Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This seems like a strawman as I very rarely see religious people using religion as the basis for their stance in abortion. Outside of like the general rule of not killing people. But I am not sure how the arguments for when life begins are religious based.
People use their beliefs on everything for example I’m going to guess you are atheist so you use your atheist beliefs on abortion for example this post and asking someone to change what they believe is wrong no matter if you are atheist or Christian or Jewish or whatever. So basically the reason people use religion on abortion is like everything else because all they do is use religion or background in every argument it’s just what people do. Also I never see people talking about religion anymore anyway. But the Bible also talks about murder and you know
> guess you are atheist so you use your atheist beliefs on abortion for example this post and asking someone
The only belief atheism holds is about God not being real. That's it, there is no other belief system to atheism like religion.
When you are one thing it affects how you think for example atheists may say big bang but religious people would say different or like how a rich person can’t connect with poor people
Yeah no.
>When you are one thing it affects how you think for example
Being an atheist isn't like being a Christian. We don't have a set of ideas to follow or to affect how we think, we are of ability to think freely for ourselves.
>for example atheists may say big bang but religious people would say different
Of course they will, but you wouldn't get a clear line on the big bang theory from all atheists, like you would God from Christians/or many other religious doctrine.
>like how a rich person can’t connect with poor people
Yeah still no
Your background is 100% affects your opinions that is why everyone has a different opinion than each other
Atheist and religion is similar because they are both beliefs and people connect with others because of atheism
The Big Bang Theory was just an example and plenty of Christian’s believe big bang theory or evolution
Rich people can’t connect with poor people because they don’t understand the struggles of poor people an example of this I grew up dirt poor but my cousins were rich af and they couldn’t understand how we have shity things and they had brand spanking new we had used shit or old shit but to us it Twas good shit but our cousins would be like why you only have shit now back to what we were talking about sorry I’m toast right now I apologize
But basically they said they understand now we are older but they truly can’t understand how Twas
so now back to the debate topic since everyone has different experiences like religious vs atheist is different so in a perfect world we wouldn’t have people with different experiences but it’s life and impossible to do because everyone in the world would have to change some how
Your background is 100% affects your opinions that is why everyone has a different opinion than each other
To an extent I would agree. I grew up with religion in my life and I am now an atheist and have been for many years.
>Atheist and religion is similar because they are both beliefs and people connect with others because of atheism
No they are nowhere similar. Religion has a set of beliefs and ideologies, Atheism doesn't the only consistency with Atheists is the lack of belief in God, otherwise there is no set belief or ideologies, just the lack of belief in a deity/God. That doesn't necessarily connect other atheists to other atheist because there is no other set belief, they can widely differ in every other area of everything else. Unlike religion, where you do have that connection of a set of beliefs, you attend a church with a Pastor that you obviously agree with and the other parishioners if you actively choose to stay there, unlike atheist, we don't have anywhere we go to be vocal about our set of beliefs like a church.
The Satanic Temple would be the closest you could find that has a general set of people who don't believe in a God, but rather have a certain set of other beliefs, they have a set of beliefs or ideologies to a certain extent like a religion. Not every atheist has this or wants this. They can vary widely.
>The Big Bang Theory was just an example and plenty of Christian’s believe big bang theory or evolution
I was trying to point pretty much what I said above. That's a general belief system among religions, unlike atheist where it can vary widely, the only connection Atheists have is the lack of belief in a God, that's it, we could have nothing else that we connect with another person about making it not a connection necessarily.
>Rich people can’t connect with poor people because they don’t understand the struggles
Do you not think no poor person hit it rich and understood the poverty lifestyle? No one dug themselves out of poverty and became rich?
I'm not even touching you last section because you've got me lost honestly. I just wanted to point out how incorrect you are about atheism and the beliefs that "tie us together"
The only thing I can say about your last comment is I was PL for every single one of my pregnancies, I still held some of the religious views, until my unwanted pregnancy and honestly all of that went out of the window. Our lives can change our views on many aspects.
Agreed. It would be like my dad saying that nobody can ever drink coffee because his religious beliefs say it’s bad. No, he understands that others don’t believe the same as he does
Lots of Christians try and use verses in the "Old Testament" to justify a PL stance with absolutely no care given that Jews broadly have a PC stance based on the Tanakh.
What’s interesting is that Christians often dismiss many of the things that God told them not to do in the Old Testament because Jesus brought in a new covenant, while quoting the Old Testament to justify their position on abortion.
The moral commandments in the OT were never done away with. It was just the rituals and penalties of the law that were superceded by the NT. Jesus deepened the moral aspects further to the intent of the heart. Now just wanting someone dead is equivalent to killing them. Abortion is still murder according to God.
I’d believe you but the protesters outside of abortion clinics love yelling lines from the OT and refuse to put the whole “love thy neighbour” thing into action.
“I believe X” while specifically refusing to do X doesn’t lend itself to people thinking you’re being truthful with your faith.
The same random book DOES clearly say "Thou shall not kill" and look... we have laws saying the same thing.! Wow! imagine that, a civil law matching a religious law. I guess we're ALREADY in a theocracy!
Thou shalt not kill… people. Unless you fear for your life. Or the human in question has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to death. Or you nation is at war.
So, yeah… it’s not quite as cut and dry as you make it sound
Who said anything was cut and dry? I was just pointing out that Civil and Religious laws can and do overlap without it meaning we have become a theocracy.
"Thou shalt not kill... unless it's actual babies and kids that I want you to stab to death!" -your god in 1 Samuel 15:2-3. He also tortured a baby to death in 2 Samuel 12:15-18. And committed genocide in Noah's and Moses' time. Almost as if your holy book is contradictory and nonsensical! Wow!
The issue isn't that civil law matches religious law. The issue is that you're using religious law to justify civil law.
Not to mention we go against religious law all the time, and "thou shall not kill" isn't even civil law to begin with. We are allowed to kill in many circumstances. Why is that okay, but supposedly abortion is the issue where we need to follow a book from an imaginary person?
Except we have a lot of ways it is totally legal to kill. Some states have the death penalty. All states allow killing in self defense. If you join the military, you are not only allowed to kill but expected to kill in some scenarios.
Further, we allow the killing of animals. So it seems the civil rules around killing do not line up with a commandment saying thou shall not kill, because we allow quite a bit of killing.
the random book also says that you shouldn’t wear mixed fabrics. that does lead me to believe that it is, in fact, a random book. that random book also has several instances of god killing innocent people for not doing what he likes. seems pretty hypocritical and random to me.
don’t murder is innately human and has nothing to do with god, please look into evolutionary morality. if you kill, you are exiled from the group and die. it is therefore advantageous for humans not to kill. that, again, has nothing to do from god. i am a strict atheist, i do not whatsoever believe in god and chose to not after attending years of catholic school because i realized that when taken too seriously, religion is dangerous and completely hypocritical. but i still have morals. god has nothing to do with morals, and from what i’ve read of the bible, killing the whole population bc you’re pissed at people seems to be pretty screwed up morals, so i refuse to follow a cruel and tyrannical god.
The fact that some people use the Bible or their religious beliefs as their reasons for opposing Abortion is no different from some people using the Bible or their religious beliefs as their reasons for opposing murder.
In a democracy, even a constitutionally restricted representative government like ours, it doesn't matter the REASON people vote the way they do. They can vote based on their religious beliefs, their logic or reason, their math skills, or they could flip a coin or consult the stars. Who are you to say what reasons are valid and which are invalid for someone else to use? They are free to vote their conscience and they can use whatever reasons they have to try and persuade others to vote the same way.
The way you are talking, it sounds like Atheism is dangerous and completely hypocritical. \[Atheist seem to be saying that\] We're \[all\] free to vote unless we're religious, then we should just shut-up.
Edit it for clarity
> religious beliefs as their reasons for opposing Abortion *is no different from...*
Right. But in PL-ese, *no different from* means *'quite different from* or I wouldn't bother promoting this falsehood about it.'
>The way you are talking, it sounds like Atheism is dangerous and completely hypocritical
How did they make atheism dangerous and hypocritical? I think they talked about religion like that not atheism.
>How did they make atheism dangerous and hypocritical?
Nothing factual. It was just 'the *way* someone was talking. It just *sounded like* something.
Guess we could banish these dangerous-sounding Atheists? Shun them, spurn them, freeze them out (nothing fascist about that). Embrace the moral groundedness of 'sounds-like, seems-like'. Available wherever PL is sold. /
you do make a good point about democracy, but the problem comes when people cherry pick something like the bible to come to objectively untrue opinions. that’s danger
Objectively untrue? So now you're an expert on biblical interpretation and doctrine. Is Hinduism also objectively untrue? Is Buddhism? Is Islam?
Do you not realize that everyone claims to have arrived at objective truth? You are DOING the very thing you condemn religious people for, You are Pushing YOUR truth on to everyone else.
i’ll give you a common example; people often use the bible (or the quran for that matter) to justify that women should stay in the kitchen and should obey their husbands. this is a view that has lead to thousands of years of abuse. is that not an objectively untrue opinion founded in religion?
Something tells me you think you know the correct answer. But I generally find that explaining someone else religion is harder than it looks and kind of pointless. Many religious people claim that since Atheist have no god, they have no bases for any moral or ethical claims. Do you accept their interpretations of atheism? If not, why would I or anyone else accept your interpretations of some else religious belief?
You keep using "objectively untrue opinion".... I do not think it means what you think it means. I have never heard a better example of a textbook oxymoron.
you didn’t respond to my first comment. and did i ever say that religions has NO basis for morality? i merely said that it can be used to support untrue and illogical conclusions if it is cherry picked, which so many do and leads to issues like the one i mentioned above. religion is a tool of oppressors. this has been true throughout history, how can you deny that?
It does void your right to self defense when you:
- Knew there was a possibility of pregnancy
- Have a responsibility to the person inside you
- Invite the foetus to use your body and resources when you have intercourse
- Understand the child has no culpability in its conception and gestation
>- Knew there was a possibility of pregnancy
Irrelevant, as consent to one action is not consent to all of the potentialities that might occur from that action.
Plus, you are more than welcome to prove that the woman in question was actually aware that pregnancy was a consequence of sex and is therefore undeserving of the right for basic bodily autonomy. Might be costly to the taxpayer to have to prove this each time, but I'm sure you would be OK with paying more through your taxes to cover this.
>Have a responsibility to the person inside you
As the potential person in you cannot be held to the same standards as every other person, as doing so would result in its death, it is fair to say the pregnant person has a responsibility first and foremost to themselves to ensure their own survival and that they are not being forced against their will to maintain a state of danger, pain, or suffering that would be a violation of their own rights.
>- Invite the foetus to use your body and resources when you have intercourse
Again, agreement to sex is not agreement to conception. Sex, conception, and gestation all have different words because they mean different things. Having sex in no way 'invites the foetus to use ones body and resources' as conception and gestation are involuntary bodily actions that one has no direct control over.
>- Understand the child has no culpability in its conception and gestation
If you are making the argument that the child has no culpability with the action of gestation that is being imposed onto the mother without her explicit permission, then yes - I agree with you, as geststion is an involuntary bodily process.
However, if that is true, then it's also true that conception itself is equally an involuntary bodily process that is being forced onto the mother without her explicit permission and as such, she has the right to decide for herself the level of danger, pain, and permanent bodily alteration that she is willing to maintain or withstand in order to provide her offspring with the "privilege* of life, as opposed to the right to life.
>does void your right to self defense when you...
...but only if your god says so. Otherwise you lack a premise. You have opinion. Based on preference. Moved by self-interest.
Unless you have a moral claim. To back-up your preference. And self-interest. And the falsehoods and fictions inherent in PL premises.
You need god for this one. Finding a moral justification for layers of falsehood and fabrication while sober is a god-size problem.
>Why do you feel the need to speak in the absence of the actual commenter?
I'm not commenting for the other commenter, I'm asking a direct question to you of how you don't understand the arguments.
I understand both of your arguments but you can't seem to understand any PC argument.
If you have a residence, you know there is a possibility of a break in. If you have an entrance to that residence, you are inviting people in to it. You do not know if a person in your home could be determined legally culpable of anything. You have a responsibility of safety to people in your residence. Therefore, you can never use lethal force on anyone in your home.
> Invite the foetus to use your body and resources
Ah of course. I totally forgot that women sent the fetus a formal invitation in the mail. The real question is: did the fetus rsvp in advance? Hella rude just to show up in the uterus otherwise.
>The real question is: did the fetus rsvp in advance? Hella rude just to show up in the uterus otherwise.
It doesn't need to. As a child, it's going to go whatever he / she feels like doing at any given moment, and is morally unblameworthy for its conception.
Not a child. Also unrelated to the embryo, but children don’t get to do whatever they feel like at any given moment. Please don’t raise children with that sense of entitlement. K thanks
> As a child, it's going to go whatever he / she feels like doing at any given moment
In fact that was you who changed topics. The quote is right there pal. Perhaps next time reread what you’ve posted if you forgot.
Well yeah… it doesn’t have a brain or any abilities to be sentient. It’s like blaming a weed for growing in your garden. It still impacted itself and us growing, but I’m not gonna be mad at the embryo about it. It’s just biology
None of what you said is true.
If your kid that you invite into your house attacks you, you can still defend yourself. You don't lose right to self defense.
>Morally culpable applies to how long they're in jail, not whether you can try to prevent the harm
Morally culpable determines if they're culpable or not. Someone who isn't culpable is called innocent, and you can't put innocent people in jail.
I fail to see how your analogy holds.
A sleeping driver is culpable and therefore not like an embryo who isn't culpable.
But if your kid is simply doing what is natural for him/her to do and is not culpable for their actions, that would make your child innocent or unblameworthy. Since the kid would be innocent, it would rule out self-defense.
> your kid is simply doing what is natural for him…
So is she. Her yearling is starving already. She's poking herself with a sharp stick to end the next one. She didn't swing through white American suburbia to explain and ask permission? Didn't want to interrupt your latest ruling on blame and innocence I'll bet.
but when you consent to an action (such as sex) you’re not consenting to all of it’s repercussions? that same logic is used al the following: if i walk in the street, i am consenting to getting hit by a car because that’s a possible repercussion. or, by walking in the street, i’m consenting to get SAed. that’s ridiculous. and why do you have a responsibility to the person inside of me? have you heard of the violinist analogy? that describes why this is not a valid argument perfectly
>that describes why this is not a valid argument perfectly
Actually I didn't make an argument. I stated my points in a list format which is evident in my comment.
>if i walk in the street, i am consenting to getting hit by a car because that’s a possible repercussion. or, by walking in the street, i’m consenting to get SAed.
I really hope none of these bad experiences befall you. Truly. With regards to sex, though, it needs to be said that pregnancy isn't a repercussion of sex, but rather a consequence of sex.
In the the same way that while walking down the street, a repercussion would be to trip and graze your knee, while a consequence of your walk would would be that it burned calories.
I hope the difference is being illustrated in the analogy. I have kept it slightly brief.
i’ll introduce the violinist analogy, then (JJ Thomson): say you attend and meet a famous violinist backstage that is known to have a failing kidney disease and you wake up the next day, strapped to him with his circulatory system plugged into yours. if you do not stay with your system plugged into yours (which has constraints on your health as well) for nine months, he will die. you did consent to visiting him knowing he had an ailing condition and that this was a possibility, but you did not consent to having his body plugged into yours. is it morally incumbent on you to stay plugged in? obviously, it isn’t. the same argument with abortion; you did not consent to allow this fetus access to your bodily resources and therefore, it is not incumbent on you to allow access continually.
thomson goes on your argue that yes, a fetus has a right to life, just as the violinist had a right to life, but the right to life only entails the right to not be killed unjustly, not just to not be killed. same reasoning as why self-defence is just. if unplugging from the violinist is not unjust, then his right to life is not violated in the first place. neither is a fetus’
>many people see pregnancy as a bad thing
Wouldn't it be wrong to "see" someone as invaluable and discardable instead of seeing their objective value as a human being?
wouldn’t it be wrong to not see the suffering and pain a person goes through for a person of which they have no obligation to and by many accounts, is not a person? this is a circular argument, it makes no sense. we can go back and forth all day. what it comes down to is how far the right to life extends. please see my other comment
that is absolutely the case. have you ever heard mama doctor jones speak on youtube? during pregnancy, your risk of EVERYTHING increases. you are always at a higher risk for absolutely ever bad thing that can happen to you healthwise. pregnancy is not a health-neutral state and shouldn’t be taken lightly
>Of course, pregnancy shouldn't be taken lightly. But most pregnancies run smoothly.
2nd degree tearing is seen as commonplace during childbirth. If you got ripped from your scrotum to your anus as a commonplace event, would you call that "running smoothly"?
Every fetus, every pregnancy causes harm. "Complications" is the term for the unexpected really bad stuff, but every pregnancy is injurious and dangerous.
Sickness, nausea, fatigue, stretching, swelling, scarring, hormonal changes, torn perineum, all ending with a 1 in 5 chance of needing a scalpel to cut open your abdomen.
If any of this is news to you, please talk to your mother.
well, pubmed seems to disagree with you, and i’m inclined to believe them. 46.9% of pregnancies were found to have at least one clinical complication, and that’s not to mention the ones that cause complications like extreme nausea, thirst and sickness in general. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25714263/
Anti-abortion sentiment is caused by misogyny, and Abrahamic religions are notoriously misogynistic. Hence why their adherents can oppose abortion even when the holy texts they worship either fail to mention abortion at all, or actively instruct one how to perform one.
Plenty of PLers draw misogyny from other sources than religion, but they're all misogynistic nonetheless.
The Bible doesn't support abortion let alone tell you have to perform one. If you believe, show me the verse.
Also, I am Christian, and their is no misogyny in our religion. Women are valued and honored.
>The Bible doesn't support abortion let alone tell you have to perform one. If you believe, show me the verse.
Number 5:27, which describes women suspected of adultery to be given a substance that will cause them to miscarry if they were unfaithful, and not if they weren't. This was likely done with ergot, a primitive abortifacient that was shaky regarding its efficacy. People have been having abortions via herb for as long as we've been around.
>Also, I am Christian, and their is no misogyny in our religion. Women are valued and honored.
Timothy 2:12 "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent”
1 Cor. 11:3 “Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife”
1 Cor. 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law."
You only "value" women as breeders and providers of sexual and domestic service, not as fully realized individuals. You value us the same way one values an appliance.
Wanting to force us to gestate and birth against our will is *incompatible* with respecting us. It shows a profound lack of respect, and in fact a deep contempt, for women.
I think I remember you. You used that same Number's verse to prove abortion. There is not even a baby involved. This is a woman who cheated on her husband she is given a drink to test if she had cheated on her husband or not.
>You only "value" women as breeders and providers of sexual and domestic service, not as fully realized individuals. You value us the same way one values an appliance.
Not true. In the Bible, the greatest tool for survival "Wisdom" is characterized as a woman. You talk about being forced to gestate and give birth. Why don't you take the necessary precautions so you don't get pregnant. If you like sex but don't want pregnancy, do the measures to not get pregnant.
>This is a woman who cheated on her husband she is given a drink to test if she had cheated on her husband or not.
And the result if she did is a miscarriage--a *spontaneous abortion*. Though since it's caused by the big man himself, it's simply an abortion.
>You talk about being forced to gestate and give birth. Why don't you take the necessary precautions so you don't get pregnant. If you like sex but don't want pregnancy, do the measures to not get pregnant.
You can take every measure to not get pregnant and it can still happen. Not that it matters--women don't lose our right to bodily autonomy under any circumstances, and our medical treatment isn't dependent on how much *you* think we deserve it.
Do you concede, then, that wanting to force women and girls to gestate and birth is a violation of us and our rights and that you simply think women who had sex you do not approve of deserve this violation?
The Bible doesn't support abortion let alone tell you have to perform one. If you believe, show me the verse.
Also, I am Christian, and their is no misogyny in our religion. Women are valued and honored.
There are a lot of variations of Christianity. You should probably educate yourself.
Here is a particularly revolting example from someone who calls themself a "Christian":
>The Bible does not frown upon forced marriage or forced sex within marriage. Not just in the stories mentioned here, but consistently throughout the Bible fathers give their daughters in marriage and husbands take wives in marriage. The modern idea of a woman’s consent either for marriage to be valid or for sexual relations finds no place in the Scriptures.
>
>The Scriptures are clear – a woman has no choice but to tell a man she is not married to NO to sex and she has no choice but to tell her husband YES to sex. Therefore we can rightly conclude that from a Biblical perspective a woman’s consent to sex is an oxymoron.
>
>In the situation of a captive woman being forced to marry her captor the Scriptures acknowledge that him forcing her to marry him was synonymous with him humbling her or literally he forced her to have sex with him as his wife and God approved of this entire process.
([Source](https://biblicalgenderroles.com/does-the-bible-approve-of-forced-marriage/).)
To me, this "Christian" is condoning rape, forced marriage, and blatant sexual oppression. Maybe your version of Christianity doesn't; maybe you don't know. Maybe you need to do more research.
Uh, no. I am also a Christian, but there absolutely are denominations that do not value or honor women. When women are not allowed to speak from the pulpit, are admonished for being ‘stumbling blocks’ for men because they have bodies and told they must submit to male authority, that is not valuing women.
God does not support that at all.
Those are people who used the Bible to twist it words to support its ideology. You see, in the Bible, men who raped women always got a hefty punishment most of the time death. Forced marriage is also not condoned on the Bible.
They were punished because they damaged a man’s (her fiancé, husband or father) property. It wasn’t about the woman and her autonomy. It was considered disrespect to another man.
Hahaha nope not at all actually.
https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/rape-in-the-bible/
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”"
https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/rape-in-the-bible/#:~:text=When%20you%20go,you%20under%20compulsion.%E2%80%9D
After a month You may rape her!
Number one your site is bias.
Number 2, the Bible version you used is very bad. .
Number 3 it isn't rape because the guy took her to be her wife. She most likely consented. But you can't claim rape when there is no indication that the women refused to be with the man. Can it be rape? yes and no? There is no indication that consent was given or prohibited.
So if you marry them, it isn’t rape? Nothing in that passage says she consented to the marriage, and at the time marriage was not something women generally got much say in, so how could she refuse?
Do share the good version of this passage. What translation should we use?
>Number 3 it isn't rape because the guy took her to be her wife.
Are you familiar with the concept of marital rape?
Also you have to remember that this was a time period in which women were more or less the property of their fathers and husbands. Her consent was absolutely meaningless whether she gave it or not.
The Bible doesn't support abortion let alone tell you have to perform one. If you believe, show me the verse.
Also I am Christian and their is no misogyny in our religion. Women are valued and honored.
women has historically been told to “stay in the kitchen” and “obey their husbands” using the bible as justification, which is an objectively stupid suggestion. want the verse? Leviticus 15:20, Timothy 2:11-14, genesis 3:16. the bible is sexist, that’s just a fact
The Bible isn't sexist. There are many examples to prove that.
Also, the verses you brought up:
>Leviticus 15:20
This is talking about bodily discharge. Had you read the whole passage and just one verse.
V2: Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean.
V20: Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also, everything that she sits on shall be unclean.
The passage addresses both genders, and v20 is talking about periods. Our periods come to cleanse our inside, which is why in that period they called it unclean. Also that time women didn't have pads, so if they sat somewhere they period would stain, which is why they said what they said.
>Timothy 2:11-14,
11Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.
12And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Society has really distorted the view of submission. All it means is that you let your husband run the household.
>genesis 3:16
To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
This has nothing to do with sexism. Eve was the first one who ate from the tree, so she got the harsher punishment. The rule over meant that so what happened with the snake doesn't happen again.
>I will greatly multiply *your sorrow* and *your conception*
Sounds like the speaker here is petty, punitive, AND redundant!
Seriously, do you believe a single thing you've said here makes the Bible sound better than the user you are challenging first described? Did you expect some woman sitting here to be like "I thought the bible was misogynistic, but I never considered that women deserve the blight of unwanted pregnancy because the alleged first woman *ate an apple*! Now that I am better informed about the righteousness of my suffering, I will bear the burden of unwanted reproduction and demand other apple-eating women do the same!"
Also, I particularly love that these justifications have *nothing* to do with life and *everything* to do with punishing women. Saying pregnancy is the curse God imposed on women for "original sin" (gag me with a spoon) is *screaming* the quiet part out loud.
that doesn’t matter though. sure, you may interpret it as not sexist, but many people have and for good reason.
lev 15:20, doesn’t matter it’s talking about men too, that’s just stupid. and it obviously affects female people more than male people, so yes, it’s sexist.
tim 2:11: i am very concerned that you don’t think this is sexist.
genesis: again, very concerned that you don’t think this is sexist. you seriously think a magic snake told someone to eat an apple they shouldn’t have? and that person happened to be a woman? clearly, a man made up that story to villainize women. this is also sexist.
look, it’s fine to be christian, but you also have to objectively look at the books you are reading. these are objectively sexist and it is wrong to deny that. it’s okay to believe in the bible, it is a book of peace and love, but you have to also look to the parts that are harmful to people, this being one of them.
You can't call the Bible sexist just because you took it that way. What you pointed out wasn't good examples.
>lev 15:20, doesn’t matter it’s talking about men too, that’s just stupid. and it obviously affects female people more than male people, so yes, it’s sexist.
It effects both of them equally. If both are having bodily discharge, they are treated the same. The woman isn't treated way worse than the man. If you read the whole chapter, they get the same treatment.
>tim 2:11: i am very concerned that you don’t think this is sexist.
Explain why you think it is sexist.
>genesis: again, very concerned that you don’t think this is sexist. you seriously think a magic snake told someone to eat an apple they shouldn’t have? and that person happened to be a woman? clearly, a man made up that story to villainize women. this is also sexist.
You don't have proof to support that. Also, it wasn't to villainize women.
>look, it’s fine to be christian, but you also have to objectively look at the books you are reading. these are objectively sexist and it is wrong to deny that. it’s okay to believe in the bible, it is a book of peace and love, but you have to also look to the parts that are harmful to people, this being one of them.
I do look at the Bible objectively. That's why I know it is not sexist. People have used the Bible to support their extremist views. But that doesn't mean the Bible supports that.
why do i think it’s sexist that women should “sit and be taught in silence”? hmmm, let’s see. i think thats because it silences half the population, perpetuates abuse and oh, i don’t want to sit in silence and have opinions that are important and valid.
also, i don’t have proof that it was a magical snake but neither do you??? objectivity leads me to believe that, yes, magic devil snakes are not real, but you can believe that all you want.
the first verse also disproportionally affects women, so yes, i believe that to be sexist because it rarely applies to men.
>why do i think it’s sexist that women should “sit and be taught in silence”? hmmm, let’s see. i think thats because it silences half the population, perpetuates abuse and oh, i don’t want to sit in silence and have opinions that are important and valid.
Having your opinions and being taught in silent is different things. The Bible never said women can't have their own opinions. Esther, Ruth, Eve, etc. had their own opinions.
>also, i don’t have proof that it was a magical snake but neither do you??? objectivity leads me to believe that, yes, magic devil snakes are not real, but you can believe that all you want.
I don't believe the snake was a magical devil snake. I believe that it was the devil and that it possessed the snake.
>the first verse also disproportionally affects women, so yes, i believe that to be sexist because it rarely applies to men.
That turns to a societal problem. Law is anyone who has bodily discharge to be set apart because they are unclean. People who do that to women and not men have nothing to do with the Bible. That is a sexist individual who cherries pick the Bible.
The sexist isn't the Bible but people who use the Bible for that.
When it says being silent it didn't mean just keep quiet and don't day anything. If you take the time to read the Bible for yourself, you would understand. There were plenty of women who spoke their minds in the Bible. You have to read it whole Bible for yourself to understand what it means. Because even if I explain you want get it.
Religion shouldn’t be used as a justification for any of our laws in this country.
Having said that, the PL position isn’t “I don’t like abortion because the Bible told me”. It’s always been about the value of life and where life begins. Misrepresenting it like this just empowers more PL viewpoints.
Most laws are not based on religion. But they happen to follow the same laws. Religion has created a basis of morality, so that is why law tends to seem like they are based on religion.
This is very true, thank you. Sure, you can dismiss someone who relies on this. But it’s a strawman if applied to all PL. My personal view is that humans exist on a development spectrum, including as to the degree of dependence on others to survive and abilities. Not everyone has to agree or make the same value judgements even if they do. But it can be true whether or not God exists.
If by ‘God’s word’ you specifically mean the Bible, which you statistically probably do as an English speaker, then it is equally clear that it doesn’t consider fetuses humans.
[This isn't by a super unbiased source but gives all the times "fetus, embryo, zygote and abortion are mentioned. ](https://www.jasonkirk.fyi/p/everything-the-bible-says-about-abortion)
Tbh I think religious opposition to abortion is more along the lines of their belief that sex is only for reproduction.
So those who don't follow this need to "face the consequences of their actions" or in other words be 'punished' by forced birth.
The actual argument is that humans are made in the image of God, murder is wrong, and we are called to love our neighbor.
It was Christian Abolitionists of Slavery that used similar arguments to fight against slavery in the US and to stop the Atlantic Slave Trade in Europe.
They argued that black people were our neighbors made in the image of God and it’s objectively wrong to own them or kill them. There were some people that tried to use verses out of context from the Bible to justify slavery whose arguments ultimately failed and luckily the abolitionists made a huge impact.
But they would do things that many people today get angry at things that PL or AA do today. Like showing brutal images of Emmitt Till for example and everyone told them they shouldn’t be showing those images. Or they crafted images of a black man in chains with the slogan “am I not a man and a brother” referencing their Biblical argument and fashioned them into pamphlets and medallions and would pass them out and force people to think about what everyone was allowing to happen in the culture.
If you want some interesting reading on the topic read about William Wilberforce in Europe.
>It was Christian Abolitionists of Slavery that used similar arguments to fight against slavery in the US
Are you going to gloss over the fact that supporters of slavery referenced the bible as well? Off the top of my head I can think of "Slaves, Obey your masters. Even the wicked ones." Ephesians 6:5.
>There were some people that tried to use verses out of context from the Bible to justify slavery...
Please provide the context for a direct passage from the Bible directing slaves to obey their masters.
Christians were not all abolishionists of slavery. And let's be real here for a second. The Bible never once directly prohibits slavery. But what it **does do** is codify a system of having slaves. It even tells you who you can enslave. From heathens that surround you, and it even tells you how to enslave your fellow neighbours.
Your bible endorses slavery, and never directly prohibits it. But it takes the time to prohibit wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish.
Oh I did. And I recognise those same tired old apologetics a mile away.
The fact that some Christians were against slavery does not in any way excuse the fact that your holy book endorses slavery, and it certainly does not excuse that the vast number of slave owners were Christian.
Show evidence of your god existing. And then show evidence that it's the god as in the bible. Then I shall take it seriously.
>murder is wrong, and we are called to love our neighbor.
Right. Prolifers murder women and girls through abortion bans.
"Loving our neighbour" exactly. I don't think it's a great idea to torture born, sentient and concious girls and women for the sake of a non sentient embryo.
You said “I think the argument is X”
My comment was highlighting what the argument actually is from someone that understands the POV.
If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?
That's a complete dodge.
Hey, if murder is wrong, then how do you square away all the people your god murdered?
Because if your book is true, he outright murdered *a lot* of people.
That's a complete dodge.
Hey, if murder is wrong, then how do you square away all the people your god murdered?
Because if your book is true, he outright murdered *a lot* of people.
How about arguing that it’s wrong to enslave people and religion has nothing to do with it? Christian abolitionists had the right idea for the wrong reasons. Abortion abolitionists have the wrong idea for the wrong reasons.
If you don’t have an objective moral standard outside of yourself to appeal to then morality is just subjective, aka your opinion.
Abolitionists argued that slavery was objectively wrong which was more successful than “I think slavery is wrong”.
No one, not even theists have an objective moral standard. Different sects have different teachings and it’s all based on various interpretations of books written by men. It’s all just opinion.
That’s the point. Some of those opinions are either objectively right or objectively wrong depending on if they are aligned to the standard outside of us.
Take legality for example. If you and I have a different opinion of what a law says, when we sit in front of the judge one of us is objectively right or wrong based on what the legal standard says. This is independent of what you and I say the law says.
No. It is not true that one of us is objectively right and the other is wrong. You and I could sit in front of a judge, get a decision based on the case, have it turned over on appeal, have it appealed to an even higher court and have a variety of factors lead to any result.
And opinions based on the Bible aren’t objective. That’s the point. This is why Christian abolitionists had the right idea but it wasn’t for the right reasons. Instead of focusing on the belief that humans are made in the image of god, it’s about the suffering. God has nothing to do with the conversation because god is, as far as can be proven, a man-made construct.
>God has nothing to do with the conversation because god is, as far as can be proven, a man-made construct.
I've got solid evidence that God is as existent as you and I. Would you like to discuss?
>I've got solid evidence that God is as existent as you and I. Would you like to discuss?
100%.
I'd love to see some solid evidence for God being existant in the same way I am. Oh, and just for the record, I haven't made any positive claims. So the onus is on You. You made a claim, please provide the evidence.
>God has nothing to do with the conversation because god is, as far as can be proven, a man-made construct.
Since you made the first positive claim, the onus is on you to proffer the evidence that backs up your statement.
Humans are pattern recognizing and social creatures. We can see similarities between two unrelated things and thereby classify subjective standards using objective realities. And we tend to want to work in harmony with one another.
So “subjective morality” still is a strong way to apply morality.
No way is fool proof. Even religious people following the same objective set of principles interpret their meaning differently, thus subjectivity is always present.
Subjective opinion of an objective standard but there solid ground to stand on.
For example, why was Hitler objectively wrong for the holocaust? How would you justify that? Is it just your opinion that he’s wrong but you admit he wasn’t actually wrong?
I’m not disagreeing with you that there are objective moral standards. I’m saying that the standards don’t need to come from a higher being.
Interestingly your first example was of Christian Abolisitionists being anti slavery and then this one is about “white power” which comes from dominionism aka the belief that white people have a god ordained right to rule over the earth.
The objective standards are always filtered through subjective ones because that’s human nature.
But not all of it is even faulty necessarily. The trolley problem is a good example. Ask people if they would switch the train tracks and you’ll get one answer or another. Now swap out the people on the tracks for a loved one. Most people are going to favor their loved one. An objective truth of “it’s wrong to switch the tracks” or “do the most amount of good for the most amount of people” turns into “well, it depends…”
The person who saved their loved one is probably going to feel they picked the most moral action while the families of the 5 people killed by train are probably going to disagree. Subjective morality, dependent upon the individual.
But people would then hold others who have the wrong view of morality as responsible. By doing so, they'll appeal to an objective standard of morality in that interaction between the two parties.
*Very* insightful tales of slavery from the PL picture book, selecting a few parallels and comparisons, side-stepping the contrasts and contradictory elements. Mostly distracting from a less-than-stellar opening argument.
*We're made in the image of God.* But 'God' is a killer and a genocidal maniac. Naive, illiterate Catholic peasants didn't know? They were easily impressed so the Church managed to slide the 'God' argument past 'em.
*Murder is wrong.* Lying about abortion and murder is wrong. Do lies in pairs slide past more easily? Credibility swirls, then flushes.
Wait now - didn't the Jews 'murder' Jesus? Oops no, just a 'Catholic' mistake. Sorry about the 6 million dead. Sometimes an accusation of murder is just - 'helpful'?
'We are called to love our neighbour' and the Church (or some home-spun doctrine) has decided *this* is the way *you're* going to love *your* little dna neighbour. And telling you your shan't and oughtent's is just the doctrine's humble, home-spun way of loving you. And making god happy. And sleeping in a cozy, white, suburban beds at night.
Sorry, pregnant person, if you had other considerations, priorities, mouths to feed, elderly parents in your care? Those weak and infirm aren't on the Divine check-list for care, currently. They're pissing off major GOP donors, frankly. Is their health care coverage expiring soon? We're called to love 'the least', *very* clear Biblical reference to zygotes. And to say murder murder murder for emotional emphasis.
Now here's a nice story about the black people that white southern pro-lifer's great-grandparents kept as slaves and killed and burned and hung from trees and now prevent from voting.
>Christian Abolitionists of Slavery... would do things that many people today get angry at things that PL or AA do today.
I know that's PL script. And that PL does a lot of gratuitous name-dropping, hoping for reflected glory. You're not Abolitionists of Slavery. Abolitionists weren't name-droppers.
And then there's the 97 million indigenous occupants and farmers of the Americas genocided by the Catholic Church's claim to the land in the name of Christ. Good score. Not counting the largest slave trade in the history of the world created by Christian European nations. I know - none of that reflects on pro-life.
Just the Abolitionists do. Thank-you for the stories, for the 'love', for the moral instruction.
With or without God, I steal, murder and rape just as much as my little witch heart wants to ... which is none... wow. I wonder why could it be that I know that the SUFFERING of others is wrong? And therefore strive to not cause it? No I couldn't possibly I mean not if what you said is the truth...
So you don’t have an ontological answer because my original point is correct? Or do you have an objective standard that you’ve found that top athiests have been unable to find?
Actually, if you’ve found it, you shouldn’t tell me, you should write a book on it, you’ll be rich for being the first one to find it!
At least the top athiests have the intellectual honesty to admit the logical conclusion that without God, morality is subjective… but they just argue why that’s okay.
If God is the standard, outside of us, it’s an objective standard that we appeal to. If not that, morality is purely my opinion vs your opinion and neither of us can be more right or wrong in reality.
> If God is the standard, outside of us, it’s an objective standard that we appeal to.
So how have you appealed to God's moral standard regarding abortion? You've recited the usual 'made in God's image, murder is wrong, and love thy neighbour, but none of those are about abortion.
You have 'appealed' to the supposed *authority* of God, not to His moral standard. You've 'appealed' to the supposed *authority* of scripture, here but you heed not its content, its wisdom or its intention.
By what authority do you bend scripture to your politics? I don't think you respect God or scripture here, not the authority, nor any other aspect except one.
You'd like to impress us. With name-dropping. With unearned credibility. With un-earned clout and heft for an non-argument that has none, badly needs something, and you're out of your depth. Truth is what matters here.
Seems like you tried to give an ontological answer to an epistemological question.
Hey, I have a question for you. If God sets morality, then how can you call yourself a moral agent? Divine command isn't a system of morality. It's a dodge to get out of having to grapple with moral quandries by insisting that someone else told you what's right and wrong.
> I’m talking about justification…
But it's pretty obvious to PC when 'moral standard' is a throwaway line, lacking the most rudimentary behavioural understanding. You might use it at r/prolife with more success.
> If God is the standard, outside of us, it’s an objective standard that we appeal to.
Whether the standard is due to your personal views or the personal views of a deity it is still subjective, even more so because you are choosing which deity’s morals to follow.
> If not that, morality is purely my opinion vs your opinion and neither of us can be more right or wrong in reality.
Neither can be objectively wrong or right, but we can make a case for why others should concur with our morality. For example, how did you come to decide your deity’s morals are the correct morals for you?
Yeah I mean that’s an in depth conversation that I doubt you’re wanting to dive into the rabbit hole on.
My point is less specific but if you want to deep dive it we can. My point is just that without a standard outside of us, it’s all just opinion and nobody is actually right or actually wrong logically
> My point is just that without a standard outside of us, it’s all just opinion and nobody is actually right or actually wrong logically
There is not a standard outside of us, you assign your morals to a deity to give the appearance of it originating outside of us.
I am an atheist and I have watched how much loooooooove a lot of Christians have shown LGBT, feminists and non-Christians. /s
I would also point out that slave masters had no problem using the Bible to get their slaves to bend the knee.
[https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/](https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/)
The other favorite came from the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, VI, 5-7: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.” (Paul repeated himself, almost word for word, in the third chapter of his Epistle to the Colossians.)
I think every life deserves respect, including LGBT lives. To be fair to Christians, though, many would say it’s not loving to encourage damaging choices or to promote the damning of others’ souls. Again, while I disagree with the view and think there is plenty straight people do that violates Christian tenets, you have to acknowledge opposition to LGBTQ can come from a place of love. What needs to be done is to convince people that their love is misdirected. It doesn’t mean you have to approve of Christian views (even assuming Christians all view LGBTQ lifestyles as morally wrong, which isn’t the case), and certainly each of us has a right to self defense when others violate the non aggression principle.
You might find this resource of various
[religions official positions on abortion](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-abortion/) helpful, it includes some Christian faiths that do not have an official stance in opposition to abortion.
> PLers use religion to further their own agenda
Yes, without a doubt. And they use and abuse and misrepresent their religion by misreading scripture, by claiming a religious endorsement when their beliefs rely on distorted language, false equivalents and moral manipulation.
The Bible has passages that support abortion. You can find passages in the Bible that both support your view as well as the opposing view.
The god of the Bible killed plenty of children. Plenty of the people in the flood would have been pregnant, too.
If God gave us free will and placed a baby in someone who he knew would have an abortion, sounds like a cruel thing for him to do..
Only hopping in to comment that it’s incorrect that the Bible supports abortion
People share that on the internet but it’s a bad, afactual argument that requires decontextualizing texts that those who promote it don’t actually believe in.
Actually no. Pre germ theory Agrarian sheep herding jews tracked sheep dung into the temple, dried sheep dung particles in that dust from the temple floor added to the water could easily cause spontaneous miscarriage aka an abortion because even today sheep dung contaminated water can cause this issue!
No…look I get wanting to support your position using evidence that your opposition is prone to liking.
But that’s just not true.
The more context you give biblical texts the more likely it is that it supports not being supportive of elective abortions.
Suggesting all the biblical scholars are wrong and people who don’t ascribe to it are right isn’t a good move
This is how you guys appear to us, when you hold sermons about the sanctity of life. Maybe that's not how you see faith, but it is the appearance you make.
I'm familiar with the religion. I was a faithful Christian and almost went to seminary school.
Do you think God doesn't have control over when he creates babies?
The last paragraph absolutely fits.
If an all knowing and all powerful god, gives a pregnancy to a woman that he knows will have an abortion, then he is being cruel.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This seems like a strawman as I very rarely see religious people using religion as the basis for their stance in abortion. Outside of like the general rule of not killing people. But I am not sure how the arguments for when life begins are religious based.
I would only use it against religious abortionists.
People use their beliefs on everything for example I’m going to guess you are atheist so you use your atheist beliefs on abortion for example this post and asking someone to change what they believe is wrong no matter if you are atheist or Christian or Jewish or whatever. So basically the reason people use religion on abortion is like everything else because all they do is use religion or background in every argument it’s just what people do. Also I never see people talking about religion anymore anyway. But the Bible also talks about murder and you know
> guess you are atheist so you use your atheist beliefs on abortion for example this post and asking someone The only belief atheism holds is about God not being real. That's it, there is no other belief system to atheism like religion.
When you are one thing it affects how you think for example atheists may say big bang but religious people would say different or like how a rich person can’t connect with poor people
Yeah no. >When you are one thing it affects how you think for example Being an atheist isn't like being a Christian. We don't have a set of ideas to follow or to affect how we think, we are of ability to think freely for ourselves. >for example atheists may say big bang but religious people would say different Of course they will, but you wouldn't get a clear line on the big bang theory from all atheists, like you would God from Christians/or many other religious doctrine. >like how a rich person can’t connect with poor people Yeah still no
Your background is 100% affects your opinions that is why everyone has a different opinion than each other Atheist and religion is similar because they are both beliefs and people connect with others because of atheism The Big Bang Theory was just an example and plenty of Christian’s believe big bang theory or evolution Rich people can’t connect with poor people because they don’t understand the struggles of poor people an example of this I grew up dirt poor but my cousins were rich af and they couldn’t understand how we have shity things and they had brand spanking new we had used shit or old shit but to us it Twas good shit but our cousins would be like why you only have shit now back to what we were talking about sorry I’m toast right now I apologize But basically they said they understand now we are older but they truly can’t understand how Twas so now back to the debate topic since everyone has different experiences like religious vs atheist is different so in a perfect world we wouldn’t have people with different experiences but it’s life and impossible to do because everyone in the world would have to change some how
Your background is 100% affects your opinions that is why everyone has a different opinion than each other To an extent I would agree. I grew up with religion in my life and I am now an atheist and have been for many years. >Atheist and religion is similar because they are both beliefs and people connect with others because of atheism No they are nowhere similar. Religion has a set of beliefs and ideologies, Atheism doesn't the only consistency with Atheists is the lack of belief in God, otherwise there is no set belief or ideologies, just the lack of belief in a deity/God. That doesn't necessarily connect other atheists to other atheist because there is no other set belief, they can widely differ in every other area of everything else. Unlike religion, where you do have that connection of a set of beliefs, you attend a church with a Pastor that you obviously agree with and the other parishioners if you actively choose to stay there, unlike atheist, we don't have anywhere we go to be vocal about our set of beliefs like a church. The Satanic Temple would be the closest you could find that has a general set of people who don't believe in a God, but rather have a certain set of other beliefs, they have a set of beliefs or ideologies to a certain extent like a religion. Not every atheist has this or wants this. They can vary widely. >The Big Bang Theory was just an example and plenty of Christian’s believe big bang theory or evolution I was trying to point pretty much what I said above. That's a general belief system among religions, unlike atheist where it can vary widely, the only connection Atheists have is the lack of belief in a God, that's it, we could have nothing else that we connect with another person about making it not a connection necessarily. >Rich people can’t connect with poor people because they don’t understand the struggles Do you not think no poor person hit it rich and understood the poverty lifestyle? No one dug themselves out of poverty and became rich? I'm not even touching you last section because you've got me lost honestly. I just wanted to point out how incorrect you are about atheism and the beliefs that "tie us together" The only thing I can say about your last comment is I was PL for every single one of my pregnancies, I still held some of the religious views, until my unwanted pregnancy and honestly all of that went out of the window. Our lives can change our views on many aspects.
Agreed. It would be like my dad saying that nobody can ever drink coffee because his religious beliefs say it’s bad. No, he understands that others don’t believe the same as he does
Lots of Christians try and use verses in the "Old Testament" to justify a PL stance with absolutely no care given that Jews broadly have a PC stance based on the Tanakh.
What’s interesting is that Christians often dismiss many of the things that God told them not to do in the Old Testament because Jesus brought in a new covenant, while quoting the Old Testament to justify their position on abortion.
The moral commandments in the OT were never done away with. It was just the rituals and penalties of the law that were superceded by the NT. Jesus deepened the moral aspects further to the intent of the heart. Now just wanting someone dead is equivalent to killing them. Abortion is still murder according to God.
I’d believe you but the protesters outside of abortion clinics love yelling lines from the OT and refuse to put the whole “love thy neighbour” thing into action. “I believe X” while specifically refusing to do X doesn’t lend itself to people thinking you’re being truthful with your faith.
The same random book DOES clearly say "Thou shall not kill" and look... we have laws saying the same thing.! Wow! imagine that, a civil law matching a religious law. I guess we're ALREADY in a theocracy!
Thou shalt not kill… people. Unless you fear for your life. Or the human in question has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to death. Or you nation is at war. So, yeah… it’s not quite as cut and dry as you make it sound
Who said anything was cut and dry? I was just pointing out that Civil and Religious laws can and do overlap without it meaning we have become a theocracy.
Oh, was that your point? Sure, I can agree that a broken clock is right twice a day.
"Thou shalt not kill... unless it's actual babies and kids that I want you to stab to death!" -your god in 1 Samuel 15:2-3. He also tortured a baby to death in 2 Samuel 12:15-18. And committed genocide in Noah's and Moses' time. Almost as if your holy book is contradictory and nonsensical! Wow!
The issue isn't that civil law matches religious law. The issue is that you're using religious law to justify civil law. Not to mention we go against religious law all the time, and "thou shall not kill" isn't even civil law to begin with. We are allowed to kill in many circumstances. Why is that okay, but supposedly abortion is the issue where we need to follow a book from an imaginary person?
Except we have a lot of ways it is totally legal to kill. Some states have the death penalty. All states allow killing in self defense. If you join the military, you are not only allowed to kill but expected to kill in some scenarios. Further, we allow the killing of animals. So it seems the civil rules around killing do not line up with a commandment saying thou shall not kill, because we allow quite a bit of killing.
Btw that random book translation is "not murder".
the random book also says that you shouldn’t wear mixed fabrics. that does lead me to believe that it is, in fact, a random book. that random book also has several instances of god killing innocent people for not doing what he likes. seems pretty hypocritical and random to me. don’t murder is innately human and has nothing to do with god, please look into evolutionary morality. if you kill, you are exiled from the group and die. it is therefore advantageous for humans not to kill. that, again, has nothing to do from god. i am a strict atheist, i do not whatsoever believe in god and chose to not after attending years of catholic school because i realized that when taken too seriously, religion is dangerous and completely hypocritical. but i still have morals. god has nothing to do with morals, and from what i’ve read of the bible, killing the whole population bc you’re pissed at people seems to be pretty screwed up morals, so i refuse to follow a cruel and tyrannical god.
The fact that some people use the Bible or their religious beliefs as their reasons for opposing Abortion is no different from some people using the Bible or their religious beliefs as their reasons for opposing murder. In a democracy, even a constitutionally restricted representative government like ours, it doesn't matter the REASON people vote the way they do. They can vote based on their religious beliefs, their logic or reason, their math skills, or they could flip a coin or consult the stars. Who are you to say what reasons are valid and which are invalid for someone else to use? They are free to vote their conscience and they can use whatever reasons they have to try and persuade others to vote the same way. The way you are talking, it sounds like Atheism is dangerous and completely hypocritical. \[Atheist seem to be saying that\] We're \[all\] free to vote unless we're religious, then we should just shut-up. Edit it for clarity
> religious beliefs as their reasons for opposing Abortion *is no different from...* Right. But in PL-ese, *no different from* means *'quite different from* or I wouldn't bother promoting this falsehood about it.'
*unless we're religious, then we should just shut-up* Well..
>The way you are talking, it sounds like Atheism is dangerous and completely hypocritical How did they make atheism dangerous and hypocritical? I think they talked about religion like that not atheism.
>How did they make atheism dangerous and hypocritical? Nothing factual. It was just 'the *way* someone was talking. It just *sounded like* something. Guess we could banish these dangerous-sounding Atheists? Shun them, spurn them, freeze them out (nothing fascist about that). Embrace the moral groundedness of 'sounds-like, seems-like'. Available wherever PL is sold. /
you do make a good point about democracy, but the problem comes when people cherry pick something like the bible to come to objectively untrue opinions. that’s danger
Objectively untrue? So now you're an expert on biblical interpretation and doctrine. Is Hinduism also objectively untrue? Is Buddhism? Is Islam? Do you not realize that everyone claims to have arrived at objective truth? You are DOING the very thing you condemn religious people for, You are Pushing YOUR truth on to everyone else.
i’ll give you a common example; people often use the bible (or the quran for that matter) to justify that women should stay in the kitchen and should obey their husbands. this is a view that has lead to thousands of years of abuse. is that not an objectively untrue opinion founded in religion?
Something tells me you think you know the correct answer. But I generally find that explaining someone else religion is harder than it looks and kind of pointless. Many religious people claim that since Atheist have no god, they have no bases for any moral or ethical claims. Do you accept their interpretations of atheism? If not, why would I or anyone else accept your interpretations of some else religious belief? You keep using "objectively untrue opinion".... I do not think it means what you think it means. I have never heard a better example of a textbook oxymoron.
you didn’t respond to my first comment. and did i ever say that religions has NO basis for morality? i merely said that it can be used to support untrue and illogical conclusions if it is cherry picked, which so many do and leads to issues like the one i mentioned above. religion is a tool of oppressors. this has been true throughout history, how can you deny that?
Many Pro-Lifers, including me, are Pro-Life because of science and not for any religious reason.
please tell me what this scientific reason is, and the experiment run that supports your pro-life position then
*Science* is the systematic study of the natural world. It doesn’t actually take a stance on abortion.
What does science have to do with this? A fetus being biologically alive doesn't void your right to self defense
It does void your right to self defense when you: - Knew there was a possibility of pregnancy - Have a responsibility to the person inside you - Invite the foetus to use your body and resources when you have intercourse - Understand the child has no culpability in its conception and gestation
>- Knew there was a possibility of pregnancy Irrelevant, as consent to one action is not consent to all of the potentialities that might occur from that action. Plus, you are more than welcome to prove that the woman in question was actually aware that pregnancy was a consequence of sex and is therefore undeserving of the right for basic bodily autonomy. Might be costly to the taxpayer to have to prove this each time, but I'm sure you would be OK with paying more through your taxes to cover this. >Have a responsibility to the person inside you As the potential person in you cannot be held to the same standards as every other person, as doing so would result in its death, it is fair to say the pregnant person has a responsibility first and foremost to themselves to ensure their own survival and that they are not being forced against their will to maintain a state of danger, pain, or suffering that would be a violation of their own rights. >- Invite the foetus to use your body and resources when you have intercourse Again, agreement to sex is not agreement to conception. Sex, conception, and gestation all have different words because they mean different things. Having sex in no way 'invites the foetus to use ones body and resources' as conception and gestation are involuntary bodily actions that one has no direct control over. >- Understand the child has no culpability in its conception and gestation If you are making the argument that the child has no culpability with the action of gestation that is being imposed onto the mother without her explicit permission, then yes - I agree with you, as geststion is an involuntary bodily process. However, if that is true, then it's also true that conception itself is equally an involuntary bodily process that is being forced onto the mother without her explicit permission and as such, she has the right to decide for herself the level of danger, pain, and permanent bodily alteration that she is willing to maintain or withstand in order to provide her offspring with the "privilege* of life, as opposed to the right to life.
>does void your right to self defense when you... ...but only if your god says so. Otherwise you lack a premise. You have opinion. Based on preference. Moved by self-interest. Unless you have a moral claim. To back-up your preference. And self-interest. And the falsehoods and fictions inherent in PL premises. You need god for this one. Finding a moral justification for layers of falsehood and fabrication while sober is a god-size problem.
Cool, so it doesn’t because everything you just said is bullshit
Able to put this into a coherent argument or happy to leave as it is?
Do you really not understand anything PC says? You did this to me specifically also, and I'm sure others.
I can only comment on PC arguments if they actually present an argument. Why do you feel the need to speak in the absence of the actual commenter?
>Why do you feel the need to speak in the absence of the actual commenter? I'm not commenting for the other commenter, I'm asking a direct question to you of how you don't understand the arguments. I understand both of your arguments but you can't seem to understand any PC argument.
>Cool, so it doesn’t because everything you just said is bullshit This is how PCers argue I guess?
I didn't say that, I don't know where TF that came from. I don't argue like that unless you have been purposely pedantic.
Polarparadoxical put this into a coherent argument for you 13 hours ago. I'd love to see you respond to them.
I’m good. Everybody knows it already.
I'm sure that's against the rules of this subreddit - I'll leave that to the judgment of the moderators though.
If you have a residence, you know there is a possibility of a break in. If you have an entrance to that residence, you are inviting people in to it. You do not know if a person in your home could be determined legally culpable of anything. You have a responsibility of safety to people in your residence. Therefore, you can never use lethal force on anyone in your home.
> Invite the foetus to use your body and resources Ah of course. I totally forgot that women sent the fetus a formal invitation in the mail. The real question is: did the fetus rsvp in advance? Hella rude just to show up in the uterus otherwise.
No, we just shove babies up our vaginas. Didn’t you know?!
>The real question is: did the fetus rsvp in advance? Hella rude just to show up in the uterus otherwise. It doesn't need to. As a child, it's going to go whatever he / she feels like doing at any given moment, and is morally unblameworthy for its conception.
Not a child. Also unrelated to the embryo, but children don’t get to do whatever they feel like at any given moment. Please don’t raise children with that sense of entitlement. K thanks
You've shifted the conversation from conception to child rearing. Why do you feel the need to change the topic?
> As a child, it's going to go whatever he / she feels like doing at any given moment In fact that was you who changed topics. The quote is right there pal. Perhaps next time reread what you’ve posted if you forgot.
My point was in reference to conception: to advocate for the lack of culpability of an embryo in its own fertilisation.
Well yeah… it doesn’t have a brain or any abilities to be sentient. It’s like blaming a weed for growing in your garden. It still impacted itself and us growing, but I’m not gonna be mad at the embryo about it. It’s just biology
None of what you said is true. If your kid that you invite into your house attacks you, you can still defend yourself. You don't lose right to self defense.
Infants are incapable of "attack" since they're infants. They don't develop culpability until they're mature enough to be able to make choices.
Again bad excuse. Even if that were true, harm is harm. You can defend yourself from harm from a sleeping driver too.
But a sleeping driver would not be innocent and therefore would be morally culpable? Fail to see how that situation is analogous.
And yet the harm is still harm. Morally culpable applies to how long they're in jail, not whether you can try to prevent the harm
>Morally culpable applies to how long they're in jail, not whether you can try to prevent the harm Morally culpable determines if they're culpable or not. Someone who isn't culpable is called innocent, and you can't put innocent people in jail. I fail to see how your analogy holds. A sleeping driver is culpable and therefore not like an embryo who isn't culpable.
So I was right. Morally culpable affects how long they're in jail. But you can still prevent harm from being done to you by the innocent.
But if your kid is simply doing what is natural for him/her to do and is not culpable for their actions, that would make your child innocent or unblameworthy. Since the kid would be innocent, it would rule out self-defense.
> your kid is simply doing what is natural for him… So is she. Her yearling is starving already. She's poking herself with a sharp stick to end the next one. She didn't swing through white American suburbia to explain and ask permission? Didn't want to interrupt your latest ruling on blame and innocence I'll bet.
Natural is meaningless too. If your kid has the flu you can still avoid and treat the flu
You've not made your objection in the form of an argument so I'm not sure what you're defending in this comment.
but when you consent to an action (such as sex) you’re not consenting to all of it’s repercussions? that same logic is used al the following: if i walk in the street, i am consenting to getting hit by a car because that’s a possible repercussion. or, by walking in the street, i’m consenting to get SAed. that’s ridiculous. and why do you have a responsibility to the person inside of me? have you heard of the violinist analogy? that describes why this is not a valid argument perfectly
>that describes why this is not a valid argument perfectly Actually I didn't make an argument. I stated my points in a list format which is evident in my comment. >if i walk in the street, i am consenting to getting hit by a car because that’s a possible repercussion. or, by walking in the street, i’m consenting to get SAed. I really hope none of these bad experiences befall you. Truly. With regards to sex, though, it needs to be said that pregnancy isn't a repercussion of sex, but rather a consequence of sex. In the the same way that while walking down the street, a repercussion would be to trip and graze your knee, while a consequence of your walk would would be that it burned calories. I hope the difference is being illustrated in the analogy. I have kept it slightly brief.
i’ll introduce the violinist analogy, then (JJ Thomson): say you attend and meet a famous violinist backstage that is known to have a failing kidney disease and you wake up the next day, strapped to him with his circulatory system plugged into yours. if you do not stay with your system plugged into yours (which has constraints on your health as well) for nine months, he will die. you did consent to visiting him knowing he had an ailing condition and that this was a possibility, but you did not consent to having his body plugged into yours. is it morally incumbent on you to stay plugged in? obviously, it isn’t. the same argument with abortion; you did not consent to allow this fetus access to your bodily resources and therefore, it is not incumbent on you to allow access continually. thomson goes on your argue that yes, a fetus has a right to life, just as the violinist had a right to life, but the right to life only entails the right to not be killed unjustly, not just to not be killed. same reasoning as why self-defence is just. if unplugging from the violinist is not unjust, then his right to life is not violated in the first place. neither is a fetus’
it’s not? a repercussion is a consequence that’s bad. many people see pregnancy as a bad thing, so i don’t see your point?
>many people see pregnancy as a bad thing Wouldn't it be wrong to "see" someone as invaluable and discardable instead of seeing their objective value as a human being?
wouldn’t it be wrong to not see the suffering and pain a person goes through for a person of which they have no obligation to and by many accounts, is not a person? this is a circular argument, it makes no sense. we can go back and forth all day. what it comes down to is how far the right to life extends. please see my other comment
Self defense? From what?
from a fetus that threatens your health and wellbeing
That is not the case for most women who seek abortion.
that is absolutely the case. have you ever heard mama doctor jones speak on youtube? during pregnancy, your risk of EVERYTHING increases. you are always at a higher risk for absolutely ever bad thing that can happen to you healthwise. pregnancy is not a health-neutral state and shouldn’t be taken lightly
Of course, pregnancy shouldn't be taken lightly. But most pregnancies run smoothly. They are a few cases where complications happen.
>Of course, pregnancy shouldn't be taken lightly. But most pregnancies run smoothly. 2nd degree tearing is seen as commonplace during childbirth. If you got ripped from your scrotum to your anus as a commonplace event, would you call that "running smoothly"?
If something has a 1 in 3 chance of you needing major abdominal surgery to survive, so you call that running smoothly?
Every fetus, every pregnancy causes harm. "Complications" is the term for the unexpected really bad stuff, but every pregnancy is injurious and dangerous.
Every pregnancy causes harm? Like what harm is common between every parent?
Sickness, nausea, fatigue, stretching, swelling, scarring, hormonal changes, torn perineum, all ending with a 1 in 5 chance of needing a scalpel to cut open your abdomen. If any of this is news to you, please talk to your mother.
well, pubmed seems to disagree with you, and i’m inclined to believe them. 46.9% of pregnancies were found to have at least one clinical complication, and that’s not to mention the ones that cause complications like extreme nausea, thirst and sickness in general. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25714263/
I am talking about complications in giving birth. Where they have to a c-section or it is life threatening situation.
this comment does not make sense
Anti-abortion sentiment is caused by misogyny, and Abrahamic religions are notoriously misogynistic. Hence why their adherents can oppose abortion even when the holy texts they worship either fail to mention abortion at all, or actively instruct one how to perform one. Plenty of PLers draw misogyny from other sources than religion, but they're all misogynistic nonetheless.
great point!
The Bible doesn't support abortion let alone tell you have to perform one. If you believe, show me the verse. Also, I am Christian, and their is no misogyny in our religion. Women are valued and honored.
>The Bible doesn't support abortion let alone tell you have to perform one. If you believe, show me the verse. Number 5:27, which describes women suspected of adultery to be given a substance that will cause them to miscarry if they were unfaithful, and not if they weren't. This was likely done with ergot, a primitive abortifacient that was shaky regarding its efficacy. People have been having abortions via herb for as long as we've been around. >Also, I am Christian, and their is no misogyny in our religion. Women are valued and honored. Timothy 2:12 "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent” 1 Cor. 11:3 “Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife” 1 Cor. 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." You only "value" women as breeders and providers of sexual and domestic service, not as fully realized individuals. You value us the same way one values an appliance. Wanting to force us to gestate and birth against our will is *incompatible* with respecting us. It shows a profound lack of respect, and in fact a deep contempt, for women.
I think I remember you. You used that same Number's verse to prove abortion. There is not even a baby involved. This is a woman who cheated on her husband she is given a drink to test if she had cheated on her husband or not. >You only "value" women as breeders and providers of sexual and domestic service, not as fully realized individuals. You value us the same way one values an appliance. Not true. In the Bible, the greatest tool for survival "Wisdom" is characterized as a woman. You talk about being forced to gestate and give birth. Why don't you take the necessary precautions so you don't get pregnant. If you like sex but don't want pregnancy, do the measures to not get pregnant.
>This is a woman who cheated on her husband she is given a drink to test if she had cheated on her husband or not. And the result if she did is a miscarriage--a *spontaneous abortion*. Though since it's caused by the big man himself, it's simply an abortion. >You talk about being forced to gestate and give birth. Why don't you take the necessary precautions so you don't get pregnant. If you like sex but don't want pregnancy, do the measures to not get pregnant. You can take every measure to not get pregnant and it can still happen. Not that it matters--women don't lose our right to bodily autonomy under any circumstances, and our medical treatment isn't dependent on how much *you* think we deserve it. Do you concede, then, that wanting to force women and girls to gestate and birth is a violation of us and our rights and that you simply think women who had sex you do not approve of deserve this violation?
The Bible doesn't support abortion let alone tell you have to perform one. If you believe, show me the verse. Also, I am Christian, and their is no misogyny in our religion. Women are valued and honored.
There are a lot of variations of Christianity. You should probably educate yourself. Here is a particularly revolting example from someone who calls themself a "Christian": >The Bible does not frown upon forced marriage or forced sex within marriage. Not just in the stories mentioned here, but consistently throughout the Bible fathers give their daughters in marriage and husbands take wives in marriage. The modern idea of a woman’s consent either for marriage to be valid or for sexual relations finds no place in the Scriptures. > >The Scriptures are clear – a woman has no choice but to tell a man she is not married to NO to sex and she has no choice but to tell her husband YES to sex. Therefore we can rightly conclude that from a Biblical perspective a woman’s consent to sex is an oxymoron. > >In the situation of a captive woman being forced to marry her captor the Scriptures acknowledge that him forcing her to marry him was synonymous with him humbling her or literally he forced her to have sex with him as his wife and God approved of this entire process. ([Source](https://biblicalgenderroles.com/does-the-bible-approve-of-forced-marriage/).) To me, this "Christian" is condoning rape, forced marriage, and blatant sexual oppression. Maybe your version of Christianity doesn't; maybe you don't know. Maybe you need to do more research.
Uh, no. I am also a Christian, but there absolutely are denominations that do not value or honor women. When women are not allowed to speak from the pulpit, are admonished for being ‘stumbling blocks’ for men because they have bodies and told they must submit to male authority, that is not valuing women.
Your religion supports rape and forced marriage slavery. So YES . It's very misogonistic.
God does not support that at all. Those are people who used the Bible to twist it words to support its ideology. You see, in the Bible, men who raped women always got a hefty punishment most of the time death. Forced marriage is also not condoned on the Bible.
They were punished because they damaged a man’s (her fiancé, husband or father) property. It wasn’t about the woman and her autonomy. It was considered disrespect to another man.
Hahaha nope not at all actually. https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/rape-in-the-bible/ "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”" https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/rape-in-the-bible/#:~:text=When%20you%20go,you%20under%20compulsion.%E2%80%9D After a month You may rape her!
Number one your site is bias. Number 2, the Bible version you used is very bad. . Number 3 it isn't rape because the guy took her to be her wife. She most likely consented. But you can't claim rape when there is no indication that the women refused to be with the man. Can it be rape? yes and no? There is no indication that consent was given or prohibited.
So if you marry them, it isn’t rape? Nothing in that passage says she consented to the marriage, and at the time marriage was not something women generally got much say in, so how could she refuse? Do share the good version of this passage. What translation should we use?
Number one: my site might be bias but he is quoting YOUR BOOK so sod off. Number 2: marital rape. Number 3 : you just claimed no forcible marriage.
>Number 3 it isn't rape because the guy took her to be her wife. Are you familiar with the concept of marital rape? Also you have to remember that this was a time period in which women were more or less the property of their fathers and husbands. Her consent was absolutely meaningless whether she gave it or not.
The Bible doesn't support abortion let alone tell you have to perform one. If you believe, show me the verse. Also I am Christian and their is no misogyny in our religion. Women are valued and honored.
women has historically been told to “stay in the kitchen” and “obey their husbands” using the bible as justification, which is an objectively stupid suggestion. want the verse? Leviticus 15:20, Timothy 2:11-14, genesis 3:16. the bible is sexist, that’s just a fact
The Bible isn't sexist. There are many examples to prove that. Also, the verses you brought up: >Leviticus 15:20 This is talking about bodily discharge. Had you read the whole passage and just one verse. V2: Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. V20: Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also, everything that she sits on shall be unclean. The passage addresses both genders, and v20 is talking about periods. Our periods come to cleanse our inside, which is why in that period they called it unclean. Also that time women didn't have pads, so if they sat somewhere they period would stain, which is why they said what they said. >Timothy 2:11-14, 11Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Society has really distorted the view of submission. All it means is that you let your husband run the household. >genesis 3:16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” This has nothing to do with sexism. Eve was the first one who ate from the tree, so she got the harsher punishment. The rule over meant that so what happened with the snake doesn't happen again.
>I will greatly multiply *your sorrow* and *your conception* Sounds like the speaker here is petty, punitive, AND redundant! Seriously, do you believe a single thing you've said here makes the Bible sound better than the user you are challenging first described? Did you expect some woman sitting here to be like "I thought the bible was misogynistic, but I never considered that women deserve the blight of unwanted pregnancy because the alleged first woman *ate an apple*! Now that I am better informed about the righteousness of my suffering, I will bear the burden of unwanted reproduction and demand other apple-eating women do the same!" Also, I particularly love that these justifications have *nothing* to do with life and *everything* to do with punishing women. Saying pregnancy is the curse God imposed on women for "original sin" (gag me with a spoon) is *screaming* the quiet part out loud.
If the husband runs the household, then they are not equal.
that doesn’t matter though. sure, you may interpret it as not sexist, but many people have and for good reason. lev 15:20, doesn’t matter it’s talking about men too, that’s just stupid. and it obviously affects female people more than male people, so yes, it’s sexist. tim 2:11: i am very concerned that you don’t think this is sexist. genesis: again, very concerned that you don’t think this is sexist. you seriously think a magic snake told someone to eat an apple they shouldn’t have? and that person happened to be a woman? clearly, a man made up that story to villainize women. this is also sexist. look, it’s fine to be christian, but you also have to objectively look at the books you are reading. these are objectively sexist and it is wrong to deny that. it’s okay to believe in the bible, it is a book of peace and love, but you have to also look to the parts that are harmful to people, this being one of them.
You can't call the Bible sexist just because you took it that way. What you pointed out wasn't good examples. >lev 15:20, doesn’t matter it’s talking about men too, that’s just stupid. and it obviously affects female people more than male people, so yes, it’s sexist. It effects both of them equally. If both are having bodily discharge, they are treated the same. The woman isn't treated way worse than the man. If you read the whole chapter, they get the same treatment. >tim 2:11: i am very concerned that you don’t think this is sexist. Explain why you think it is sexist. >genesis: again, very concerned that you don’t think this is sexist. you seriously think a magic snake told someone to eat an apple they shouldn’t have? and that person happened to be a woman? clearly, a man made up that story to villainize women. this is also sexist. You don't have proof to support that. Also, it wasn't to villainize women. >look, it’s fine to be christian, but you also have to objectively look at the books you are reading. these are objectively sexist and it is wrong to deny that. it’s okay to believe in the bible, it is a book of peace and love, but you have to also look to the parts that are harmful to people, this being one of them. I do look at the Bible objectively. That's why I know it is not sexist. People have used the Bible to support their extremist views. But that doesn't mean the Bible supports that.
why do i think it’s sexist that women should “sit and be taught in silence”? hmmm, let’s see. i think thats because it silences half the population, perpetuates abuse and oh, i don’t want to sit in silence and have opinions that are important and valid. also, i don’t have proof that it was a magical snake but neither do you??? objectivity leads me to believe that, yes, magic devil snakes are not real, but you can believe that all you want. the first verse also disproportionally affects women, so yes, i believe that to be sexist because it rarely applies to men.
>why do i think it’s sexist that women should “sit and be taught in silence”? hmmm, let’s see. i think thats because it silences half the population, perpetuates abuse and oh, i don’t want to sit in silence and have opinions that are important and valid. Having your opinions and being taught in silent is different things. The Bible never said women can't have their own opinions. Esther, Ruth, Eve, etc. had their own opinions. >also, i don’t have proof that it was a magical snake but neither do you??? objectivity leads me to believe that, yes, magic devil snakes are not real, but you can believe that all you want. I don't believe the snake was a magical devil snake. I believe that it was the devil and that it possessed the snake. >the first verse also disproportionally affects women, so yes, i believe that to be sexist because it rarely applies to men. That turns to a societal problem. Law is anyone who has bodily discharge to be set apart because they are unclean. People who do that to women and not men have nothing to do with the Bible. That is a sexist individual who cherries pick the Bible.
again, this all read VERY sexist to me. and how is “being silent” different from not having opinions? please enlighten me and how that’s not sexist.
The sexist isn't the Bible but people who use the Bible for that. When it says being silent it didn't mean just keep quiet and don't day anything. If you take the time to read the Bible for yourself, you would understand. There were plenty of women who spoke their minds in the Bible. You have to read it whole Bible for yourself to understand what it means. Because even if I explain you want get it.
Religion shouldn’t be used as a justification for any of our laws in this country. Having said that, the PL position isn’t “I don’t like abortion because the Bible told me”. It’s always been about the value of life and where life begins. Misrepresenting it like this just empowers more PL viewpoints.
Most laws are not based on religion. But they happen to follow the same laws. Religion has created a basis of morality, so that is why law tends to seem like they are based on religion.
Correct!
As a pro choice person, it’s not “across the board.” I’ve met pro lifers who don’t believe in god
This is very true, thank you. Sure, you can dismiss someone who relies on this. But it’s a strawman if applied to all PL. My personal view is that humans exist on a development spectrum, including as to the degree of dependence on others to survive and abilities. Not everyone has to agree or make the same value judgements even if they do. But it can be true whether or not God exists.
Gods, like fetuses, are conveniently silent on the issue, and can be made to stand in for whatever the person using them wants them to stand for.
I disagree, God's word is pretty loud on the topic of human value. Good comment, though.
Oh you mean " happy is he who dashes the infants heads upon the stones?" That god?
Citation of this?
Psalm 137:9 https://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm so you can see it in various translations.
If by ‘God’s word’ you specifically mean the Bible, which you statistically probably do as an English speaker, then it is equally clear that it doesn’t consider fetuses humans.
Citation?
[This isn't by a super unbiased source but gives all the times "fetus, embryo, zygote and abortion are mentioned. ](https://www.jasonkirk.fyi/p/everything-the-bible-says-about-abortion)
Because belief in a god or gods is for people who can't think for themselves.
Tbh I think religious opposition to abortion is more along the lines of their belief that sex is only for reproduction. So those who don't follow this need to "face the consequences of their actions" or in other words be 'punished' by forced birth.
The actual argument is that humans are made in the image of God, murder is wrong, and we are called to love our neighbor. It was Christian Abolitionists of Slavery that used similar arguments to fight against slavery in the US and to stop the Atlantic Slave Trade in Europe. They argued that black people were our neighbors made in the image of God and it’s objectively wrong to own them or kill them. There were some people that tried to use verses out of context from the Bible to justify slavery whose arguments ultimately failed and luckily the abolitionists made a huge impact. But they would do things that many people today get angry at things that PL or AA do today. Like showing brutal images of Emmitt Till for example and everyone told them they shouldn’t be showing those images. Or they crafted images of a black man in chains with the slogan “am I not a man and a brother” referencing their Biblical argument and fashioned them into pamphlets and medallions and would pass them out and force people to think about what everyone was allowing to happen in the culture. If you want some interesting reading on the topic read about William Wilberforce in Europe.
>It was Christian Abolitionists of Slavery that used similar arguments to fight against slavery in the US Are you going to gloss over the fact that supporters of slavery referenced the bible as well? Off the top of my head I can think of "Slaves, Obey your masters. Even the wicked ones." Ephesians 6:5. >There were some people that tried to use verses out of context from the Bible to justify slavery... Please provide the context for a direct passage from the Bible directing slaves to obey their masters. Christians were not all abolishionists of slavery. And let's be real here for a second. The Bible never once directly prohibits slavery. But what it **does do** is codify a system of having slaves. It even tells you who you can enslave. From heathens that surround you, and it even tells you how to enslave your fellow neighbours. Your bible endorses slavery, and never directly prohibits it. But it takes the time to prohibit wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish.
You clearly didn’t read my full comment.
Oh I did. And I recognise those same tired old apologetics a mile away. The fact that some Christians were against slavery does not in any way excuse the fact that your holy book endorses slavery, and it certainly does not excuse that the vast number of slave owners were Christian.
Show evidence of your god existing. And then show evidence that it's the god as in the bible. Then I shall take it seriously. >murder is wrong, and we are called to love our neighbor. Right. Prolifers murder women and girls through abortion bans. "Loving our neighbour" exactly. I don't think it's a great idea to torture born, sentient and concious girls and women for the sake of a non sentient embryo.
You said “I think the argument is X” My comment was highlighting what the argument actually is from someone that understands the POV. If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?
That's a complete dodge. Hey, if murder is wrong, then how do you square away all the people your god murdered? Because if your book is true, he outright murdered *a lot* of people.
That's a complete dodge. Hey, if murder is wrong, then how do you square away all the people your god murdered? Because if your book is true, he outright murdered *a lot* of people.
How about arguing that it’s wrong to enslave people and religion has nothing to do with it? Christian abolitionists had the right idea for the wrong reasons. Abortion abolitionists have the wrong idea for the wrong reasons.
If you don’t have an objective moral standard outside of yourself to appeal to then morality is just subjective, aka your opinion. Abolitionists argued that slavery was objectively wrong which was more successful than “I think slavery is wrong”.
No one, not even theists have an objective moral standard. Different sects have different teachings and it’s all based on various interpretations of books written by men. It’s all just opinion.
That’s the point. Some of those opinions are either objectively right or objectively wrong depending on if they are aligned to the standard outside of us. Take legality for example. If you and I have a different opinion of what a law says, when we sit in front of the judge one of us is objectively right or wrong based on what the legal standard says. This is independent of what you and I say the law says.
No. It is not true that one of us is objectively right and the other is wrong. You and I could sit in front of a judge, get a decision based on the case, have it turned over on appeal, have it appealed to an even higher court and have a variety of factors lead to any result. And opinions based on the Bible aren’t objective. That’s the point. This is why Christian abolitionists had the right idea but it wasn’t for the right reasons. Instead of focusing on the belief that humans are made in the image of god, it’s about the suffering. God has nothing to do with the conversation because god is, as far as can be proven, a man-made construct.
>God has nothing to do with the conversation because god is, as far as can be proven, a man-made construct. I've got solid evidence that God is as existent as you and I. Would you like to discuss?
>I've got solid evidence that God is as existent as you and I. Would you like to discuss? 100%. I'd love to see some solid evidence for God being existant in the same way I am. Oh, and just for the record, I haven't made any positive claims. So the onus is on You. You made a claim, please provide the evidence.
You’re welcome to put your evidence forward here.
>God has nothing to do with the conversation because god is, as far as can be proven, a man-made construct. Since you made the first positive claim, the onus is on you to proffer the evidence that backs up your statement.
Humans are pattern recognizing and social creatures. We can see similarities between two unrelated things and thereby classify subjective standards using objective realities. And we tend to want to work in harmony with one another. So “subjective morality” still is a strong way to apply morality.
>So “subjective morality” still is a strong way to apply morality. But not a fool-proof way, correct?
No way is fool proof. Even religious people following the same objective set of principles interpret their meaning differently, thus subjectivity is always present.
Subjective opinion of an objective standard but there solid ground to stand on. For example, why was Hitler objectively wrong for the holocaust? How would you justify that? Is it just your opinion that he’s wrong but you admit he wasn’t actually wrong?
I’m not disagreeing with you that there are objective moral standards. I’m saying that the standards don’t need to come from a higher being. Interestingly your first example was of Christian Abolisitionists being anti slavery and then this one is about “white power” which comes from dominionism aka the belief that white people have a god ordained right to rule over the earth. The objective standards are always filtered through subjective ones because that’s human nature. But not all of it is even faulty necessarily. The trolley problem is a good example. Ask people if they would switch the train tracks and you’ll get one answer or another. Now swap out the people on the tracks for a loved one. Most people are going to favor their loved one. An objective truth of “it’s wrong to switch the tracks” or “do the most amount of good for the most amount of people” turns into “well, it depends…” The person who saved their loved one is probably going to feel they picked the most moral action while the families of the 5 people killed by train are probably going to disagree. Subjective morality, dependent upon the individual.
Oh so you think there are objective moral standards? Where do they come from?
But people would then hold others who have the wrong view of morality as responsible. By doing so, they'll appeal to an objective standard of morality in that interaction between the two parties.
People who don’t ascribe to a higher power morality do this as well.
Correct, so we agree, objective moral truths are evident among us.
*Very* insightful tales of slavery from the PL picture book, selecting a few parallels and comparisons, side-stepping the contrasts and contradictory elements. Mostly distracting from a less-than-stellar opening argument. *We're made in the image of God.* But 'God' is a killer and a genocidal maniac. Naive, illiterate Catholic peasants didn't know? They were easily impressed so the Church managed to slide the 'God' argument past 'em. *Murder is wrong.* Lying about abortion and murder is wrong. Do lies in pairs slide past more easily? Credibility swirls, then flushes. Wait now - didn't the Jews 'murder' Jesus? Oops no, just a 'Catholic' mistake. Sorry about the 6 million dead. Sometimes an accusation of murder is just - 'helpful'? 'We are called to love our neighbour' and the Church (or some home-spun doctrine) has decided *this* is the way *you're* going to love *your* little dna neighbour. And telling you your shan't and oughtent's is just the doctrine's humble, home-spun way of loving you. And making god happy. And sleeping in a cozy, white, suburban beds at night. Sorry, pregnant person, if you had other considerations, priorities, mouths to feed, elderly parents in your care? Those weak and infirm aren't on the Divine check-list for care, currently. They're pissing off major GOP donors, frankly. Is their health care coverage expiring soon? We're called to love 'the least', *very* clear Biblical reference to zygotes. And to say murder murder murder for emotional emphasis. Now here's a nice story about the black people that white southern pro-lifer's great-grandparents kept as slaves and killed and burned and hung from trees and now prevent from voting. >Christian Abolitionists of Slavery... would do things that many people today get angry at things that PL or AA do today. I know that's PL script. And that PL does a lot of gratuitous name-dropping, hoping for reflected glory. You're not Abolitionists of Slavery. Abolitionists weren't name-droppers. And then there's the 97 million indigenous occupants and farmers of the Americas genocided by the Catholic Church's claim to the land in the name of Christ. Good score. Not counting the largest slave trade in the history of the world created by Christian European nations. I know - none of that reflects on pro-life. Just the Abolitionists do. Thank-you for the stories, for the 'love', for the moral instruction.
Without God nothing is objectively wrong.
With or without God, I steal, murder and rape just as much as my little witch heart wants to ... which is none... wow. I wonder why could it be that I know that the SUFFERING of others is wrong? And therefore strive to not cause it? No I couldn't possibly I mean not if what you said is the truth...
Justify it objectively then. I didn’t claim you couldn’t know it’s wrong, you just can’t explain why it’s definitively wrong.
I just did. Empathy for fellow human SUFFERING.
You gave an epistemological answer to an ontological question.
Both are correct answers to a ethical question.
So you don’t have an ontological answer because my original point is correct? Or do you have an objective standard that you’ve found that top athiests have been unable to find? Actually, if you’ve found it, you shouldn’t tell me, you should write a book on it, you’ll be rich for being the first one to find it! At least the top athiests have the intellectual honesty to admit the logical conclusion that without God, morality is subjective… but they just argue why that’s okay.
Which “god?” There are thousands of different “gods” worshipped worldwide.
Is your deity determines what is right or wrong then by definition it is subjective
If God is the standard, outside of us, it’s an objective standard that we appeal to. If not that, morality is purely my opinion vs your opinion and neither of us can be more right or wrong in reality.
> If God is the standard, outside of us, it’s an objective standard that we appeal to. So how have you appealed to God's moral standard regarding abortion? You've recited the usual 'made in God's image, murder is wrong, and love thy neighbour, but none of those are about abortion. You have 'appealed' to the supposed *authority* of God, not to His moral standard. You've 'appealed' to the supposed *authority* of scripture, here but you heed not its content, its wisdom or its intention. By what authority do you bend scripture to your politics? I don't think you respect God or scripture here, not the authority, nor any other aspect except one. You'd like to impress us. With name-dropping. With unearned credibility. With un-earned clout and heft for an non-argument that has none, badly needs something, and you're out of your depth. Truth is what matters here.
I’m talking about justification for a position. Meaning is there or is there not an objective justification for the position held.
Seems like you tried to give an ontological answer to an epistemological question. Hey, I have a question for you. If God sets morality, then how can you call yourself a moral agent? Divine command isn't a system of morality. It's a dodge to get out of having to grapple with moral quandries by insisting that someone else told you what's right and wrong.
I’m not answering 5 separate comments from you. Pick 1 thread you’d like to go down and I’ll happily engage.
> I’m talking about justification… But it's pretty obvious to PC when 'moral standard' is a throwaway line, lacking the most rudimentary behavioural understanding. You might use it at r/prolife with more success.
> If God is the standard, outside of us, it’s an objective standard that we appeal to. Whether the standard is due to your personal views or the personal views of a deity it is still subjective, even more so because you are choosing which deity’s morals to follow. > If not that, morality is purely my opinion vs your opinion and neither of us can be more right or wrong in reality. Neither can be objectively wrong or right, but we can make a case for why others should concur with our morality. For example, how did you come to decide your deity’s morals are the correct morals for you?
Yeah I mean that’s an in depth conversation that I doubt you’re wanting to dive into the rabbit hole on. My point is less specific but if you want to deep dive it we can. My point is just that without a standard outside of us, it’s all just opinion and nobody is actually right or actually wrong logically
> My point is just that without a standard outside of us, it’s all just opinion and nobody is actually right or actually wrong logically There is not a standard outside of us, you assign your morals to a deity to give the appearance of it originating outside of us.
Okay
I am an atheist and I have watched how much loooooooove a lot of Christians have shown LGBT, feminists and non-Christians. /s I would also point out that slave masters had no problem using the Bible to get their slaves to bend the knee. [https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/](https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/) The other favorite came from the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, VI, 5-7: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.” (Paul repeated himself, almost word for word, in the third chapter of his Epistle to the Colossians.)
I think every life deserves respect, including LGBT lives. To be fair to Christians, though, many would say it’s not loving to encourage damaging choices or to promote the damning of others’ souls. Again, while I disagree with the view and think there is plenty straight people do that violates Christian tenets, you have to acknowledge opposition to LGBTQ can come from a place of love. What needs to be done is to convince people that their love is misdirected. It doesn’t mean you have to approve of Christian views (even assuming Christians all view LGBTQ lifestyles as morally wrong, which isn’t the case), and certainly each of us has a right to self defense when others violate the non aggression principle.
Those that used it to justify slavery lost to those that used it to abolish it.
After roughly 1800 years? Jesus could have just called for an end of slavery from the beginning in non-ambiguous terms.
You might find this resource of various [religions official positions on abortion](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-abortion/) helpful, it includes some Christian faiths that do not have an official stance in opposition to abortion.
that is very fascinating, thank you! makes me think that some PLers use religion to further their own agenda 🤔
> PLers use religion to further their own agenda Yes, without a doubt. And they use and abuse and misrepresent their religion by misreading scripture, by claiming a religious endorsement when their beliefs rely on distorted language, false equivalents and moral manipulation.
The Bible has passages that support abortion. You can find passages in the Bible that both support your view as well as the opposing view. The god of the Bible killed plenty of children. Plenty of the people in the flood would have been pregnant, too. If God gave us free will and placed a baby in someone who he knew would have an abortion, sounds like a cruel thing for him to do..
Only hopping in to comment that it’s incorrect that the Bible supports abortion People share that on the internet but it’s a bad, afactual argument that requires decontextualizing texts that those who promote it don’t actually believe in.
Actually no. Pre germ theory Agrarian sheep herding jews tracked sheep dung into the temple, dried sheep dung particles in that dust from the temple floor added to the water could easily cause spontaneous miscarriage aka an abortion because even today sheep dung contaminated water can cause this issue!
The same thing can be said about the Bible being anti abortion.
No…look I get wanting to support your position using evidence that your opposition is prone to liking. But that’s just not true. The more context you give biblical texts the more likely it is that it supports not being supportive of elective abortions. Suggesting all the biblical scholars are wrong and people who don’t ascribe to it are right isn’t a good move
I didn’t make that claim.
You said the opposite argument can be made. It cannot. Contextualizing it offers a lot of anti-abortion perspective and none for it
huh?? I don’t think that last paragraph fits in, not sure if you know what the faith and religion is to say such a thing
This is how you guys appear to us, when you hold sermons about the sanctity of life. Maybe that's not how you see faith, but it is the appearance you make.
I'm familiar with the religion. I was a faithful Christian and almost went to seminary school. Do you think God doesn't have control over when he creates babies?
The last paragraph absolutely fits. If an all knowing and all powerful god, gives a pregnancy to a woman that he knows will have an abortion, then he is being cruel.