4 ms·

Is it? I strongly disagree with such a position. But it seems clear to me that many such people: 1. Believe that the foetus is alive (and often also that it is

Is it? I strongly disagree with such a position. But it seems clear to me that many such people: 1. Believe that the foetus is alive (and often also that it is human) 2. Believe that life is sacred or otherwise precious. 3. Believe that the foetus's right to life outweighs the mother's right the self-determine use of her body. I can understand how one can have a thought process like that even if I think it's wrong in numerous different ways.

astrange 4y ago
People certainly do believe these things and I don’t know if it’s even something they can be “logically” wrong about. Where they are factually wrong is that they think they’re traditional but these are fully modern ideas. The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those; the actual Christian tradition may be for them, but the idea that you should actually read the Bible, know what an official position is, or do anything yourself outside of talking to a priest is a modern invention of Protestantism. And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  Oh, it's logically wrong on a number of levels. If they believe all three of these things, as well as the unsaid and equally necessary fourth that it is the government's job to enforce them regardless of the will of the people, then they must also believe - It is the government's job to ensure -everyone- receives necessary care. That means, minimally, food, shelter, healthcare, regardless of your work situation, age, (dis)ability, etc. Life > personal autonomy, so organ donation is not optional, nor is blood donation. If your kidney is a match for someone who needs one, you're forced to donate, that sort of thing. And expect monthly trips to the blood donation van. Etc. Anything else and these are logically inconsistent.
  - astrange 4y ago
    It’s fairly common to believe you shouldn’t kill people but have no responsibility to keep them alive. Actually, believing they’re the same thing is more like EA utilitarianism, isn’t it? Almost noone has that philosophy and most would find it repulsive.
    - lostcolony 4y ago
      >> It’s fairly common to believe you shouldn’t kill people but have no responsibility to keep them alive. Which is why Roe v. Wade's recognition of abortion being protected until a fetus is considered viable. But, that call out is worth also enumerating - a logically consistent position with that would be that it's legally acceptable to remove someone from life support. Potentially regardless of their wishes, depending on the level of nuance.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - reedjosh 4y ago
    Hey! Awesome reply. I'm pretty much anti-abortion myself, but draw the line at your point. So, I'm practically pro-choice. > it is the government's job to enforce Which is where I say we stop on the whole abortion thing. So, I'm an anti-abortion pro-choicer? Kinda weird I suppose. Falling between two camps isn't popular these days.
    - lostcolony 4y ago
      Maybe? A lot of the Christian people I know and like fall in between. Regardless of their personal views, they look at the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion, and then also the moral fiber of the current GOP, and go "nope", and either abstain from voting, vote third party, or vote Democrat (potentially while holding their nose). I've yet to meet the hardliner who wants to ban abortion, but then also is sufficiently pro-welfare to really show they care about life, let alone finding a logically consistent path through all the other knock on effects. Carlin had it right; they tend to be pro-birth, not pro-life.
      - reedjosh 4y ago
        > the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion And this is what I've been finding lately as I've been reading and researching the bible.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        > Christian people [...] look at the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion Isn't reforming pagan Rome essentially the foundational act of the Christian religion? Christ critiqued the system and was tortured to death for it. Followers of Christ continued to critiqued the system and many more were tortured to death for it. The strength of their conviction in the face of death inspired more followers, as did the evident injustice of the Roman system. Before long, they had enough mindshare to enact reform. Keeping religion out of politics seems like an American value, not a Christian value.
        lostcolony 4y ago
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those I think that Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, would have something to say[0] about that: “The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind,” (Josephus, Against Apion Book 2, Chapter 25, Section 202). > And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism. That's like saying that Protestants didn't believe in God until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholics who are theists. Do you have any example of historic Protestant teaching that approved of abortion? [0] https://carm.org/abortion/abortion-and-the-early-church/ https://carm.org/abortion/abortion-and-the-early-church/
  - astrange 4y ago
    > I think that Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, would have something to say[0] about that I mean, he’s not a rabbi or anything. It was considered somewhat less bad than murder, or possibly is only bad when Romans do it. https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19861990/feldman_abortion.pdf https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/publi... > That's like saying that Protestants didn't believe in God until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholics who are theists. Surely the Protestants’ idea was they’re the ones who believe in God and Catholics are idolators who worship saints? > Do you have any example of historic Protestant teaching that approved of abortion? They switched to being against it in the 70s, so is 68 historic? https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/ https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evang... (page is somewhat broken)
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      > I mean, he’s not a rabbi or anything. “On the authority of Rabbi Ishmael, it was said: [A murderer is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. What is Rabbi Ishmael’s reason? Because it is written, ‘Whosoever sheddeth the blood of man within a man, his blood shall be shed.’ What is a man within a man? An embryo in his mother’s womb,” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b). > is 68 historic? I wasn't aware of Waltke's position, which is cited by that CNN article, but I don't think it represents the consensus of Christian scholars at the time, and in any case, he later (in 1976) reversed his position, concluding: "The fetus is human and therefore to be accorded the same protection to life granted every other human being."
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism. Did they really have to have an official position when the state said it was illegal?
  - rat87 4y ago
    Protestants aren't pretty fractured but a number of groups even fairly conservative ones(like southern Baptist convention) didn't care or were pro choice. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ukju68/in_1973_the_southern_baptist_conventions_news/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ukju68/in_19...
    - robonerd 4y ago
      You're using the past tense, but even today they're fractured. 24% of white evangelical protestants are pro-choice; 60% of white (not evangelical) protestants are pro choice, and 66% of black protestants are pro-choice. If we narrow consideration to just white evangelical protestants, a 24% / 74% split is clearly a strong trend against abortion. Even so, 1 in 4 is by no means rare. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...
      - rat87 4y ago
        I meant more that there are many different denominations that claim to be Protestant, many taking different opinions on abortion. Not that opinion among lay protestants is not 100% which I agree with

astrange 4y ago

People certainly do believe these things and I don’t know if it’s even something they can be “logically” wrong about. Where they are factually wrong is that they think they’re traditional but these are fully modern ideas. The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those; the actual Christian tradition may be for them, but the idea that you should actually read the Bible, know what an official position is, or do anything yourself outside of talking to a priest is a modern invention of Protestantism. And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism.

lostcolony 4y ago
Oh, it's logically wrong on a number of levels. If they believe all three of these things, as well as the unsaid and equally necessary fourth that it is the government's job to enforce them regardless of the will of the people, then they must also believe - It is the government's job to ensure -everyone- receives necessary care. That means, minimally, food, shelter, healthcare, regardless of your work situation, age, (dis)ability, etc. Life > personal autonomy, so organ donation is not optional, nor is blood donation. If your kidney is a match for someone who needs one, you're forced to donate, that sort of thing. And expect monthly trips to the blood donation van. Etc. Anything else and these are logically inconsistent.
- astrange 4y ago
  It’s fairly common to believe you shouldn’t kill people but have no responsibility to keep them alive. Actually, believing they’re the same thing is more like EA utilitarianism, isn’t it? Almost noone has that philosophy and most would find it repulsive.
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    >> It’s fairly common to believe you shouldn’t kill people but have no responsibility to keep them alive. Which is why Roe v. Wade's recognition of abortion being protected until a fetus is considered viable. But, that call out is worth also enumerating - a logically consistent position with that would be that it's legally acceptable to remove someone from life support. Potentially regardless of their wishes, depending on the level of nuance.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- reedjosh 4y ago
  Hey! Awesome reply. I'm pretty much anti-abortion myself, but draw the line at your point. So, I'm practically pro-choice. > it is the government's job to enforce Which is where I say we stop on the whole abortion thing. So, I'm an anti-abortion pro-choicer? Kinda weird I suppose. Falling between two camps isn't popular these days.
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    Maybe? A lot of the Christian people I know and like fall in between. Regardless of their personal views, they look at the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion, and then also the moral fiber of the current GOP, and go "nope", and either abstain from voting, vote third party, or vote Democrat (potentially while holding their nose). I've yet to meet the hardliner who wants to ban abortion, but then also is sufficiently pro-welfare to really show they care about life, let alone finding a logically consistent path through all the other knock on effects. Carlin had it right; they tend to be pro-birth, not pro-life.
    - reedjosh 4y ago
      > the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion And this is what I've been finding lately as I've been reading and researching the bible.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      > Christian people [...] look at the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion Isn't reforming pagan Rome essentially the foundational act of the Christian religion? Christ critiqued the system and was tortured to death for it. Followers of Christ continued to critiqued the system and many more were tortured to death for it. The strength of their conviction in the face of death inspired more followers, as did the evident injustice of the Roman system. Before long, they had enough mindshare to enact reform. Keeping religion out of politics seems like an American value, not a Christian value.
      - lostcolony 4y ago
dane-pgp 4y ago
> The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those I think that Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, would have something to say[0] about that: “The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind,” (Josephus, Against Apion Book 2, Chapter 25, Section 202). > And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism. That's like saying that Protestants didn't believe in God until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholics who are theists. Do you have any example of historic Protestant teaching that approved of abortion? [0] https://carm.org/abortion/abortion-and-the-early-church/ https://carm.org/abortion/abortion-and-the-early-church/
- astrange 4y ago
  > I think that Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, would have something to say[0] about that I mean, he’s not a rabbi or anything. It was considered somewhat less bad than murder, or possibly is only bad when Romans do it. https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19861990/feldman_abortion.pdf https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/publi... > That's like saying that Protestants didn't believe in God until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholics who are theists. Surely the Protestants’ idea was they’re the ones who believe in God and Catholics are idolators who worship saints? > Do you have any example of historic Protestant teaching that approved of abortion? They switched to being against it in the 70s, so is 68 historic? https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/ https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evang... (page is somewhat broken)
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > I mean, he’s not a rabbi or anything. “On the authority of Rabbi Ishmael, it was said: [A murderer is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. What is Rabbi Ishmael’s reason? Because it is written, ‘Whosoever sheddeth the blood of man within a man, his blood shall be shed.’ What is a man within a man? An embryo in his mother’s womb,” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b). > is 68 historic? I wasn't aware of Waltke's position, which is cited by that CNN article, but I don't think it represents the consensus of Christian scholars at the time, and in any case, he later (in 1976) reversed his position, concluding: "The fetus is human and therefore to be accorded the same protection to life granted every other human being."
UncleEntity 4y ago
> And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism. Did they really have to have an official position when the state said it was illegal?
- rat87 4y ago
  Protestants aren't pretty fractured but a number of groups even fairly conservative ones(like southern Baptist convention) didn't care or were pro choice. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ukju68/in_1973_the_southern_baptist_conventions_news/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ukju68/in_19...
  - robonerd 4y ago
    You're using the past tense, but even today they're fractured. 24% of white evangelical protestants are pro-choice; 60% of white (not evangelical) protestants are pro choice, and 66% of black protestants are pro-choice. If we narrow consideration to just white evangelical protestants, a 24% / 74% split is clearly a strong trend against abortion. Even so, 1 in 4 is by no means rare. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...
    - rat87 4y ago
      I meant more that there are many different denominations that claim to be Protestant, many taking different opinions on abortion. Not that opinion among lay protestants is not 100% which I agree with