How to make abortions rare?

[Assyriankey]

the responsible thing to do in an atheist world

QM, don't mind me.  I am just collecting evidence about how f*cked up the word 'atheist' is.

+1 for playing!

[Vynn]

We were too hasty in jumping to this conclusion.

Who's this "we" you're referring to?

If suicides and abortions can be the responsible thing to do in an atheist world, we shouldn't jump to the idea of making them rare without considering the potential fiscal value of killing more people instead of less.

Well, that's for people smarter than me to consider. I'm merely giving you my opinion based on my own perceptions. To me, it makes little sense to destroy an embro when it could have been easily prevented. I could be wrong, though. As always, i am willing to be convinced otherwise. If i am presented with reasonable and logical arguments that convince me otherwise, i will change my position. Thus, if i were convinced that more abortions were more logical instead of less logical, i'd be in favor of the more logical solution.

Perhaps this is the argument you're looking for?

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

[QuestionMark]

Why would you care to preserve an embryo? It's just a bunch of cells, absorbing resources. It's not even useful, like a liver or some other organ.

[Assyriankey]

Why would you care to preserve an embryo? It's just a bunch of cells, absorbing resources. It's not even useful, like a liver or some other organ.

Because we are gene-machines programmed to reproduce!

Next...

[QuestionMark]

Alright, so there is nothing inherently good or moral about preserving embryos in an atheist world.

[Vynn]

Alright, so there is nothing inherently good or moral about preserving embryos in an atheist world.

It depends on what they might be used for.

[QuestionMark]

Any other atheists have an opinion on why abortions should be made rare?

[Assyriankey]

Alright, so there is nothing inherently good or moral about preserving embryos in an atheist world.

QM, don't mind me.  I am just gathering evidence about how f*cked up the word 'atheist' has become!

Your post is a worthless troll.

[Doubting Thomas]

Because killing a perfectly healthy fetus of a healthy mother is wrong,

Why?

Here is the thing I don't get, liberal people, and I consider myself a liberal person, we can make the argument that killing a healthy fetus, of a healthy mother is wrong, but I wonder do they want to make the argument.  Sure someone might not agree with the argument, but an argument can be made, and if you feel that abortions of healthy fetuses are immoral, then you should sure say why, butnot get confonded in your reasoning, just because someone thinks you don't have a good argument, the same is true for being against consensual incest of an infertile couple  too.

The argument can be made, but my question is, do you want to make the argument or not?  I feel that humans from western civilization are pretty sophisticated, but can get turned aroud in their reasoning.  So I for one am definitely against the abortion of healthy fetuses of healthy mothers, and I am not one to force my belief onto the mothers who would do that, but merely try to make the world a better place.  Such ways of making the world a better place where abortions are rare is to simply persuade people, to hold off till marriage to have sex, I mean face it there are a lot of problems that can come from sex, stds and unwanted pregnancies.  Sex should be viewed as something special a way to bond with another human being, and if you haveno genetic defects in your DNA, you should be happy to make a child.

Look at me, I have schizophrenia and bipolar, if I were to have a kid at like 40 years of age, you better believe, the kid could be so screwed up.  It would have 13 to 26 percent chance of developing schizophrenia, and a way higher chance of developing bipolar, these can be nasty diseases.  I want to adopt though, I feel that I am pretty high functioning so I could handle adopting a child, once I make more money.  

[spider]

Unable to cope, with what has been done necessarily by every generation for untold amounts of time?

Are you really so insensitive you don't understand the genuine reasons why a women doesn't want to be pregnant - things often outside her control?

Abortion has been around for countless generations also, QM.  In addition to that, women have committed suicide or even been murdered for pregnancies that prove they have fornicated or even just lost their virginity to rape.

Women have also died in pregnancy and childbirth.  Women and girls in the third world - mostly girls - have suffered on-going humiliation thanks to long labours that result in the death of the infant and their permanent injury.   And even if they successfully give birth, women have brought children into the world who they've had to watch wither and die, or see them struggle in the same poverty they grew up with.  So yeah, it's been done by every generation (duh) but that doesn't mean it's not ever a frightening thing to face, sometimes even unbearably so. 

I see people like you as more of an obstacle to reducing abortion rates because you're willing to minimise or even ignore those issues in order to maximise the moral hysteria of your position.  As well as that, you can continue fighting and contribute to this ridiculous pro-life/pro-choice binary, where we're distracted by laws that don't really help either way.  All that effort, and instead of guilting women into a choice they didn't want, you could have made it easier for them. But then you wouldn't get the message across about sexual purity in women, right?    And you'd be doing something for fully grown people instead of just the all-important embryos and zygotes of the world - though I really doubt abortion is the worst that can happen to either, especially in the Christian universe.  Or perhaps because it would waste a chance to put your imaginary god before compassion and social progress.   

So you think abortions should be rare because they are a good indicator for how well our society is doing.

I guess you can put it that way.  It's not the whole of the story.   I would say I think our society should be doing so well that abortions are rare.  It seems like a pretty obvious point to me. 

Let's say you view abortion as murder - I'm right, yes?  Well, if you had a society where no one ever attempted murder or had reason to, then wouldn't that be a good place to live?  Isn't that more effective than hoping you've deterred the crazies enough?  Isn't it preferable to prevent a killing than to let it happen just so you can track down the killer afterwards and punish them?

[Assyriankey]

Society is not static!

A robust society is one that can deal with changing realities.  Anyone who thinks our World has not changed tremendously during the last 50-60 years needs to grab a history book.

There will come a time in our future when having an extra child will be viewed as immoral because it means that some other family must miss out.  Either that or we'll all be dead.

[QuestionMark]

     I think that it is a far tertiary role of government to force people to do what is right(if at all), but it is a primary if not the primary role of government to stop people from doing wrong. And I talk of government, and policy, because it's the easiest way to get people to examine what they believe objectively. My goal here, as I've said before, is not to stop abortion, it's to convince people that abortion is wrong. You as an atheist should be well aware, that unless there is a God who cares about our actions, then in the end it makes not a bit of difference whether someone murdered, or had abortions, or whatever else humans do. None of it makes any difference in the end. So the point here, is to heart to heart on abortion, and my purpose is to show that our foundation when thinking about abortion leads us to God. There are some truly godless people, who do not have that foundation, but some do. And I'm not here for everyone, I'm here for those that can be brought to God. I suspect that each person here has much more profound and provocative reasons for arguing about abortion than the surface level: reducing abortions. Because if we wanted to reduce abortions we wouldn't be talking about it to people not having abortions, we'd be acting on it to everyone we could positively effect. So our goal is conviction and reformation of the heart. I think that we share this goal but don't often talk about it. We want to convince the other side that what we say is the right way, that the truth matters, and there's a way of getting to the truth through these ideals.

I am sensitive to the fact that all of life's decisions are filled with blessings and curses, but I will not back down on the supremacy of doing what is right even if it means earthly suffering. Everything that we know calls us to honor thinking as more than individuals, working as more than individuals, considering the greater good. The greater good isn't just some vague feeling, it's a calling we have to be perfect. The perfect way does not include selfishness, it includes mutual blessing, mutual providence. When everyone is filled with love, no one lacks anything.

You see me as an obstacle because I divide people, and I have not come to unite people and tell them it's ok to do what you like as long as you get the functional conclusion that you wanted. Our foundation is wrong, and when our foundation is wrong the house will eventually crumble no matter how pretty or fashionable it is at the moment. When reality hits, all the trappings mean nothing, the foundation means everything. Atheists opinions on abortion have a flawed foundation, as can be seen by the inability of atheists to answer the question why should abortions be rare?

[JustMyron]

Myron,

Why should we make abortions rare?

I didn't realize you had asked me seperately from non-Christians. I missed this post, but wouldn't want you to think I'm unable to answer the question.

Abortions should be rare because:
1. If anything at all is objectively wrong, killing unnecessarily is objectively wrong. If nothing is objectively wrong, then, well, it would be impossible (I think?) to make a case that abortions should be rare except based on personal, non-transferrable opinion.
2. It seems sensible to me that since almost all people have an understanding of morally right and wrong as distinct from notions of convenience or efficiency, I should provisionally assume that this concept has an element of truth to it, unless someone can conclusively prove that there is no objective right or wrong.
3. Given we have to kill some things (in order to eat) our moral structures must permit killing under some circumstances. We are then tasked with figuring out what those circumstances are, according to objective rightness or wrongness, and determining the rationale by which we should make those decisions.
4. Since I don't see any reason to say that there is an immortal soul that distinguishes human from non-human life, and can see no reason why slight genetic differences should distinguish human from non-human life in a moral sense, I have to find some other means to base my valuing of life. To the best of my ability, it must not be arbitrary, but derived from an apparent natural order.
5. The best candidate I can find is the complexity of the life involved. As in, that life which would take the longest to recreate by evolutionary means is in a sense the most valuable, because it is difficult to replace. A similar argument can be used for preserving engangered species and maintaining biodiversity.
6. By this metric, a human embryo, which is about as complex as a bacterium at first, and has a good chance of not surviving regardless of my actions, would be less valuable than the life of a mother, who has a set of unique experiences which would be lost forever if she were to die. But given the embryo's potential to develop into a human being, which is a potential not shared by other life on earth, it should still be valued relatively highly, and not casually destroyed. It is properly regarded as a seperate, growing organism, but not a seperate being, as being implies awareness and intelligence. An embryo immediately after conception is no more a being than a bacteria, but it does have the potential to become one. Therefore, where possible, it should be protected, but where the interests of a human being are severely negatively affected this should be taken into account as well.
7. Since this valuing of life is so difficult to do properly, and the objective rightness and wrongness of your actions is at stake, erring on the side of caution (not killing) seems to be the wisest choice except in situations where there is a very clear, fairly severe negative impact by allowing the embryo to develop.

So abortions should be rare since we rarely know for sure that killing is a good idea. From another angle, going with our empathic instincts wherever reasonably possible seems also to be the "right" thing to do.

As well, I am against making another person's abortion choice for them, although I have strong opinions about what choice should be made in various circumstances and think there is an important moral question here that should be taken very seriously. I am against making another person's choice because they have more information about their situation than I do. If I was in their shoes, I could take into account hundreds or thousands of factors in my decision, whereas being outside of their situation I can only take in maybe 10 or so that they might tell me about. So they are by far in the better position to make the correct decision, because they know their situation better than I do. Although education and thought are also required to make correct decisions. So what I can do is to encourage that education and thought. I think trying to make people's decisions for them is a mistake.

[sopranette]

People are assuming that every woman who wants to have an abortion is facing a difficult and heart breaking choice.  The fact is, abortion is a form of birth control for a lot of woman, much more often than "Is the mother making a medical decision to save her life," or,"Is this pregnancy the result of a rape?"  Women have abortions when other birth control products fail or are not used at all, and the resulting child is unwanted. Some women have several abortions, one right after another. Every human life begins with a bunch of cells, so a fertilized egg is a child in the making, and terminating the life of that bunch of cells is destroying a human life. Murder is the wilful act of ending an innocent life.  The emotions behind it are irrelevant.
love,

Sopranette'

[Vynn]

The fact is, abortion is a form of birth control for a lot of woman,

Yes, for stupid women who weren't responsible enough to use birth control.

The emotions behind it are irrelevant.

Correct.

[QuestionMark]

Abortions should be rare because:
1. If anything at all is objectively wrong, killing unnecessarily is objectively wrong. If nothing is objectively wrong, then, well, it would be impossible (I think?) to make a case that abortions should be rare except based on personal, non-transferrable opinion.

You make some great points, and I'm going to approach them in the order that you listed, as long as it is expedient to our conversation.

Atheists overwhelmingly argue that nothing is objectively wrong(I don't know how you identify yourself, or if you do categorically). But I'd like to remind you that our topic is abortion. Your first point seems to be saying that abortion is unnecessary killing. Which means that a fetus is a [human] life. How have YOU personally come to conclude that a fetus is a human life, and how does that contrast with atheists in general(if it can be said?).

[JustMyron]

Atheists overwhelmingly argue that nothing is objectively wrong(I don't know how you identify yourself, or if you do categorically).

I'm far from a "Standard Atheist". But I'm also far from standard religion. I just try to figure out what makes sense. I think I do pretty well with it, really, but I also try to listen to people who disagree.

I'm me. Just Myron. I don't belong to any particular group, but I'm not fanatically trying to exclude myself from groups either, I just find they all say some things that make sense, and some that don't. Whoever I talk to, whatever group they identify with, I find myself going "you're mostly right, but...". It would be nice and warm and cozy if I could belong to a group or two, though...

I think you think atheists overwhelmingly argue that nothing is objectively wrong, but you don't know atheists because you aren't one. From what I've seen, it's more of a mix. And your belief that objective truth comes from God doesn't help, because you unconsciously take it as a given that most people see that fact as obvious, so if they don't believe in God they don't believe in objective truth.

Keep in mind also that what you call atheists is what many atheists would call anti-theists, or something similar. They regard atheism as a null position, what you would call agnostic (I was schooled in this quite sternly at first, by the way  ), whereas you regard atheist as anti-God. Understandable, because some of the people who claim to be neutral act quite anti-God, but moving on...

But I'd like to remind you that our topic is abortion.

Right. I do tend to get distracted. Well then, to business! ...

Your first point seems to be saying that abortion is unnecessary killing. Which means that a fetus is a [human] life. How have YOU personally come to conclude that a fetus is a human life, and how does that contrast with atheists in general(if it can be said?).

A fetus (or for that matter, a sperm-and-egg combo immediately after conception, as some here take it seriously that we use the correct word for various developmental stages) is life because it is alive.
It is "A life" because it is a seperate (although dependent) organism from the mother.
A [human] fetus/sperm-and-egg combo is a human life because it has human DNA.

NOTE: A human life is not the same thing as a human being. Just to be sure this is 100% clear.

How does that contrast with atheists in general? Hard to say, they're a rather heterogenous bunch. They're not like Christians who are all supposed to believe the same thing. I'd say most of them would use similar reasoning, though, or at least say that my reasoning makes sense. Anyone vehemently disagree?

[catwixen]

The fact is, abortion is a form of birth control for a lot of woman,

Yes, for stupid women who weren't responsible enough to use birth control.

 (QM seems to want a moral stance on this from atheists).
Women using abortion because they(and their partner) were not responsible with birth control...can be viewed as immoral in modern society.
But I want to bring in this powerful statement from spider:

I see people like you as more of an obstacle to reducing abortion rates because you're willing to minimise or even ignore those issues in order to maximise the moral hysteria of your position.  

Spider was talking about issues of third world women etc but I think it fits here. When one takes the moral high ground, what usually gets ignored is the understanding of the "wrongdoer". Just saying people who use abortion because they had no protection, does not in any way help to solve the problem. In fact it is separating them...we are good they are bad. How a "righteous' Christian can ignore sex education or keep their head in the sand about sex before marriage etc, THEN demonise people for having unplanned pregnancy's and abortion...is mind boggling to me.
Why would anyone put themselves through a termination when contraception is so simple these days? There must be other factors at play...yes some women are simply selfish and stupid (and men) but I hope they are not the majority in this case.

[JustMyron]

How a "righteous' Christian can ignore sex education or keep their head in the sand about sex before marriage etc, THEN demonise people for having unplanned pregnancy's and abortion...is mind boggling to me.

Not if you think about how morality works. A "moral issue" isn't thought about by anyone (religious or otherwise) in the same way as something that isn't a "moral issue". There have been studies done on vegetarians, for example (don't ask me to quote them, though, I'd have to google and hope for the best...) where when the vegetarian is making that choice for non-moral reasons (health/taste/custom) they view it differently from someone who is a vegetarian because they believe killing animals is evil. The moral vegetarians will refuse to eat anything that has been tainted with anything associated with meat, whereas the people who are vegetarians for other reasons will be OK with a little drop of beef broth in their soup, so long as there isn't too much.

For QM (and many others), since abortion is murder, plain and simple, any abortion is too much to take. Condemning some murders while being OK with others so that you can build a consensus is morally contradictory and completely unacceptable, although it might be perfectly logical for a non-moral issue. It's taking the easy way, being unwilling to stand up for your beliefs, and starting down a slippery slope with pure evil at the bottom.

Also remember, when you have a strong sense that something is morally wrong, it is a given that this sense is universal. This is why QM accused people who disagreed with him of lying. Because it's viewed as simple and obvious truth that in a case involving such a clear moral position, every right-thinking person with a correctly developed conscience MUST think the same way. Regardless of the fact that different cultures, and the same culture at different times, view some issues as moral and others as not in the moral realm, and some moral priorities as higher than others, and this leads to nearly irresolvable conflicts between different cultures and different generations. That's just how morality works. And that's what we're trying to overcome in this conversation.

[JustMyron]

And to QM, sex before marriage is immoral too. Think about what that means. It means that to him it's perfectly natural that sex before marriage is connected to all of the evils he's mentioned, including the general crime rate in society. Evil is connected to evil. You fight one, and in a way you fight them all.

QM, have I correctly put myself in your shoes?

[QuestionMark]

Your first point seems to be saying that abortion is unnecessary killing. Which means that a fetus is a [human] life. How have YOU personally come to conclude that a fetus is a human life, and how does that contrast with atheists in general(if it can be said?).

A fetus (or for that matter, a sperm-and-egg combo immediately after conception, as some here take it seriously that we use the correct word for various developmental stages) is life because it is alive.
It is "A life" because it is a seperate (although dependent) organism from the mother.
A [human] fetus/sperm-and-egg combo is a human life because it has human DNA.
NOTE: A human life is not the same thing as a human being. Just to be sure this is 100% clear.

I think this is spectacularly useful.

[QuestionMark]

And to QM, sex before marriage is immoral too. Think about what that means. It means that to him it's perfectly natural that sex before marriage is connected to all of the evils he's mentioned, including the general crime rate in society. Evil is connected to evil. You fight one, and in a way you fight them all.

QM, have I correctly put myself in your shoes?

Eh. Somewhat. I think you did a good job explaining why I think abortion is so important, because it's an inconsistency. I call people liars when I think, that they even have the slightest impure motive. I also think there should be two words for what I use liar for. A liar is someone who says what is not true, and a liar is also someone who should be held accountable for their moral depravity. However those are two different and not mutually exclusive categories. Many people that I've called liars, or that I say lie, I don't consider morally responsible, but ignorant.

I also think that in the most pervading sense, the moral law of God is just like the natural physical law of God. You can in snap shots think it's possible to bend or break the rules, but it's really not, you just have poor perspective because you're looking at a snapshot. I am utterly convinced that what to us is a massive difference between abortion and murder(in legality anyways) is not different at all when it comes to morality(though again, not all who sin do so willingly, but often ignorantly, and so I do not ascribe responsibility necessarily). Every form of sin, and consequences of sin(the wages of which are death, that is not the immediate end of the biological entity, but the degradation or separation from God who is life) surround lying just as they do murder and pride. The wages of sin is death.

So just as if you were trying to violate the conservation of mass and energy, it is possible superficially to do so, by unknown additions from outside an open system, like our sun giving our planet energy, but on closer inspection you just didn't have the perspective that your system wasn't closed. You can superficially violate the natural moral laws(and in fact at times in our history the English word 'natural law' referred to morality and not physics) but you can't really violate them without the exact same consequences. It's just that sin, iniquity, etc obscure our ability to be objective so well, and for so long, that we often never realize or correct ourselves, whereas the laws of physics are subject to [fairly] easy verification.

The unintended consequences of sex outside of marriage can, and does,  create a vicious and destructive cycle far worse than what is apparent.

[QuestionMark]

2. It seems sensible to me that since almost all people have an understanding of morally right and wrong as distinct from notions of convenience or efficiency, I should provisionally assume that this concept has an element of truth to it, unless someone can conclusively prove that there is no objective right or wrong.

I also think this is sensible. Do you believe that it is possible for people[in general, the masses] to conceal, or be utterly unaware of, serious flaws in our moral constitution? I call to mind chattel slavery, and its abolition. Now abortion, and hopefully its abolition.

[JustMyron]

I also think that in the most pervading sense, the moral law of God is just like the natural physical law of God. You can in snap shots think it's possible to bend or break the rules, but it's really not, you just have poor perspective because you're looking at a snapshot.

I understand and agree with this statement. Although I don't believe in an afterlife, I think if there is a God who has set out moral laws, it would be very unfair for that God to set out physical laws that contradicted the moral laws. Therefore, logically, what is best for us under the laws of physics and what is moral should align, and we can think of either answering "what is best for us?" or "What is the morally right thing to do?" and we are effectively asking the same question from two different perspectives. That's why when you take a really broad view of utilitarianism it yields conclusions very similar to the moral codes of various religions. It's also why when you follow the moral codes of religions there is often a benefit you wouldn't have expected. Although the moral code you're following isn't perfect (generally speaking - even if we say one religioin has got it right, the overwhelming majority have got it wrong in some way), it's often better than the nonexistent or muddled one you were following before, and you see the benefits of that. Similarly, that's why evolutionary biologists are able to find the roots of morality (altruism and empathy) in survival of the fittest. Looking from a religious persppective and saying morality has benefits, and looking from a non-religious perspective and saying that morality exists because it has benefits, is really saying the same thing, which is this:

What is TRULY good and right, is also good for society in the broadest sense. And what is good for society in the broadest sense, is also what is right. They are the same.

The unintended consequences of sex outside of marriage can, and does,  create a vicious and destructive cycle far worse than what is apparent.

However, I an not convinced that sex outside of marriage is ALWAYS wrong. Almost always, yes (like abortion). But there are isolated instances where it might make sense. As a broad-based moral rule, "No sex outside of marriage" is pretty good, though.

When it comes to true morality, I think we run into problems following a simple moral code. We also run into problems following our own judgement, but... the whole universe is very complicated. Why is it not possible that what is truly right and wrong is very nuanced as well? I think the moral codes put forward by various religions closely approximate the truth, but they do oversimplify it slightly, because simple ideas are easier to transmit than complex ones. But when we understand the principles that go behind the moral codes (understand WHY it's generally morally unaccceptable to do X, and what that means, rather than just understanding that X is unacceptable and anyone who does it is evil) then we have a better understanding of the objective truth, and the tools to evaluate situations on an individual basis. And that's what I think we're supposed to do. If God wanted to make a universe where we blindly obey simple rules, he would have done so. I think we have the ability to think and understand and make decisiions because we're supposed to actually use it, not submit to oversimplifications of right and wrong which divide us, but find the true right and wrong, which I think evidence is showing can be found in various different ways and from various directions, and in the end will unite us.

That's what I think, and what I'm pushing for people to understand. So I'm not trying to negate your moral code, but demonstrate to people outside of your religion that broadly speaking it makes sense, wile demonstrating to you that maybe the truth isn't quite as simple as you have been lead to believe. To put it mildly, it's a bit of a struggle sometimes... 

[JustMyron]

Do you believe that it is possible for people[in general, the masses] to conceal, or be utterly unaware of, serious flaws in our moral constitution? I call to mind chattel slavery, and its abolition. Now abortion, and hopefully its abolition.

Obviously. I can think of two ways right off the top of my head:
1. People have a vested interest in believing certain things (for literally thousands of possible reasons) and so they believe what they have an interest in believing rather than what is the truth.
2. People are simply unaware of an alternate way of looking at things, or unaware of a flaw in their logic. So they reach incorrect conclusions, and believe them to be correct.

This can happen anywhere where someone has a question about what is true, whether the investigation of the truth is viewed from a scientific or a moral perspective.

[QuestionMark]

When it comes to true morality, I think we run into problems following a simple moral code. We also run into problems following our own judgment, but... the whole universe is very complicated. Why is it not possible that what is truly right and wrong is very nuanced as well? I think the moral codes put forward by various religions closely approximate the truth, but they do oversimplify it slightly, because simple ideas are easier to transmit than complex ones. But when we understand the principles that go behind the moral codes (understand WHY it's generally morally unacceptable to do X, and what that means, rather than just understanding that X is unacceptable and anyone who does it is evil) then we have a better understanding of the objective truth, and the tools to evaluate situations on an individual basis. And that's what I think we're supposed to do. If God wanted to make a universe where we blindly obey simple rules, he would have done so. I think we have the ability to think and understand and make decisions because we're supposed to actually use it, not submit to oversimplifications of right and wrong which divide us, but find the true right and wrong, which I think evidence is showing can be found in various different ways and from various directions, and in the end will unite us.

I agree that we have problems following a simple moral code. Because life isn't simple, and the more burdensome the law becomes in the short term the more easily we are relieved to get rid of it by unlawful means.

1. The Law of the Bible that people usually talk about is predominantly civil. It's not meant to be the judgment of our souls, but to reflect that there is a judgment of our souls, and the nature of our judgment. But even the civil law shows uncertainty, and weakness in that it is powerless to prove righteousness, only guilt. It is written that in fact the whole purpose of the Law is to show that everyone is guilty. So we are all humbled to the category of unrighteous. If we all realized that we were all unrighteous and deserving of wrath, we ought to act differently. So as you stated, knowing that X is unacceptable and those who do evil is, to me, a very important part of the Law, but not the primary part.

2. The primary part of the Law, in theology, is learning the character of God. That God is life, and by obeying Him there is life, blessing, and peace. So we practice the Law to find it superior to our own will and ways, so that we truly identify with what God has done. The Law is a framework for learning what God would be like if He were right here bodily governing.

3. The letter of the Law, reflects the Spirit of the Law. It is unlawful by the letter to do work on the Sabbath. But it is lawful by the Spirit of the Law to do good work on the Sabbath. It is unlawful by the letter of the law to be covet, but it is lawful by the Spirit of the law to covet the closeness of another's relationship with God. So when you say that the law is too simple, I agree, because the Law was not meant to explain every circumstance in life and provide a solution. That is IMPOSSIBLE. It is to provide the framework and guide for how we approach things.

4. The number one effect of the Law on the reader, is to alienate and condemn selfishness. Putting God, your family, your nation, and all other humans before yourself. Cutting off lusts and desires which are not righteous in order to magnify something which is righteous.

5. I agree we shouldn't just take the words at face value; but practice them, meditate on them, and discuss them, trying to discern what exactly they mean. There are entire chapters of the Bible whose only purpose it seems is to tell us to meditate on God's law. To think about righteousness, and what it means to be a people of law, a race devoted to first reflecting God's glory rather than our own.

I disagree on your picture of unity though, because I think human nature is broken beyond natural repair... there may be unity but it will be false, or unnatural, and I cringe when people act as if unity is THE goal. Unity is a tool. We could be united and still be evil.

[JustMyron]

I disagree on your picture of unity though, because I think human nature is broken beyond natural repair... there may be unity but it will be false, or unnatural, and I cringe when people act as if unity is THE goal. Unity is a tool. We could be united and still be evil.

If there is objective truth, would not those who honestly seek it become unified around something good? The goal is to seek for truth, and hopefully find some. Unity is, in my view, an inevitable side effect of this process, because those who view something as truth when it is not will become aware of this, sooner or later.

Also, there's a difference between unity around a "foundation" of belief in God, and unity around how we should act. This is in response to this:

You see me as an obstacle because I divide people, and I have not come to unite people and tell them it's ok to do what you like as long as you get the functional conclusion that you wanted. Our foundation is wrong, and when our foundation is wrong the house will eventually crumble no matter how pretty or fashionable it is at the moment. When reality hits, all the trappings mean nothing, the foundation means everything.

I think we (as a society) stand a far greater chance of success in reducing abortions than we do of bringing people to God. Because no matter how you approach the truth, whether from a Christian or a utilitarian materialist atheist viewpoint, the obvious truth about how we should act is something we can agree on in almost all cases. Murder, generally not a good idea. Helping others, generally a good idea. Abortions, generally not a good idea. Caring for people even though they may not be perfect, genetically or otherwise, generally a good idea.

If you recognize that these general truths are agreed upon, while foundational beliefs such as a belief in God are not, you have two choices:
1. Get people to believe in God, and have very little effect on their behaviour (although if your view is correct a great effect on their fate in eternity).
or
2. Get people to recognize that they are all acting in the same way regardless of their foundational beliefs, and revise the law to reflect your shared belief that this is how people SHOULD act.

When reality hits, most people will have to make a 5% adjustment in how they're acting, and maybe a 90 degree turn in how they're thinking. The truth of how we should act is obvious to the majority of people, while the truth of why, and what we should think of it all, is not. I don't know why this is the case, I just know that it is. And if you choose #1 above, you'll lose your chance to do #2 because you'll lose most of the people who don't agree with your foundational beliefs, but choose #2 and lives get saved, which means you have more of a chance to do #1. And, since people don't like to be hypocrites, getting them to act in the correct way is a step towards getting them to think in the correct way, so in theory (if your foundational beliefs are correct) #2 helps #1 as much as #1 would help #2.

Bottom line: You can't get people to believe in God (at least not very many). But since they already believe abortions should be rare, you can get them to save some lives. I doubt God is going to fault you for not trying to save people you can't if you're focused on saving the people you can from abortion. There is a near-unity around how we should act which, because of divisions around foundational issues such as those expresed by your quote above, is not expressed by our laws (in Canada, I've found we have no laws whatsoever about abortion. We had one that made it illegal, but it was struck down by our Supreme Court as a contravention of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a 1982 amendment to our constitution, and nothing has been put in its place). I think it's worthwhile to recognize this disparity, and correct it.

The laws of our society are never going to be perfect. They will always be a compromise, and always require agreement between people who on other things fundamentally disagree. But they could be better than they are now, because such an agreement already exists.

And, just to be clear to those who think we should focus on being understanding to those who are considering abortion, a law which deals with areas where there is already a strong consensus (partial birth abortions, vaccuuming a fetus's brain out and hacking off its limbs, etc) would not preclude action on the social causes of abortion - in fact, laws supporting pregnancy and motherhood can and should be written, because there is a consensus here as well.

[QuestionMark]

If there is objective truth, would not those who honestly seek it become unified around something good?

Of course. But in seeking truth we become united, however in seeking unity there's no reason to think that we'd become good.

Conspirators and criminals are, as the saying goes, thick as thieves. There is a powerful unity to those who do evil(though it does not persist).

I think we (as a society) stand a far greater chance of success in reducing abortions than we do of bringing people to God.

If you can follow my reasoning that the true moral good causes a cycle of righteousness(as the moral evil causes a cycle of unrighteousness) and I would even add material wealth, then you must know that the first commandment is to have no other gods before the Lord. And the second is to have no idols. Even the idol of unity(humanism) or the idol of perfectionism(self-righteousness) etc. If we had no gods but the Lord, then we would be so sensitive as to strike dead those who murder, and rape, and we wouldn't have a fraction of the problems that we currently have. So we may look at stopping abortion as easier(than bringing people to God), just as the unrighteous look at having abortions as easier(than carrying the burden of a child). But what is easier is far more often the evil way.

Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

When reality hits, most people will have to make a 5% adjustment in how they're acting, and maybe a 90 degree turn in how they're thinking.

I can go with the idea of this, though not necessarily the percentages.

Psalm 23:7 For as he thinks within himself, so he is. He says to you, "Eat and drink!" But his heart is not with you.

But I had something of a revelation over the past few days, and I think I agree with you(as I did before, but now more heartily and confidently) that we must cooperate on eliminating abortion. However, my purpose here on these forums is still not to rid the world of abortion(because I do not think that a forum is the proper means) but ridding our hearts, rather, of the evil of permitting and promoting it.

[JustMyron]

But I had something of a revelation over the past few days, and I think I agree with you(as I did before, but now more heartily and confidently) that we must cooperate on eliminating abortion.

Wait... what? Really?

You just made my day.  Last time I tried to have this conversation (arguing that there was common ground between pro-choice and pro-life people), the guy I was talking to came to the conclusion that all liberals (by which he meant anyone who disagreed with his hard right-wing stance) houses "should be sprayed with insecticide like we do with mosquitoes" (although he felt this wasn't inciting violence as he didn't say anyone in particular should do the spraying. Direct quote "I used the passive voice - don't you have that up there in Canada?"). It was all rather depressing. Glad to hear it is still possible to build a bit of a shaky bridge, even though we may have some pretty fundamental disagreements, and some on either side say some pretty ridiculous things. THAT process, of coming together around things we share despite understanding there are plenty of things where we still disagree, is what I think this forum is about.

I'm in this thread because I think, for most strongly pro-life people, the idea that there is a real, solid opportunity to do good by cooperating with people they consider selfish lying murderers will be a revelation that takes some doing to get into their heads. But if it can be done, a lot of good can come from it, because it's about understanding people as people. Fallible and often mistaken, perhaps, but not all permanently lost. I'm here because I have some hope that by getting that message across, there can actually be some positive social change. It's not that I don't care what people think, or what their foundations are, or that I'm a Machiavellian pragmatist or a sell-out. But there are things in life I can change, and things in life I can't, and I just see that there is this really clear opportunity to push things in the right direction, if only I can get people to see it. After that, go right ahead and try to convince people to believe the way you do.

However, my purpose here on these forums is still not to rid the world of abortion(because I do not think that a forum is the proper means) but ridding our hearts, rather, of the evil of permitting and promoting it.

Super duper, that's a laudable goal. But please, if you could, also pass on what you've learned from this conversation to other pro-life people. They're much less likely to suggest that you should be killed.

But what is easier is far more often the evil way.

I fully agree. And the percentages in my quote above aren't important, it's the idea I was aiming to convey that's important.

All the best.  .

As for capital punishment for murder and rape... perhaps that is something we can talk about another day, maybe in another thread.

If you think it would be helpful, I would be glad to step through the rest of my reasoning for why abortions should be rare, by the way.

[QuestionMark]

3. Given we have to kill some things (in order to eat) our moral structures must permit killing under some circumstances. We are then tasked with figuring out what those circumstances are, according to objective rightness or wrongness, and determining the rationale by which we should make those decisions.

I didn't intend my statements to be the end of the conversation or thread by any means. I just argue with my fellows at work over a lot of things, and I try to stir up conversation, (They were originally nervous and unhappy with this situation but after nearly a year, I come to work ready to hear THEIR arguments for most of the morning, and process them before formulating my position in the afternoon, and it's become a great give and take).

One such argument was about Obama. I'm against Obama on almost every thing that he intends to do as Messiah per the great Louis Farakhan president. As you may know his first act as president, is apparently going to be the passage of the legislation that permits abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. But besides that, the man has a great education policy. However, I think it is suspect, in that he wants to unify and strengthen education, and he targets the youth in a lot of his ventures. In my opinion he's trying to do what many organizations and religions in the past have done. Compel the masses by forming their opinion for them when they are very young. In a round about way I've come to respect McCains lack of opinion on anything regarding education. It tells me he's not trying to steal our children. He respects parents, and respects liberty rather than compulsion.

But the reason I draw this out. My revelation over the past few days is that socialism, or more especially communism, creates an atmosphere of mutual poverty, so that it takes away a 'natural' drive to achieve, and compete. This is deadly to Christianity, though it would seem on the surface to be the embodiment of Christian politics. The Apostle Paul makes it explicit that the natural laws(the natural moral law) written on our hearts, and codified in the Old Testament, are a TUTOR to Christ. I don't want to expand much beyond that, but abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, and communism(removal of the striving to succeed, and achieve) seem to be spiritual attacks on the tutor of the Law. In other words, they fail to observe natural moral laws, and that is deadly physically, and spiritually.

I agree entirely with 3. It's a statement of fact. Recalling your post, I do not believe that you are Machiavellian. Unless you also believe that lying as pragmatism is acceptable, and you are deceiving me, you are very much different from him.

I understand point 4. I can't agree because I'm a Christian(have no desire, and can't fathom truly believing otherwise).

Point 5 seems to be an extension of the natural laws of investment. The things which are rarest, and hardest to come by, are more valuable. That's reasonable but much more complex than apparent.

6. By this metric, a human embryo, which is about as complex as a bacterium at first, and has a good chance of not surviving regardless of my actions, would be less valuable than the life of a mother, who has a set of unique experiences which would be lost forever if she were to die. But given the embryo's potential to develop into a human being, which is a potential not shared by other life on earth, it should still be valued relatively highly, and not casually destroyed. It is properly regarded as a seperate, growing organism, but not a seperate being, as being implies awareness and intelligence. An embryo immediately after conception is no more a being than a bacteria, but it does have the potential to become one. Therefore, where possible, it should be protected, but where the interests of a human being are severely negatively affected this should be taken into account as well.

And here is the complexity of it. Human beings do not direct our own evolution, almost never as individuals except by selection that we don't understand and rarely if ever succeed at effecting but naturally. And certainly not as a species. Every potential life, carries the potential to save our species from some super germ, or to make some genetic leap into superiority, or some intellectual genius able to change all of humanity for the best. I think that you are of a fair mind, and might recognize where I am going with this so I will conclude by pointing out that we are unlikely to know the true value of a single life, and the potential change that one child can bring is perhaps greater than the potential change of the mother. Yet again, there are very very few circumstances in which a mother's life is in jeopardy.

And if you would again recall, that if the natural law is really a law, then we should do everything possible to get the ideal of justice right in addition to the pragmatic value.