[gwnn]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-25, 06:41, said:

Gwnn, lines are invented by humans. Nature has no lines. You cannot find a line where there is no line.

Rik

Yes of course there is no objectively optimal place for the "line" but there still should be one (Greg House thought the line should be at birth, fair enough, that is also a line and as he said it is at least very clear cut and easy to enforce), right now it is at the end of the 1st trimester (I think?) and everyone who thinks it should be closer to inception is a complete retard who cannot stay out of other people's business and potentially kills doctors. Likewise, everyone who thinks the line should be farther from inception is a baby killer.

There is also no 'line' in nature for things like retirement, drinking age, voting, etc, but we still draw lines there and I'm happy we do.

[Winstonm]

nigel_k, on 2012-October-24, 23:22, said:

I think you are all missing the point here. Those who are against abortion for religious reasons believe that it is equivalent to killing somebody. Why would you make it legal for someone to kill an innocent child if and only if the killer was raped recently? This is just a total failure to see things from the other side's point of view.

The fact that the other side's point of view is utterly inconsistent with fact and logic makes it harder, to be sure. But this view is not new or rare. It is shared by a large percentage of Americans.

This is inaccurate. Common belief in the supernatural establishes a common fence over which sides can be taken. This is a matter of emotions. Those who reject the supernatural have no fence.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on 2012-October-24, 20:59, said:

Similarly, the belief that God does act on a day to day basis to influence the lives of both believers and non believers is a universal feature of christian belief. God sitting in judgement and providing temporal punishment is a fairly common theme. In the bible God, on multiple occasions, sends angels to help out his believers, and prophets to influence the course of events. These explicit acts are the exception, the rule being small spiritual nudges, but still, all of christianity believes that God can and does answer prayers. I am not sure what you intend to say in opposing the conception of an activist God, as you say, but I am pretty sure you are leaving mainstream Christian theology. I have no particluar knowledge of the ECLA, but it would be truly shocking if they have really abandoned a theological belief in an activist God, and way out of line with other Lutheran denominations.

With respect to angels and the Bible: I was always taught that most of the Bible should be viewed as allegory and fable. Stories about angels, parting the Red Sea and the like were not to be taken literally. (It should be noted that one of the great dividing lines in the schism between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the Missouri Synod focused on biblical literalism which the ELCA strongly rejected). The Church certainly does accept that miracles happened - most notably the Resurrection - however, the time of miracles ended long long ago.

With respect to the answering of prayers... Prayer (communing with God) is obviously part of the Lutheran Church and there is a belief that God answers prayers. However, I was always taught that you don't pray for material things like a winning lottery ticket. (God isn't going to rewrite the universe so you win the lottery and some other poor schmuck loses) Rather, you pray for understanding, acceptance, and comfort.

[TimG]

phil_20686, on 2012-October-24, 20:59, said:

There are estimated 35,000 persons born every year in the US who were conceived in rape. Who are you to say that the world would be better if none of them ever existed?

I believe the position is that the world would be a better place if a woman has control over what takes place in her body, not that the world would be a better place with or without the lives of individuals who were conceived through rape.

[ArtK78]

A modest proposal - could we move the discussion of abortion and religion to another thread? This was, and still is, primarily a political thread, and, while there is no doubt a crossover between politics and religion, that was not the primary theme of this thread.

As a practical matter, one will never convince another of anything which is based on a religious belief.

Thanks.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2012-October-25, 09:09, said:

A modest proposal - could we move the discussion of abortion and religion to another thread? This was, and still is, primarily a political thread, and, while there is no doubt a crossover between politics and religion, that was not the primary theme of this thread.

As a practical matter, one will never convince another of anything which is based on a religious belief.

This is true, and you are probably right that this discussion should be moved. It is important, however, to not lose sight of the fact that a large component of American politics consists of people whose views are informed by religious belief attempting to force their practices on others.

[Trinidad]

... just like in e.g. Afghanistan.

Rik

[ArtK78]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-25, 09:49, said:

This is true, and you are probably right that this discussion should be moved. It is important, however, to not lose sight of the fact that a large component of American politics consists of people whose views are informed by religious belief attempting to force their practices on others.

All the more reason why we should not allow any participants of these Fora from trying to force their practices on us. Not that anyone here would ever attempt such a thing.

[lalldonn]

phil_20686, on 2012-October-24, 20:59, said:

There are estimated 35,000 persons born every year in the US who were conceived in rape. Who are you to say that the world would be better if none of them ever existed?

You should read Freakonomics sometime.

[PassedOut]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-25, 09:49, said:

This is true, and you are probably right that this discussion should be moved. It is important, however, to not lose sight of the fact that a large component of American politics consists of people whose views are informed by religious belief attempting to force their practices on others.

I regret posting the video containing the Mourdock/Romney comments. Seems it was bound to debase the discussion.

When I started this thread, it seemed to me that the chances of Romney eventually winning were much greater than Nate's 4:1 would indicate. Given that Bush was reelected by many of the same voters who will vote in November, it was hard to imagine that Romney would not pull in lots of those folks eventually.

Clearly Romney will say anything to get votes and he goes out of his way to let as many folks as possible project their own opinions on him now. Who knows how he will actually govern, if elected?

Of course folks projected their own beliefs on Obama too. Even though Obama ran as a centrist, many liberals have been dismayed that he's governed as a centrist. The right-wingers thought Obama was a radical in disguise (if elected, he was going to take away the guns, take away Rush Limbaugh's freedom of speech, etc., etc.), but now they think that his governing as a centrist is evidence of an even more diabolic plot -- to gain another term where Obama can then wreak his havoc.

[dwar0123]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-25, 10:16, said:

... just like in e.g. Afghanistan.

Rik

As much as I am leery of wading in on this topic, you and Vampyr seem to be overloading on emotive arguments while simultaneously completely missing the point.

I have no religious basis for my point of view, with respect to the idea of God I am as agnostic as you can get, with respect to any specific religion it would be fair to say I am an affirmed non-believer.

Rape is horrible, but so is murder, if you can convince me that aborting a fetus is not equivalent to killing a baby, then you might make some progress in convincing me of my error.

Causing a woman to have to carry an unwanted child to term is a horrible and tragic burden to lay on anyone, but when the only alternative is to kill an innocent human being, I am not sure how anyone can so casually dismiss the other point of view with these trite arguments.

[PassedOut]

The Post has a couple of good pieces that bear on Obama's stewardship:

1. By Fareed Zakaria: The U.S. economy is recovering well

Quote

[T]he IMF projects that the United States will be the strongest of the world’s rich economies. U.S. growth is forecast to average 3 percent, much stronger than that of Germany or France (1.2 percent) or even Canada (2.3 percent). Increasingly, the evidence suggests that the United States has come out of the financial crisis of 2008 in better shape than its peers — because of the actions of its government.

Perhaps the most important cause of America’s relative health is the Federal Reserve. Ben Bernanke understood the depths of the problem early and responded energetically and creatively. The clearest vindication of his actions has been that the European Central Bank, after charting the opposite course for three years with disastrous results, has adopted policies similar to the Fed’s — and averted a potential Lehman-like collapse in Europe. (Mitt Romney’s two most prominent academic advisers, Glenn Hubbard and Gregory Mankiw, seem to recognize this, but Romney apparently doesn’t. As recently as August the Republican presidential nominee repeated his criticisms of the Fed and promised to replace Bernanke at its helm.)

2. By Karen DeYoung: CIA veteran John Brennan transforms U.S. counterterrorism policy

Quote

One CIA colleague, former general counsel John Rizzo, recalled his rectitude surfacing in unexpected ways. Brennan once questioned Rizzo’s use of the “BCC” function in the agency’s e-mail system to send a blind copy of a message to a third party without the primary recipient’s knowledge.

“He wasn’t joking,” Rizzo said. “He regarded that as underhanded.”

Brennan, 57, was born in the gritty New Jersey town of North Bergen, across the Hudson River from Midtown Manhattan. His Irish-immigrant parents, now in their early 90s, were strict and devout Catholics, traits his brother Tom said Brennan embodied from an early age. “It was almost like I had two fathers,” Tom Brennan said.

John Brennan’s formative experiences at Fordham University, where he earned a degree in political science, included a summer in Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population, and a junior year at the American University in Cairo, where he studied Arabic and the region that would dominate his intelligence career and greatly influence his White House tenure.

...

Brennan was given responsibility in the White House for counterterrorism and homeland security, a position that required no Senate confirmation and had no well-defined duties. At the outset, colleagues said they wondered what his job would be.

But to a young administration new to the secret details of national security threats and responsibilities, Brennan was a godsend.

And for the man passed over for other posts, it was vindication. “I’ve been crucified by the left and the right, equally so,” and rejected by the Bush administration “because I was not seen as someone who was a team player,” Brennan said in the interview.

“I’m probably not a team player here, either,” he said of the Obama administration. “I tend to do what I think is right. But I find much more comfort, I guess, in the views and values of this president.”

I don't always agree with Obama, but I did not expect to. (Even Constance and I don't agree on everything -- with firearms being right at the top of the disagreement list). But I'm very comfortable with Obama as president, a far cry from how I felt during the Bush years.

[Winstonm]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-25, 10:16, said:

... just like in e.g. Afghanistan.

Rik

c
I have made this argument only to hear in defense how Christianity is so much better than Islamic beliefs. Sigh. It is hard to score when the goalposts are constantly moving.

[Trinidad]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-25, 10:34, said:

Causing a woman to have to carry an unwanted child to term is a horrible and tragic burden to lay on anyone, but when the only alternative is to kill an innocent human being, I am not sure how anyone can so casually dismiss the other point of view with these trite arguments.

Don't worry. I take serious point of views about moral subjects (abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc.) very serious and I respect them. I understand your argument, I respect it and I even think it is a valid one. I will address it below. Point of views that I do not take serious are: "Because my religion (or for that matter: any philosophy on life) says so and my religion is the only right one, this is how it is and it applies universally.". Why do I not take them seriously? Because if you ask why should that be so, you get the answer: "Because my religion says so...".

Now to your argument: I agree with your argument that you shouldn't kill any human being, whether in or out of the womb. And then inevitably you get to gwnn's point: Where is the line that marks the start of life?

My answer is: I don't know. In fact, I stated that there is not even such a line. I do know, though, that ministers, Mourdock or Mitt don't know either. And I know who knows best: MOM. She is the only person who has an idea of when life starts. She can feel what is going on inside her body and she knows best whether there is life or not. She is the expert.

In this discussion, these experts are sidelined. And they are sidelined with the fake argument: "Because my religion says so." This argument is used in various places, also in creationism vs evolution in education. As a scientist, that discussion concerns me. It hurts me to see how this fake argument damages education and science in the US. But in the end I can shrug my shoulders, shake my head about so much stupidity and act as if I don't care. It is not really personal, is it?

In the abortion discussion this is entirely different. The women -the experts- whom it concerns cannot possibly shrug their shoulders. Life changing decisions that they could make best themselves are made for them by people who know zip about such a decision and they base this on a fake argument. How can we ask these women -for whom this is very personal- to just shrug their shoulders, shake their heads and act as if they don't care? I find that inhumane.

Rik

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on 2012-October-24, 20:59, said:

The idea that God is intimately, and personally, involved in the creation of every human being goes back to the very first years of Christianity. Most famously in Jerimiah Chapter 1 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart.". I could look up a bunch of Psalms for you, but its late here. God is the Author of every individual human life, as well as human life generally, and that has been a feature of Christian belief since the very beginning. Similarly, the belief that God does act on a day to day basis to influence the lives of both believers and non believers is a universal feature of christian belief. God sitting in judgement and providing temporal punishment is a fairly common theme. In the bible God, on multiple occasions, sends angels to help out his believers, and prophets to influence the course of events. These explicit acts are the exception, the rule being small spiritual nudges, but still, all of christianity believes that God can and does answer prayers. I am not sure what you intend to say in opposing the conception of an activist God, as you say, but I am pretty sure you are leaving mainstream Christian theology. I have no particluar knowledge of the ECLA, but it would be truly shocking if they have really abandoned a theological belief in an activist God, and way out of line with other Lutheran denominations.

So, for kicks and giggles I checked in with one my co-workers who is

1. Still actively involved with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
2. A sunday school teacher in said organization (This isn't any kind of ordained position, but it does represent an individual who is trusted to convey church teachings to the next generation)

His understanding matches my recollections.

1. No activist role for god
2. No miracles in the past couple thousands years
3. Prayer is for communion and comfort, not any kind of physical change

Here's a couple of examples that he threw out.

"If I were worried about losing my job, I wouldn't go and pray to God. God doesn't decided whether or not I am going to get fired. Mike does."

"A couple weeks back, my kid was sick. I prayed over it. I didn't pray for god to make my child better, I prayed to be patient with the situation. On occasion, everyone slips and you ask god to intercede and make the kid better. However, this isn't the way things work. The world moves as the world moves. We pray so that we can accept and understand."

This is the same stuff that I learned as a teen... (FWIW, while I only have direct experience of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, I don't think that any of this is particular out of line with mainline Protestant Theology in the US, at least not the strain that's taught in New England and the Mid Atlantic States)

So, next time you decide to talk for "all of Christianity", you might might want to consider that your track record is spotty at best... You're a very knowledgeable individual, but you over generalize like crazy (especially when you're pontificating about religion).

[dwar0123]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-25, 16:06, said:

My answer is: I don't know. In fact, I stated that there is not even such a line. I do know, though, that ministers, Mourdock or Mitt don't know either. And I know who knows best: MOM. She is the only person who has an idea of when life starts. She can feel what is going on inside her body and she knows best whether there is life or not. She is the expert.

It is hard for me to accept that any "MOM" that is advocating the death of her child is really doing that from the "MOM" perspective. Anyway, why does a mother lose the right to kill their children at the end of the first trimester, heck I know some woman who wish they still had that right for their grown children.

All analogies are going to be inherently trite as about the only thing worse than forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term is death.

So when I say that my neighbor playing loud music at 3 am, day after day, no matter how I protest, causes me to decide as the expert experiencing the situation that 3 months is long enough and it is time for the problem to die. I know that the analogy is flawed because it doesn't get to the depth nor breadth of bullsh!t that the woman has to put up with. Yet still people have killed others for less, but we don't condone it. So if 3 months of loud music at night isn't enough to justify murder, what is enough. Certainly self defense rises to that level and few argue against abortion when the life of the mother is threatened.

So there is another line that we can draw to justify abortion, convince me that 9 months of unwanted pregnancy rises to the level of justified homicide or you can still convince me that the fetus isn't a human being killed.

I don't think the argument that mothers knows best holds much weight, I wish it did. I don't enjoy being pro-life, it makes me unpopular with people whom I otherwise get along with great.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2012-October-25, 10:22, said:

All the more reason why we should not allow any participants of these Fora from trying to force their practices on us. Not that anyone here would ever attempt such a thing.

Oh they totally do! Have you read the recent arguments in favour of forcing and/or semi-forcing 1NT responses?

dwar0123, on 2012-October-25, 17:10, said:

I don't enjoy being pro-life, it makes me unpopular with people whom I otherwise get along with great.

Well, there is at least some point before a foetus can think or feel. So you could become more popular by agreeing with the right to choose a very early abortion.

Of course you would do better to follow your beliefs by not having an abortion yourself, and keeping your nose out of other people's uteri.

[ArtK78]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-25, 17:10, said:

It is hard for me to accept that any "MOM" that is advocating the death of her child is really doing that from the "MOM" perspective. Anyway, why does a mother lose the right to kill their children at the end of the first trimester, heck I know some woman who wish they still had that right for their grown children.

You have some sympathy for this position. Cartman's mom on South Park. She was lobbying for allowing late term abortions - through the 40th trimester (and no, that is not a typo).

Of course, her lobbying effort consisted of sleeping with anyone who she thought had some authority, up to and including President Bill Clinton.

[Bbradley62]

Nate was on Out Front with Eric Burnett tonight... and said that Obama still has a 70% chance of winning to Romney's 30%.

[Mbodell]

nigel_k, on 2012-October-24, 23:22, said:

I think you are all missing the point here. Those who are against abortion for religious reasons believe that it is equivalent to killing somebody. Why would you make it legal for someone to kill an innocent child if and only if the killer was raped recently? This is just a total failure to see things from the other side's point of view.

The fact that the other side's point of view is utterly inconsistent with fact and logic makes it harder, to be sure. But this view is not new or rare. It is shared by a large percentage of Americans.

I agree there is a consistent point of view similar to what you describe if you equate all abortions with murder. Even in that world view there are competing issues as forcing a women to carry what basically could be considered an unwanted parasite at cost to her autonomy and welfare creates clashing rights issues, even when you think abortion is murder. But this nuance isn't what the two big abortion related flare ups of Republican senate candidates from this years political crop have really been about.

Missouri Republican senate candidate Todd Akin:

Quote

It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.

There are obviously a number of problematic issues here from the classification of "legitimate" rape (with the implied illegitimate rape) to the crazy lack of grasp of biology (from a person who sits on the House committee on Science no less!). So it is easier to not allow exceptions to abortion bans if you wishcast those problematic occurrences away. It is the Morallistic fallacy that it would be good for the banning of abortions if there were no pregnancies from rape, therefore nature must give the female body the way to shut that whole thing down.

Indiana Republican senate candidate Richard Mourdock:

Quote

I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

This is, quite obviously, insensitive and offensive as it presupposes that the rape is meant to happen as part of God's plan (and we know this, because Mourdock told us so). And while it is true that some people believe everything happens for a good reason and it is all part of the master plan, it is terrible to most of us to produce public policy on the basis of someone's view of "God's plan" without intervention. You get sick? Don't treat it because as horrible as it is that must be something that God intended to happen. But wait, maybe abortion is part of God's plan? Why not? This is all a bit of the natural fallacy tweaked as part of "God's plan" with a view that medical intervention is unnatural and wrong (at least for abortion and women's issues) and pregnancy is natural and right.

I'm at least heartened that both republican candidates seem to be paying an electoral price for their statements (although one or both of them could still win - but Akin was near certain to win before his remarks).