanitarian commitments through USAID.  Is there a reason people should trust he won’t “pause” aid to Gaza if he is unhappy with the results?  He has “paused” the USAID currents efforts there.  That is not a good way to show Gazans they can trust American promises.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/usaid-freeze-risks-deadly-consequences-work-halts-gaza-agencies-warn-rcna190553

Edited February 11, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

In the same sense that skin cells flaking off are the death of a living thing. That is why they are called dead skin cells. The question is whether that death has any moral significance.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Why do we have the word “fetus” then? Seems redundant.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.

I know this is hard for you to accept but posting random articles from your Google search is not always “substance”.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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:

Nope, it is about how abortion was understood before we had any understanding of how reproduction worked.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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:

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.

Of course you ignore what abortion meant in the 19th century. It would be what we would call late-term abortion which is something that is highly regulated and often limited to health of the mother situations. Only about 1% of abortions in the US fall into this area.

Presentism is a hell of a drug.

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They "tried" by . . . electing Hamas?

So they are collectively responsible in perpetuity for electing Hamas in one election about 20 years ago when the opposition to Hamas was ineffective and useless and Hamas was presenting a much more moderate platform than the one they are espousing now? About half of the voting age population now wasn’t able to vote then.

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See also here:

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.

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."

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."

Good gravy.

The people siding with Palestine are not (outside of a few weirdos) pro-Hamas! They are upset because Palestinian people are living in a land where they have little to no legal rights, no representation, and are being blamed for the absolute worst things their justifiably angry population does.

You acknowledge the situation is complex while presenting a caricature. You don’t actually think it is complex. You want it to be simple. It is not. There are lots of bad actors everywhere destroying the lives of all kinds of people in the region. Failure to engage with that and insisting on finding one side ‘more wrong’ is an excuse to give license to other bad actors to commit atrocities.

To put this in perspective the American colonists were in much more comfortable circumstances socially, politically, and legally when they started the Revolutionary War than the people of Gaza and the West Bank are in now. Wanting to either form their own state or get rights in the state that exercises extensive and often oppressive control of their lives is not an unreasonable demand.

I want them to find some liberty. I want Israel to stop being a state that perpetuates this injustice. Then they can be a functional liberal democracy. Hopefully the people of Gaza and the West Bank can do the same somehow.

[The Nehor]

Isn’t capital punishment a legal post-birth abortion?

[Analytics]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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."

I completely agree that Hamas is not “the right side.” But that doesn’t mean Israel automatically occupies the moral high ground, either. The situation is far more complex than the simplistic “good vs. evil” narrative that many cling to.

After World War II, there was a global wave of sympathy for the Jewish people, in no small part because many in the West felt remorse for failing to stop the Holocaust sooner. Western governments, still grappling with their own deep-seated antisemitism, saw a Jewish state in Palestine as a form of atonement—a so-called “solution” to Europe’s Jewish Question. But Israel’s creation didn’t happen in a vacuum. Zionist immigration and activism had been increasing under the British Mandate (post–World War I), and international agreements—often made without genuine regard for the Arab population already living there—helped pave the way for the state’s establishment.

The fact that this land is considered sacred by multiple religions only makes the conflict worse, because religious dogma, by its nature, isn’t subject to reason or accountability. Time and time again, we see that when people believe they are carrying out a divine will, normal ethical constraints are discarded in favor of tribalism, conquest, and oppression. Religious faith provides a built-in excuse for double standards, where acts of violence, discrimination, and land theft are justified as “God’s will” rather than held to any consistent moral principle. Whether it’s Jewish settlers claiming a divine right to Palestinian land, Muslim extremists seeking to destroy Israel in the name of jihad, or Christian Zionists cheering on the conflict because they think it fulfills biblical prophecy, faith has repeatedly served as a license to abandon reason and basic human decency.

Today, major human rights organizations state that Israel’s policies amount to apartheid: Jewish citizens, including many recent immigrants, enjoy full rights and privileges, while Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are systematically denied them. Even Arab citizens of Israel—who do hold citizenship—face institutional discrimination, reinforcing the perception of a two-tiered system based on ethnicity and religion.

Too often, all of this is cloaked in religious nationalism—historically, a proven recipe for oppression and violence. Wouldn’t the best long-term solution be a single, secular state where Jews, Muslims, Christians, and atheists live under the same laws and enjoy equal rights? If the goal is a true democracy, it cannot be structured to privilege one ethno-religious group at the expense of all others.

Ironically, when many Muslims call for the end of Israel as a Jewish state, what they claim to seek is exactly this kind of secular government—one where no group holds religious supremacy. A truly secular state wouldn’t just benefit Palestinians; it would also ensure full religious freedom for everyone, including Christians, Mormons, and others who are currently barred from proselytizing in both Israel and much of the Muslim world. If the concern is justice and equality, then the solution isn’t replacing one form of religious nationalism with another, but rather dismantling the entire system of sectarian privilege.

It’s long past time to stop letting ancient superstitions dictate modern geopolitics. Until universal human rights take precedence over sectarian interests, this conflict will continue to devastate generations on all sides.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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.

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

I think plenty of people have arrived at this principled perspective.  In any event, I don't care if the Baptists formulated these things first.  Elder Uchtdorf said it right:

Quote

We seek for truth wherever we may find it. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “Mormonism is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or … being … prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So they are collectively responsible in perpetuity for electing Hamas in one election about 20 years ago when the opposition to Hamas was ineffective and useless and Hamas was presenting a much more moderate platform than the one they are espousing now? About half of the voting age population now wasn’t able to vote then.

Good gravy.

The people siding with Palestine are not (outside of a few weirdos) pro-Hamas! They are upset because Palestinian people are living in a land where they have little to no legal rights, no representation, and are being blamed for the absolute worst things their justifiably angry population does.

You acknowledge the situation is complex while presenting a caricature. You don’t actually think it is complex. You want it to be simple. It is not. There are lots of bad actors everywhere destroying the lives of all kinds of people in the region. Failure to engage with that and insisting on finding one side ‘more wrong’ is an excuse to give license to other bad actors to commit atrocities.

To put this in perspective the American colonists were in much more comfortable circumstances socially, politically, and legally when they started the Revolutionary War than the people of Gaza and the West Bank are in now. Wanting to either form their own state or get rights in the state that exercises extensive and often oppressive control of their lives is not an unreasonable demand.

I want them to find some liberty. I want Israel to stop being a state that perpetuates this injustice. Then they can be a functional liberal democracy. Hopefully the people of Gaza and the West Bank can do the same somehow.

It’s fascinating how complex issues boil down to a binary choice between right and wrong. Obviously, if you don’t espouse the right position, your beliefs are “rote” and not based on “fact.” Do I have that right?

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2025 at 3:40 PM, smac97 said:

We are living in strange times when the Bad Orange Man is a more credible and reasoned voice relative to the role of religion in American civic life than a fellow (and seemingly active) Latter-day Saint

Why don't you drop the bad orange man schtick. It is childish. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Why don't you drop the bad orange man schtick. It is childish. 

Yes, please.

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2025 at 3:53 PM, smac97 said:

I have thought this for quite a while. 

Since the existence of God is not empirically testable), "strong atheism" - the affirmative denial of that existence - requires a belief that goes beyond empirical verification.  That believe could reasonably be called "faith."

If pushed, I think most "atheists" are just dressed-up agnostics.  A weak atheist simply lacks belief but does not necessarily claim that God's existence is unknowable, whereas an agnostic is making a statement about knowledge rather than belief—"I don’t know."

This mostly just gets into semantics and navel-gazing, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

No an atheist does not have faith that there is not a god. They simply say that there is not evidence sufficient enough to convince them that there is a god.

I think you don't know much about what atheists actually say or believe.

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2025 at 5:39 PM, smac97 said:

"I really believe you can't be happy without religion, without that belief.  I really believe it.  I just don't see how you can, so let's bring religion back.  Let's bring back into our lives."

This is "nonsense"?  Because of the content?  Or because it was spoken by Bad Orange Man?

I think the president is being self reflective here. It is pretty clear he has never had religion in his life at all till it became another useful took for him to con and entire group of people into thinking he was one of them.

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2025 at 6:10 PM, smac97 said:

Methinks you making Bad Orange Man an offender for a word.

I would hope to see a bit more grace from you.  But oh well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow this is rich. One of the most kind and fair posters on the board because she does not agree with your clearly biased opinion. You could use some of her grace. You are severely lacking.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, longview said:

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.

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Wow this is rich. One of the most kind and fair posters on the board because she does not agree with your clearly biased opinion. You could use some of her grace. You are severely lacking.

Teancum, I deeply appreciate your view of me, but please don’t compare other posters to me as that starts to get awkward.  ❤️

Edited February 12, 2025 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Wow this is rich. One of the most kind and fair posters on the board because she does not agree with your clearly biased opinion. You could use some of her grace. You are severely lacking.

“Orange man bad” is just a way to dismiss disagreement over policies and political beliefs as mere personal dislike. It’s cheap and stupid. And yes, Calm is awesome. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, longview said:

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

I thought it was America first on his campaign. 

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think plenty of people have arrived at this principled perspective.  In any event, I don't care if the Baptists formulated these things first.

I care. Coming up with it through prayer and revelation is very different than copying and pasting it from people just trying to reason their way to the right answer. Oh, and the people who reasoned this out said they were not any kind of final word and were generally opposed to legally restricting abortion. Using “abortion is murder” as a fundraising issue came a few years later.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams 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.

And when is that?

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

You speak of "viability" by specifically tying it to "dependence on the mother's body."  What is it about that type of "dependence" that deprives the child of a right to live, whereas the baby's obvious post-partum "dependence" is not a justification for killing the child?

By way of example: A three-day old baby lacks autonomy or the ability to survive without its mother or some other assistance.  And yet we don't allow post-partum killings of babies.  Why is that?

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Absent a definitive “life begins at” definition that all would agree on, that’s a decent place to draw the line.

Why is that "decent?" 

And isn't "draw{ing} the line" an acknowledgment that there will never be a complete consensus (something "that we all would agree on")?  That being the case, why is a complete consensus necessary?  And why are we willing to set aside the need for complete consensus when we choose "viability?"

Why is "viability" a more "decent" line than, say, conception?

If life = fetal viability, is the fetus not alive prior to viability?

What are your thoughts about Roe?  It tried "viability" and it failed pretty catastrophically.  So why are you returning to it?

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

Viability doesn't work as a legal standard.  Roe's trimester framework was legally and medically incoherent.  It defined viability (~24 weeks at the time) as the point at which the state’s interest in protecting fetal life outweighs a woman’s right to choose abortion.  However, viability depends on medical technology, not legal principles.  In 1973, viability was around 24 weeks.  Today, some babies survive at 21–22 weeks with modern neonatal care.  And as technology advances, viability will continue to shift, making it an unstable legal standard.

I think it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to say that a baby's right to life only begins at an unsettled stage of gestation.  Even if we could formulate a specific date for "viability," as a matter of constitutional law, why does a pre-viable fetus have no right to life, but a viable fetus does?  

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The mother’s life takes precedence, though obviously it’s the parents’ decision.

That's the moral dilemma that, in my view, triggers an exception to what should otherwise be a broad prohibition on abortion.  

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

Broadly, yes.  I am concerned about "catastrophic problems" becoming a slippery slope.  Is Down Syndrome a "catastrophic problem"?  Iceland sure seems to think so, as it effectively eliminated Down Syndrome in that country by aborting it out of existence.

Is the fetus being female a "catastrophic problem"?  Sex-based abortion has created a huge gender imbalance in China.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Obviously not.

I don't understand the "obviously."  What is the prohibition in play here?  Is it that "viability" thing again?

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, killing an autonomous person is unacceptable.

What does "autonomous person" mean?

Autonomy means "the right or condition of self-government."  I have six children.  None of them would have survived childhood absent all sorts of non-autonomy.  They lacked the means to protect themselves, feed and clothe and house themselves, etc.  They needed all sorts of close and direct supervision by my wife and me.  The State imposed all sorts of specific requirements on me to provide and take care of my children.  They were not, in any sense, "autonomous."  As non-autonomous persons, why couldn't they have been killed?  

What is it about "autonomy" that ties it to an individuals right to live?

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

Could you elaborate?  A frequent refrain from the pro-abortion crowd is that a woman should not be saddled with a child for 18 years if she does not want to be a mom, ergo she should be free to kill the child in utero.  But if that obligation is removed, then would not this justification be lessened or removed as well?

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I don't think the Church has articulated a specific position on personhood.  It's more a legal concept anyway.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

So, it just comes down to disapproval of the motivation behind each abortion.

I think it comes down to when we, as a civil society, assign personhood to the in utero baby.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I am in no position to impose my judgment about acceptable motivations,

You are a citizen.  You have the right to vote. You have the right to involve yourself in legislative and political processes.  

Abortion is going to be a legislative/political issue, regardless of how we treat it.  So I think all of us are in a "position" to "impose" our will on society.  That's what voting is all about.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

so I leave these decisions to the parents and their doctors. 

And what if "the parents and their doctors" want to kill a born-alive baby?

We've already seen hints of this.  See, e.g., this article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

From the abstract:

Quote

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

The argument of the "After-Birth Abortion" article is as follows:^[1][12]

1. Abortion is justified because of the moral status of foetuses; their shared status of potential persons is not morally relevant.
2. Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe abnormalities or would be an intolerable burden to its mother and family, at least when adoption is not a viable option due to not being in the best interests of actual persons.
3. Newborns have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them) if they suffer unbearably.
4. Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities that cannot always be diagnosed before birth, and can be an intolerable burden on their mother and family, including when circumstances change after birth.
5. Therefore "after-birth abortion" (euthanasia of newborns) can be justified in some circumstances. These circumstances include, according to the authors: if a disease was not detected during pregnancy, if something went wrong during delivery, or if there are changes in the family's economic, social, or psychological circumstances. The authors argue that even a newborn child without any disabilities may be euthanised under these circumstances.

In the words of Bertha Alvarez Manninen, in a paper also written in the Journal of Medical Ethics, "Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that because there are no significant differences between a fetus and a neonate, in that neither possess sufficiently robust mental traits to qualify as persons, a neonate may be justifiably killed for any reason that also justifies abortion. To further emphasise their view that a newly born infant is more on a par with a fetus rather than a more developed baby, Giubilini and Minerva elect to call this 'after-birth abortion' rather than infanticide. ... I argue that their thesis is incorrect, and that the moral permissibility of abortion does not entail the moral permissibility of 'after-birth' abortion."^[12]

Abortion is the ending of an ongoing process before its completion, and, in the case of Giubilini and Minerva, it refers to ending the process of pregnancy after its natural conclusion of birth, thus making "after-birth abortion" a self-contradictory phrase, since birth ends the pregnancy leaving no pregnancy to be aborted. Some critics of the idea believe it is a phrase composed by Giubilini and Minerva to hide the uncomfortable word "infanticide", which describes a crime. Another critical article concluded that "having investigated the new concept we have concluded that the term 'after-birth abortion' is biologically and conceptually nonsensical".^[11]

See also Wiki's article on Peter Singer:

Quote

Peter Albert David Singer AC FAHA (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher who is Emeritus Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. Singer's work specialises in applied ethics, approaching the subject from a secular, utilitarian perspective. 
...
Euthanasia and infanticide

Singer has argued that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences.^[68] In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood. Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"^[69]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".^[70] Singer has clarified that his "view of when life begins isn't very different from that of opponents of abortion." He deems it not "unreasonable to hold that an individual human life begins at conception. If it doesn't, then it begins about 14 days later, when it is no longer possible for the embryo to divide into twins or other multiples." Singer disagrees with abortion rights opponents in that he does not "think that the fact that an embryo is a living human being is sufficient to show that it is wrong to kill it." Singer wishes "to see American jurisprudence, and the national abortion debate, take up the question of which capacities a human being needs to have in order for it to be wrong to kill it" as well as "when, in the development of the early human being, these capacities are present."^[71]

The test balloons have been out and floating for years.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, longview said:

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.

My solution? Let the Gaza people back on their land, and help them succeed on building on their land and freedoms.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I thought it was America first on his campaign. 

I mean, what’s not to like? Who among us wouldn’t jump at the chance to relocate to Puntland or Somaliland and never be able to go back to our homeland?

The whole idea is pretty wacky, but it’s a moot point. It’s never going to happen. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And when is that?

You speak of "viability" by specifically tying it to "dependence on the mother's body."  What is it about that type of "dependence" that deprives the child of a right to live, whereas the baby's obvious post-partum "dependence" is not a justification for killing the child?

By way of example: A three-day old baby lacks autonomy or the ability to survive without its mother or some other assistance.  And yet we don't allow post-partum killings of babies.  Why is that?

Why is that "decent?" 

And isn't "draw{ing} the line" an acknowledgment that there will never be a complete consensus (something "that we all would agree on")?  That being the case, why is a complete consensus necessary?  And why are we willing to set aside the need for complete consensus when we choose "viability?"

Why is "viability" a more "decent" line than, say, conception?

If life = fetal viability, is the fetus not alive prior to viability?

What are your thoughts about Roe?  It tried "viability" and it failed pretty catastrophically.  So why are you returning to it?

Viability doesn't work as a legal standard.  Roe's trimester framework was legally and medically incoherent.  It defined viability (~24 weeks at the time) as the point at which the state’s interest in protecting fetal life outweighs a woman’s right to choose abortion.  However, viability depends on medical technology, not legal principles.  In 1973, viability was around 24 weeks.  Today, some babies survive at 21–22 weeks with modern neonatal care.  And as technology advances, viability will continue to shift, making it an unstable legal standard.

I think it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to say that a baby's right to life only begins at an unsettled stage of gestation.  Even if we could formulate a specific date for "viability," as a matter of constitutional law, why does a pre-viable fetus have no right to life, but a viable fetus does?  

That's the moral dilemma that, in my view, triggers an exception to what should otherwise be a broad prohibition on abortion.  

Broadly, yes.  I am concerned about "catastrophic problems" becoming a slippery slope.  Is Down Syndrome a "catastrophic problem"?  Iceland sure seems to think so, as it effectively eliminated Down Syndrome in that country by aborting it out of existence.

Is the fetus being female a "catastrophic problem"?  Sex-based abortion has created a huge gender imbalance in China.

I don't understand the "obviously."  What is the prohibition in play here?  Is it that "viability" thing again?

What does "autonomous person" mean?

Autonomy means "the right or condition of self-government."  I have six children.  None of them would have survived childhood absent all sorts of non-autonomy.  They lacked the means to protect themselves, feed and clothe and house themselves, etc.  They needed all sorts of close and direct supervision by my wife and me.  The State imposed all sorts of specific requirements on me to provide and take care of my children.  They were not, in any sense, "autonomous."  As non-autonomous persons, why couldn't they have been killed?  

What is it about "autonomy" that ties it to an individuals right to live?

Could you elaborate?  A frequent refrain from the pro-abortion crowd is that a woman should not be saddled with a child for 18 years if she does not want to be a mom, ergo she should be free to kill the child in utero.  But if that obligation is removed, then would not this justification be lessened or removed as well?

I don't think the Church has articulated a specific position on personhood.  It's more a legal concept anyway.

I think it comes down to when we, as a civil society, assign personhood to the in utero baby.

You are a citizen.  You have the right to vote. You have the right to involve yourself in legislative and political processes.  

Abortion is going to be a legislative/political issue, regardless of how we treat it.  So I think all of us are in a "position" to "impose" our will on society.  That's what voting is all about.

And what if "the parents and their doctors" want to kill a born-alive baby?

We've already seen hints of this.  See, e.g., this article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

From the abstract:

From Wikipedia:

See also Wiki's article on Peter Singer:

The test balloons have been out and floating for years.

Thanks,

-Smac

My goodness, such a bizarre response, Spencer. Viability is a decent legal standard, but obviously you disagree. Fair enough. You still haven’t answered my question about when a fetus achieves personhood. 

Again, absent a universally agreed upon standard of when life begins, I prefer to err on the side of personal liberty. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

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.

This is a deranged fever dream mixed with conspiracy nonsense. Palestinians have only been there since the Ottoman Empire so clearly the Jewish people who owned the area millenia before they were there have a better claim?

And no, they don’t all want genocide. These are people with all the complexities that involves. They are not your fantasy villains that live and breathe murder 24/7.

Trump did no such thing. Unless he has a place for them to resettle and they want to go (they aren’t toys that can be tossed wherever, they are people who deserve basic rights of autonomy) this is nonsense. Also Trump’s promises are worth less than the oxygen he used up saying them. Tomorrow he may have a new plan. Trusting him to follow through on a promise is a wild gamble.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I mean, what’s not to like? Who among us wouldn’t jump at the chance to relocate to Puntland or Somaliland and never be able to go back to our homeland?

The whole idea is pretty wacky, but it’s a moot point. It’s never going to happen. 

I actually don't believe most of what the president says. Just making the point of what he actually said during hours and hours of watching his rallies. That's how obsessed I am, I guess.

Edited February 11, 2025 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I actually don't believe most of what the president says. Just making the point of what he actually said during hours and hours of watching his rallies. That's how obsessed I am, I guess.

It’s not a serious proposal, though he clearly thinks it is.