Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[HisServant]

I draw the line at supposed christians who judge those who know no better (non-christians) instead of reaching out in love and preaching repentance.

 

[MaryContrary]

...instead of reaching out in love and preaching repentance.

Okay.

I draw the line at supposed christians who judge those who know no better (non-christians)...

Wait, what?

Romans 2:12-16 (New King James Version)
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Uh, no. Non-Christians generally know right from wrong and are even judged of themselves by the law written in their hearts. When a non-Christian commits murder it's quite reasonable to judge that they've done wrong. Even verbally. Out loud. To them. We can even fairly safely assume they knew they were doing wrong when they did so and are capable of recognizing that when it's pointed out, else why bother sharing our opinions on the matter?

I wasn't always a Christian and when I wasn't I still had a reasonable grasp of right and wrong. Certainly enough that I'd have agreed murdering a baby is a bad thing. Weren't you ever not a Christian? Were you incapable of determining whether abortion is murder, whether or not it was wrong? There are plenty of pro-life non-Christians out there, in point of fact.

And to put a sharper point on it, the thing that about this post that made me :mmph:. I can't help but think it's a fairly horrid insult to non-Christians to judge them completely incapable of determining right from wrong or acting in accordance with that. Of course they can. They do it all the time.

I guess I draw the line at Christians (and I'll spare you the snarky "supposed" here) who pretend non-Christians have no conscience at all and need them to preach love and repentance before they can determine murdering a baby is wrong. :squint:

So. If murder is wrong and non-Christians are capable enough of determining that, and it's safe to assume they knew it was wrong when they actually murdered a baby...then the most reasonable approach to this would be both harsh judgment of the murderers as murderers as well as lovingly preaching repentance. Don't you think?

You provoke the conscience they otherwise seared or stifled, in order to murder the baby in the first, to speak up and agree with your judgment that they're murderers. And that that's a bad thing to be. Followed by lovingly preaching repentance, to provoke their desire for mercy in light of their evil that they've been confronted with, and pointing them to Christ, where that mercy can be obtained.

Or would that be granting non-Christians too much the assumption of humanity?

 

[quip]

You know my position Oz. I'm content with the current viability standard.

 

[Samstarrett]

You know my position Oz. I'm content with the current viability standard.

By that standard, when you become a person depends on the state of medical technology in your particular part of the world at your particular time.

 

[HisServant]

Okay.

Romans 2:12-16 (New King James Version)
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Wait, what?

Uh, no. Non-Christians generally know right from wrong and are even judged of themselves by the law written in their hearts. When a non-Christian commits murder it's quite reasonable to judge that they've done wrong. Even verbally. Out loud. To them. We can even fairly safely assume they knew they were doing wrong when they did so and are capable of recognizing that when it's pointed out, else why bother sharing our opinions on the matter?

I wasn't always a Christian and when I wasn't I still had a reasonable grasp of right and wrong. Certainly enough that I'd have agreed murdering a baby is a bad thing. Weren't you ever not a Christian? Were you incapable of determining whether abortion is murder, whether or not it was wrong? There are plenty of pro-life non-Christians out there, in point of fact.

And to put a sharper point on it, the thing that about this post that made me :mmph:. I can't help but think it's a fairly horrid insult to non-Christians to judge them completely incapable of determining right from wrong or acting in accordance with that. Of course they can. They do it all the time.

I guess I draw the line at Christians (and I'll spare you the snarky "supposed" here) who pretend non-Christians have no conscience at all and need them to preach love and repentance before they can determine murdering a baby is wrong. :squint:

So. If murder is wrong and non-Christians are capable enough of determining that, and it's safe to assume they knew it was wrong when they actually murdered a baby...then the most reasonable approach to this would be both harsh judgment of the murderers as murderers as well as lovingly preaching repentance. Don't you think?

You provoke the conscience they otherwise seared or stifled, in order to murder the baby in the first, to speak up and agree with your judgment that they're murderers. And that that's a bad thing to be. Followed by lovingly preaching repentance, to provoke their desire for mercy in light of their evil that they've been confronted with, and pointing them to Christ, where that mercy can be obtained.

Or would that be granting non-Christians too much the assumption of humanity?

Much ado about nothing. You obviously do not understand the word of God very well. Early christians were identified as people who did not murder their children... according to Diognetus epistle to Mathesus. They were not identified as people who imposed God's sense of right and wrong on the unwashed masses.

Romans 2
God’s Righteous Judgment
1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

[mighty_duck]

By that standard, when you become a person depends on the state of medical technology in your particular part of the world at your particular time.

When using viability as your metric, personhood is a non-issue.

But yes, if in the future we can teleport fetuses out of the womb and incubate them at any time, then the age of viability will go down. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[Samstarrett]

When using viability as your metric, personhood is a non-issue.

So, viability supporters think it doesn't matter whether what you're killing is a person?

But yes, if in the future we can teleport fetuses out of the womb and incubate them at any time, then the age of viability will go down. Isn't that a good thing?

In itself, of course it's a good thing, but it shows the absurdity of using viability as a measure of personhood. Of course, if as you say, personhood doesn't matter to those who use viability as a standard, then maybe I've been attacking a strawman. I guess I assumed we all agreed that the question was whether a fetus was a person, not whether we could legitimately kill a person who has committed no crime.

 

[quip]

By that standard, when you become a person depends on the state of medical technology in your particular part of the world at your particular time.

It has nothing to do with personhood, everything to do with state protection of the unborn.

 

[Samstarrett]

It has nothing to do with personhood, everything to do with state protection of the unborn.

Should not state protection of the unborn begin at the point when the unborn become persons?

 

[quip]

Should not state protection of the unborn begin at the point when the unborn become persons?

Personhood for the unborn is not objectively discernable; protection for the viable seems reasonable...no?

 

[mighty_duck]

So, viability supporters think it doesn't matter whether what you're killing is a person?

Maybe I shouldn't speak for them. Perhaps they would claim that one the requirements for a person is that they be viable, which is a moving line as technology changes.

I don't quite see the absurdity, even if I disagree.

In itself, of course it's a good thing, but it shows the absurdity of using viability as a measure of personhood. Of course, if as you say, personhood doesn't matter to those who use viability as a standard, then maybe I've been attacking a strawman. I guess I assumed we all agreed that the question was whether a fetus was a person, not whether we could legitimately kill a person who has committed no crime.

For this thread, the question is when we draw the line for abortion.

 

[Samstarrett]

Personhood for the unborn is not objectively discernable;

Then I say protect 'em all.

protection for the viable seems reasonable...no?

No. If we don't know who is and is not a person, we ought to err on the side of not killing people rather than set up an arbitrary and movable standard for determining whom to protect.

 

[Samstarrett]

Maybe I shouldn't speak for them. Perhaps they would claim that one the requirements for a person is that they be viable, which is a moving line as technology changes.

I don't quite see the absurdity, even if I disagree.

It seems absurd to me because that would mean personhood is not something that inheres in an individual, but is dependent on particular circumstances such as the state of technology and the person's location. It makes personhood a circumstantial rather than ontological question.

For this thread, the question is when we draw the line for abortion.

Of course. But how could a reasonable person draw the line at a point later than the point where he thought the unborn became persons? To do so would be to endorse the killing of persons who have committed no crime.

 

[quip]

Then I say protect 'em all.

That's fine, as long as women with unwanted pregnancies retain the right to act in disagreement.

No. If we don't know who is and is not a person, we ought to err on the side of not killing people rather than set up an arbitrary and movable standard for determining whom to protect.

Arbitrariness is unavoidable. Your 'solution' is as arbitrary as any other point of development.

 

[Samstarrett]

That's fine, as long as women with an unwanted pregnancies retain the right to act in disagreement.

No, I don't think they should.

Arbitrariness is unavoidable. Your 'solution' is as arbitrary as any other point of development.

My solution is fertilization, which is in no way arbitrary; it marks the beginning of a distinct, new individual. Prior to fertilization, sperm and egg are parts of separate, pre-existing individuals; afterward, there is a zygote, a distinct, new individual.

 

[Paulos]

If you (anyone) believe that abortion is murder, why aren't you taking up arms to prevent abortions from happening?

 

[Samstarrett]

If you (anyone) believe that abortion is murder, why aren't you taking up arms to prevent abortions from happening?

If you believe that gang members are murdering people on the streets of(fill in virtually any large city here), why aren't you taking up arms to prevent those murders from happening?

 

[quip]

No, I don't think they should.

As you're a lifer ....I'd be suprised otherwise!

My solution is fertilization, which is in no way arbitrary; it marks the beginning of a distinct, new individual. Prior to fertilization, sperm and egg are parts of separate, pre-existing individuals; afterward, there is a zygote, a distinct, new individual.

The value you place on the collective unborn (and subsequent 'err' avoidance) is equally as arbitrary as any other point of development.

 

[Samstarrett]

The value you place on the collective unborn (and subsequent 'err' avoidance) is equally as arbitrary as any other point of development.

The point of fertilization clearly marks the beginning of a new individual. It is not arbitrary; there is a clear and fundamental difference between what exists one second before fertilization and what exists one second afterward. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

 

[Paulos]

If you believe that gang members are murdering people on the streets of(fill in virtually any large city here), why aren't you taking up arms to prevent those murders from happening?

You know where and when abortions are taking place--in abortion clinics during working hours. I do not know where or when gang murders are going to take place. The analogy fails.