Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies

[Metalcat]

We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.

IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.

I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.

Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?

Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.

Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.

You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.

As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.

two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.

Exactly.

I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.

There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.

For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.

[ericrugiero]

Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...

How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?

+1000

And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.

I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.

My experience comes from being associated with a religious group that was pro-life and very, very much about controlling women's bodies. Then I had a roommate who was the head of the largest pro-life organization in the country. Their agenda was very much based on the same religious sentiment about punishing women. Then I had friends working on a major anti-abortion conservative political campaign, and they DEFINITELY were all about controlling women's bodies.

I don't doubt that on the individual level, there are very conscientious, genuinely "pro-life" folks who deeply care about babies, but as a political interest, that's not what I've witnessed.

@Malcat It's unfortunate that you have seen mostly the negative side of the pro-life movement.  My experience has been like Wolfpack Mustachian in that the vast majority of the pro life people I know (or have known) are genuinely pro-life because they love babies.  Like Wolfpack said, the most ardent ones are typically women.  There isn't really a lot of middle ground for many of us to compromise on, but I still think it's helpful for both sides to remember there are people on the "other side" who are there with good intentions and well reasoned arguments. 

[Morning Glory]

How about people who want to reduce welfare payments but not increase the minimum wage? That would be the easiest way to get a whole bunch of people off welfare.

People who say they are for smaller government but then want strict immigration policy where they lock people up for being here. Just open the border if you want the government smaller. It would save a bunch of tax dollars too.

People who crow about supporting small business, farmers, and "job creators" but don't want single-payer healthcare, which would be the single biggest help to those groups.

[Metalcat]

Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...

How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?

+1000

And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.

I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.

My experience comes from being associated with a religious group that was pro-life and very, very much about controlling women's bodies. Then I had a roommate who was the head of the largest pro-life organization in the country. Their agenda was very much based on the same religious sentiment about punishing women. Then I had friends working on a major anti-abortion conservative political campaign, and they DEFINITELY were all about controlling women's bodies.

I don't doubt that on the individual level, there are very conscientious, genuinely "pro-life" folks who deeply care about babies, but as a political interest, that's not what I've witnessed.

@Malcat It's unfortunate that you have seen mostly the negative side of the pro-life movement.  My experience has been like Wolfpack Mustachian in that the vast majority of the pro life people I know (or have known) are genuinely pro-life because they love babies.  Like Wolfpack said, the most ardent ones are typically women.  There isn't really a lot of middle ground for many of us to compromise on, but I still think it's helpful for both sides to remember there are people on the "other side" who are there with good intentions and well reasoned arguments.

I don't consider it unfortunate, I consider it illuminating. I'm very happy I've had exposure to some high level political agendas on this matter (and many others). It's really helped me understand it as a political issue.

All issues are different on the individual level from the organizational level, and it's very important to understand that, especially for the causes people care most about.

I agree that people should be open minded and try to understand each other.

Again, I never actually stated a position. I simply explained early on how it can be not actually hypocritical to be "pro-life" without actually caring about babies. Someone said it sounded like a contradiction, and I clarified that in those cases, it really isn't, because it's not even necessarily about life.

[Wrenchturner]

An interesting way to frame it.  Lefties might invert these.  (Except the latter has to be "pandemic-related risks")

Lefties often attribute the circumstances around people to explain abortions(which looks more like a force of nature) and pandemic risks characterized by mostly human acts(not wearing masks, socializing indoors, not quarantining, etc)
---------------------------------------------

I am agreeing with you.

Bacteria and Viruses are everywhere and on everything. Hospitals have to be careful because of "super bugs" that have evolved from surviving a dangerous environment (to them.)

So natural processes are still in effect and running. We have not "conquered" nature. We merely maintain and adapt while nature adapts to us.

The way things started masks were supposed to be a "mitigating" measure. Much like how a poncho keeps you from getting wet, a life vest prevents you from downing or a heavy coat prevents hypothermia.

Then it suddenly became that not wearing a mask became the equivalent of violence. Just the act of breathing in the same room is harmful to people now. How is that supposed to work. Natural processes required to live are life threatening?

It is interesting how the moral hazard shifted as you point out.  I believe the poor risk management by gov'ts has led to this.  Since pandemic management was done so poorly by administrators, the moral hazard was forced upon the citizenry by their gov'ts via masks, lockdowns etc.

I'm still Not sure why libertarian/authoritarian seems to be partisan these days.  What I do observe is a willingness to adopt authoritarian strategies in the interest of the collective well being, and I'd say this is mostly coming from the left.  Kind of a "think of the children!" Mindset that lacks pragmatism, and tends to be overrun with emotion.

[ctuser1]

My experience has been like Wolfpack Mustachian in that the vast majority of the pro life people I know (or have known) are genuinely pro-life because they love babies. 

"Loving babies" is not a necessary or sufficient condition for the arrogance to impose one's own moral standards on everyone else. That affliction is caused by arrogance caused by ideology.

You (figurative "you") have every right to decide life starts at conception and every right to act based on that belief. I will be just as upset if someone from a fictitious "anti life" camp tried to impose a different standard on "you" for your own life/body.

You have ZERO right to impose that belief on someone else. If you demand you do then you are acting like the fictitious "anti life" gang mentioned above.

There are many other groups around the world with similar arrogance as the "pro life" gang. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India ..

Like Wolfpack said, the most ardent ones are typically women. 

Arrogance is not exclusive to a gender.

There isn't really a lot of middle ground for many of us to compromise on

Sure there is. Roe v. Wade is an excellent compromise. But again, arrogance and compromise don't mix well.

, but I still think it's helpful for both sides to remember there are people on the "other side" who are there with good intentions and well reasoned arguments.

Amen.

As long as everyone decides to leave everyone else alone and decides not to dictate terms to them - including what moral beliefs they HAVE TO follow - we can all get along.

[Nick_Miller]

We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.

IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.

I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.

Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?

Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.

Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.

You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.

As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.

two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.

Exactly.

I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.

There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.

For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.

I see your point in the part I italicized. Pondering big questions is something most of us do. And I've met plenty of folks who identify as religious (mostly Catholics) who I think are in that group. They like the tradition, the ritual, the community, of the Catholic Church, but when the rubber meets the road, they are very 'soft' on actually believing specific things.

But really that just gets back into "what the hell is 'religion' anyway? If there's no worship, no belief in a deity, no adherence to specific rules/beliefs, if it's just mostly pondering big questions, well isn't that just philosophy...or thinking?

And my two posts were clearly targeted toward people not in this category. See "base my life decisions on my belief in an invisible sky deity who seeks to micro-manage my every action by asking me to adhere to ancient, vague, and inconsistent rules and who focuses all of their attention on one region of one planet amongst the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that exist."  (my first post)

"That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face." (my second post)

Those are religious literalists/orthodox/hard-liners/Kool Aid drinkers, however you wish to categorize them. They are not necessarily wise, thoughtful, truth-seeking philosopher poets.

And your last line " For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science" leads me to think we pretty much agree when it comes to these folks.

[partgypsy]

Well there are many Catholics, Orthodox christians, Jewish faith people, who do it because they were raised that way, and it is part of their community, their bigger family, their cultural etc identity. Yes if you do it you do have to say you agree with various credos. But maybe I'm weird but I know a number of people coming from my faith, when going to church, getting married, baptized in church, are not otherwise religious! Its something you do because you are expected to. It's more about the participation and the belonging and that comfort, than a place to ask big profound questions. No one set ups a lie detector and you have to pass the question, do you believe in God, to enter. Maybe my church experience is unusual, but I suspect not. So those who focus on, if you are a churchgoer, you believe in a sky father and other contradictory things, are slightly missing the point of why people go to church.  Another thing to point out, is that religion is simply  a different beast than science, in that  you are supposed to have faith without evidence, unlike science.  The place where religion and science intersect, is the understanding that humans are fallible, do not know everything, and will probably, because of the nature of humans, and the universe will never know everything.

[Metalcat]

We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.

IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.

I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.

Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?

Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.

Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.

You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.

As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.

two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.

Exactly.

I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.

There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.

For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.

I see your point in the part I italicized. Pondering big questions is something most of us do. And I've met plenty of folks who identify as religious (mostly Catholics) who I think are in that group. They like the tradition, the ritual, the community, of the Catholic Church, but when the rubber meets the road, they are very 'soft' on actually believing specific things.

But really that just gets back into "what the hell is 'religion' anyway? If there's no worship, no belief in a deity, no adherence to specific rules/beliefs, if it's just mostly pondering big questions, well isn't that just philosophy...or thinking?

And my two posts were clearly targeted toward people not in this category. See "base my life decisions on my belief in an invisible sky deity who seeks to micro-manage my every action by asking me to adhere to ancient, vague, and inconsistent rules and who focuses all of their attention on one region of one planet amongst the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that exist."  (my first post)

"That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face." (my second post)

Those are religious literalists/orthodox/hard-liners/Kool Aid drinkers, however you wish to categorize them. They are not necessarily wise, thoughtful, truth-seeking philosopher poets.

And your last line " For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science" leads me to think we pretty much agree when it comes to these folks.

You seem to be splitting religious people into two groups, those who are less devout and more vaguely philosophical about spirituality and those who are devout and dogmatic about rules and scripture.

That's simply not the case AT ALL.

Many deeply devout religious people aren't fundamentalist or literalist in their beliefs. I've spoken to many rabbis, imams, indigenous elders, Jesuits, and most recently, a pile of very interesting United Church ministers, and none of them have been vague or purely philosophical in their beliefs, but most have been deep, independent thinkers who question more than they dictate. Now, that's not because religious leaders in general are like that, just the ones that I choose to spend time talking to.

Some groups utilize religion to dictate what people should believe in, other groups use religion as a mechanism for exploring larger questions of life.

I *get* what group you are talking about, I just don't think you get what group I'm talking about.

[ericrugiero]

My experience has been like Wolfpack Mustachian in that the vast majority of the pro life people I know (or have known) are genuinely pro-life because they love babies. 

"Loving babies" is not a necessary or sufficient condition for the arrogance to impose one's own moral standards on everyone else. That affliction is caused by arrogance caused by ideology.

You (figurative "you") have every right to decide life starts at conception and every right to act based on that belief. I will be just as upset if someone from a fictitious "anti life" camp tried to impose a different standard on "you" for your own life/body.

You have ZERO right to impose that belief on someone else. If you demand you do then you are acting like the fictitious "anti life" gang mentioned above.

I think I understand what you are saying and it makes total sense if you don't view the "fetus" as a human being worthy of protecting.  However, if you view it as an unborn baby that is worth as much as you or me then abortion becomes morally wrong.  Would you think that I should take actions to protect your child if they were twelve years old and I saw someone raping or killing them?  In that case, I assume we can agree that "I" (and society) should protect your hypothetical child and we (as a society) should punish the attacker.  What if the attacker believes your child isn't a person until they turn 18?  Am I supposed to respect the attackers beliefs?  Is it wrong for me to impose my beliefs on them?  For someone who believes that life begins at conception, there really isn't much difference between that attack and abortion. 

Now, in the spirit of this thread, someone is bound to correctly point out that there are logical inconsistencies.  I'm not capable of protecting all innocent life.  I can't possibly show love to everyone in the world.  So I must choose where to put my time and energy.  Is that inconsistent?  Sure, it's bound to be.  But, I try to do the best I can with what I have.  That includes loving both the baby and the mother.  We should not be judging the mother and trying to punish her. 

I've seen people point out the inconsistency of caring about abortions but "not caring" about children locked in cages apart from their families at the Mexican border.  Some may view it as inconsistent, but I am more concerned about abortion.  Here is my reasoning:
-  Abortion is local to me and the Mexican border is 1500 miles away
-  There are 3000+ abortions per day in the USA which is much more than the number of children separated from parents
-  Killing someone is worse than separating them from their parents for a time.  (not that I'm in favor of separation)
-  The parents in question are breaking the law and know that being separated is a possibility.  They still come.  They do bear some measure of personal responsibility in the situation. (not that it makes it right for us to mistreat them)
Please understand, I'm not justifying separating families.  I'm just explaining why I think abortion is a more pressing issue. 

[ctuser1]

I think I understand what you are saying and it makes total sense if you don't view the "fetus" as a human being worthy of protecting.

With respect, I don't think you understand my point.

It may surprise you to know that I personally view "fetus" as a human being worthy of protecting. What I said makes sense independent of that belief.

There are several hundreds of millions of people in the world (Hindus) who view a "cow" as a "mother" who is worthy of protecting. There are some (tens? hundreds? thousands? don't know - just heard an anecdote) Christians in Philippines who view "Balut" with the same horror reserved for killing fetuses.

The sincerity of the belief about X/Y or Z is not in question, and not a factor in my argument. The tendency to demand that everyone else's beliefs be made subservient to X/Y or Z to the point that their bodily autonomy is overridden is THE problem. There are a couple of dictionary words to describe this tendency to demand supremacy of one's own beliefs over others that will derail this thread immediately - so I will refrain from mentioning them here.

I do not look down upon someone who believes that fetus deserves protection (else I'll hate myself), but I am contemptuous of anyone who demands their belief in a fetus' or cow's life should override any other moral system.

-----------------

The rest of your argument are strawmen that doesn't deserve place in any good faith discussion. An 18 year old is universally considered a "person" - a view that is cultural and also codified into law everywhere at this point and place relevant for this discussion.

At a different time and place the law/culture could be very different. The southern slave owners did not consider all 18-year olds as person's - but property. In feudal times, non-titled nobility was similarly not considered a "person" by the noble (somehow Christianity was fine with it for more than a thousand years).

-----------------

There is again, ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with attempting to reduce the number of abortions. Promoting contraceptive use, prenatal healthcare, a good safety net that serves the dual goal of promoting fertility (yay to demographic benefits) and bettering the conditions of children are all great goals that many in left and right can agree on.

But of course that is NOT what the so-called "pro-life" movement would want to focus on. There is no political dividends to be collected from really trying to reduce abortions.

The fascistic attempts to control a woman's body is where political benefits lie!!
   

[Nick_Miller]

We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.

IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.

I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.

Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?

Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.

Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.

You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.

As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.

two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.

Exactly.

I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.

There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.

For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.

I see your point in the part I italicized. Pondering big questions is something most of us do. And I've met plenty of folks who identify as religious (mostly Catholics) who I think are in that group. They like the tradition, the ritual, the community, of the Catholic Church, but when the rubber meets the road, they are very 'soft' on actually believing specific things.

But really that just gets back into "what the hell is 'religion' anyway? If there's no worship, no belief in a deity, no adherence to specific rules/beliefs, if it's just mostly pondering big questions, well isn't that just philosophy...or thinking?

And my two posts were clearly targeted toward people not in this category. See "base my life decisions on my belief in an invisible sky deity who seeks to micro-manage my every action by asking me to adhere to ancient, vague, and inconsistent rules and who focuses all of their attention on one region of one planet amongst the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that exist."  (my first post)

"That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face." (my second post)

Those are religious literalists/orthodox/hard-liners/Kool Aid drinkers, however you wish to categorize them. They are not necessarily wise, thoughtful, truth-seeking philosopher poets.

And your last line " For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science" leads me to think we pretty much agree when it comes to these folks.

You seem to be splitting religious people into two groups, those who are less devout and more vaguely philosophical about spirituality and those who are devout and dogmatic about rules and scripture.

That's simply not the case AT ALL.

Many deeply devout religious people aren't fundamentalist or literalist in their beliefs. I've spoken to many rabbis, imams, indigenous elders, Jesuits, and most recently, a pile of very interesting United Church ministers, and none of them have been vague or purely philosophical in their beliefs, but most have been deep, independent thinkers who question more than they dictate. Now, that's not because religious leaders in general are like that, just the ones that I choose to spend time talking to.

Some groups utilize religion to dictate what people should believe in, other groups use religion as a mechanism for exploring larger questions of life.

I *get* what group you are talking about, I just don't think you get what group I'm talking about.

Yeah, you're right, I don't think I understand what group(s) you're talking about. So you're talking about people who are 'deeply devout' but also not literalists but also not purely philosophical? So they believe in...something? But they don't believe in the ridiculous stuff? By not being "merely philosophical," that implies they incorporate some element of worship/mythology/'faith without proof"/etc. into their lives. But words like "devout" and "belief" also imply prioritizing faith/feelings over evidence or objective analysis. Ok then.

My point remains, as it has from my very first post, that believing in ridiculous stuff like snakes speaking Hebrew, or demon pigs, or women turning to salt, or zombies (and yes this refers to the Jesus story) is non-scientific. Full stop. I mean, this is not exactly a provocative statement. It's frustrating that people even have to make this point.

[foghorn]

This is a fun one.

I have two:

1.)  People who are absolutely convinced that climate change is 100% human caused (maybe it is?) and must be addressed  - but then have babies - thereby creating more of the very creatures causing the problem they see.

2.)  People who hate wealthy and successful people and successful companies - yet they need these people and companies to be successful for the tax revenue they generate for all of the government programs they advocate for.

[ericrugiero]

I think I understand what you are saying and it makes total sense if you don't view the "fetus" as a human being worthy of protecting.

With respect, I don't think you understand my point.

It may surprise you to know that I personally view "fetus" as a human being worthy of protecting. What I said makes sense independent of that belief.

Fair enough.  It's impossible to know what someone believes based on their limited comments and I made an assumption that proved wrong. 

The rest of your argument are strawmen that doesn't deserve place in any good faith discussion. An 18 year old is universally considered a "person" - a view that is cultural and also codified into law everywhere at this point and place relevant for this discussion.

At a different time and place the law/culture could be very different. The southern slave owners did not consider all 18-year olds as person's - but property. In feudal times, non-titled nobility was similarly not considered a "person" by the noble (somehow Christianity was fine with it for more than a thousand years).

Not strawmen.  Whether it's a fetus or a baby is central to my personal beliefs.  The southern slave owners didn't consider blacks people but property.  I believe (as I assume you do) that they were wrong (regardless of the culture and law at the time).  Because black people are people, slavery in the early USA was wrong.  Because I believe unborn babies are people, I'm opposed to abortion.  I feel morally bound to do what I can to prevent mistreatment of either.  I'm also opposed to overriding bodily autonomy but I don't believe that trumps the right of a human being to live. 

[Davnasty]

1.)  People who are absolutely convinced that climate change is 100% human caused (maybe it is?) and must be addressed  - but then have babies - thereby creating more of the very creatures causing the problem they see.

Ya, and some of those same people don't even consider killing themselves in the name of reducing carbon emissions. Bunch of hypocrites if you ask me...

[GuitarStv]

1.)  People who are absolutely convinced that climate change is 100% human caused (maybe it is?) and must be addressed  - but then have babies - thereby creating more of the very creatures causing the problem they see.

What exactly is it about the reams of evidence over decades of research regarding climate change is warranting a 'maybe it is' from you?

[ctuser1]

The rest of your argument are strawmen that doesn't deserve place in any good faith discussion. An 18 year old is universally considered a "person" - a view that is cultural and also codified into law everywhere at this point and place relevant for this discussion.

At a different time and place the law/culture could be very different. The southern slave owners did not consider all 18-year olds as person's - but property. In feudal times, non-titled nobility was similarly not considered a "person" by the noble (somehow Christianity was fine with it for more than a thousand years).

Not strawmen.  Whether it's a fetus or a baby is central to my personal beliefs.  The southern slave owners didn't consider blacks people but property.  I believe (as I assume you do) that they were wrong (regardless of the culture and law at the time).  Because black people are people, slavery in the early USA was wrong.  Because I believe unborn babies are people, I'm opposed to abortion.  I feel morally bound to do what I can to prevent mistreatment of either.  I'm also opposed to overriding bodily autonomy but I don't believe that trumps the right of a human being to live.

There are a larger # of people in the world who sincerely believes you are committing a sin equivalent to murdering your mother every time you eat beef, than there are politically active "pro life conservatives".

What would be your take if they became similarly arrogant and fundamentalist as the politically active "pro life conservatives" and started organizing for capital punishment for all beef-eaters?

More aptly, there are some people (of an indeterminate #) who sincerely believes that you are committing blasphemy punishable by beheading if/when you draw a cartoon depicting a certain bearded dude or make any unflattering comment about his beard. What is your reaction when they act on that belief?

There are a number of mechanisms much more effective in reducing the number abortions than trying to control women's body against their will. When a movement singularly focuses on a less effective mechanism that additionally also helps controls women - the conclusion is quite simple.

[foghorn]

1.)  People who are absolutely convinced that climate change is 100% human caused (maybe it is?) and must be addressed  - but then have babies - thereby creating more of the very creatures causing the problem they see.

Ya, and some of those same people don't even consider killing themselves in the name of reducing carbon emissions. Bunch of hypocrites if you ask me...

Great point.  Totally agree. 

[calimom]

Being wildly anti-goverment spending but rabidly pro-military. Like, losing your shit if a child gets a free lunch but marvelling at the Blue Angels.

[Metalcat]

We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.

IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.

I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.

Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?

Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.

Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.

You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.

As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.

two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.

Exactly.

I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.

There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.

For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.

I see your point in the part I italicized. Pondering big questions is something most of us do. And I've met plenty of folks who identify as religious (mostly Catholics) who I think are in that group. They like the tradition, the ritual, the community, of the Catholic Church, but when the rubber meets the road, they are very 'soft' on actually believing specific things.

But really that just gets back into "what the hell is 'religion' anyway? If there's no worship, no belief in a deity, no adherence to specific rules/beliefs, if it's just mostly pondering big questions, well isn't that just philosophy...or thinking?

And my two posts were clearly targeted toward people not in this category. See "base my life decisions on my belief in an invisible sky deity who seeks to micro-manage my every action by asking me to adhere to ancient, vague, and inconsistent rules and who focuses all of their attention on one region of one planet amongst the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that exist."  (my first post)

"That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face." (my second post)

Those are religious literalists/orthodox/hard-liners/Kool Aid drinkers, however you wish to categorize them. They are not necessarily wise, thoughtful, truth-seeking philosopher poets.

And your last line " For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science" leads me to think we pretty much agree when it comes to these folks.

You seem to be splitting religious people into two groups, those who are less devout and more vaguely philosophical about spirituality and those who are devout and dogmatic about rules and scripture.

That's simply not the case AT ALL.

Many deeply devout religious people aren't fundamentalist or literalist in their beliefs. I've spoken to many rabbis, imams, indigenous elders, Jesuits, and most recently, a pile of very interesting United Church ministers, and none of them have been vague or purely philosophical in their beliefs, but most have been deep, independent thinkers who question more than they dictate. Now, that's not because religious leaders in general are like that, just the ones that I choose to spend time talking to.

Some groups utilize religion to dictate what people should believe in, other groups use religion as a mechanism for exploring larger questions of life.

I *get* what group you are talking about, I just don't think you get what group I'm talking about.

Yeah, you're right, I don't think I understand what group(s) you're talking about. So you're talking about people who are 'deeply devout' but also not literalists but also not purely philosophical? So they believe in...something? But they don't believe in the ridiculous stuff? By not being "merely philosophical," that implies they incorporate some element of worship/mythology/'faith without proof"/etc. into their lives. But words like "devout" and "belief" also imply prioritizing faith/feelings over evidence or objective analysis. Ok then.

My point remains, as it has from my very first post, that believing in ridiculous stuff like snakes speaking Hebrew, or demon pigs, or women turning to salt, or zombies (and yes this refers to the Jesus story) is non-scientific. Full stop. I mean, this is not exactly a provocative statement. It's frustrating that people even have to make this point.

Your initial post seemed to imply that science will inevitably conflict with religion, and that's what I don't agree with.

Also, mock me as much as you want, but yes, there are A LOT of religious intellectuals out there who interpret a lot of scripture as allegorical, so no, having faith doesn't require them to believe in a woman actually turning into a pillar of salt. You seem to think this mythical unicorn religious person doesn't exist, I call these people my friends.

I spent A LOT of time with rabbis when I found out I was Jewish, it was intellectually refreshing compared to the particularly culty evangelical group I was exposed to as a child.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...

How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?

+1000

And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.

I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.

My experience comes from being associated with a religious group that was pro-life and very, very much about controlling women's bodies. Then I had a roommate who was the head of the largest pro-life organization in the country. Their agenda was very much based on the same religious sentiment about punishing women. Then I had friends working on a major anti-abortion conservative political campaign, and they DEFINITELY were all about controlling women's bodies.

I don't doubt that on the individual level, there are very conscientious, genuinely "pro-life" folks who deeply care about babies, but as a political interest, that's not what I've witnessed.

What do you mean specifically in the phrase "controlling women's bodies?" Are you meaning they wanted there to be as many kids as possible in they wanted women to keep having kids? Want women to have kids because they don't like women and it can be a challenging thing? Want women to have kids so they're more likely to stay at home? Just glad in general to be telling women what to do? I'm not trying to be flippant, but this phrase is used all the time in the debate, and I've almost never heard anything like this in any of my conversations with pro-life people. Again, the only thing I've heard anywhere along this line is it's a consequence for an action, so why punish someone who didn't do anything for your actions, which has some tinges of punishment but is not really the same thing imo.

[partgypsy]

I see a couple people who appear to be arguing not in good faith (see sealioning) so I will refrain from commenting.

[nessness]

We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.

IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.

I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.

Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?

Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.

Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.

You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.

As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.

two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.

Exactly.

I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.

There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.

For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.

I see your point in the part I italicized. Pondering big questions is something most of us do. And I've met plenty of folks who identify as religious (mostly Catholics) who I think are in that group. They like the tradition, the ritual, the community, of the Catholic Church, but when the rubber meets the road, they are very 'soft' on actually believing specific things.

But really that just gets back into "what the hell is 'religion' anyway? If there's no worship, no belief in a deity, no adherence to specific rules/beliefs, if it's just mostly pondering big questions, well isn't that just philosophy...or thinking?

And my two posts were clearly targeted toward people not in this category. See "base my life decisions on my belief in an invisible sky deity who seeks to micro-manage my every action by asking me to adhere to ancient, vague, and inconsistent rules and who focuses all of their attention on one region of one planet amongst the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that exist."  (my first post)

"That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face." (my second post)

Those are religious literalists/orthodox/hard-liners/Kool Aid drinkers, however you wish to categorize them. They are not necessarily wise, thoughtful, truth-seeking philosopher poets.

And your last line " For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science" leads me to think we pretty much agree when it comes to these folks.

You seem to be splitting religious people into two groups, those who are less devout and more vaguely philosophical about spirituality and those who are devout and dogmatic about rules and scripture.

That's simply not the case AT ALL.

Many deeply devout religious people aren't fundamentalist or literalist in their beliefs. I've spoken to many rabbis, imams, indigenous elders, Jesuits, and most recently, a pile of very interesting United Church ministers, and none of them have been vague or purely philosophical in their beliefs, but most have been deep, independent thinkers who question more than they dictate. Now, that's not because religious leaders in general are like that, just the ones that I choose to spend time talking to.

Some groups utilize religion to dictate what people should believe in, other groups use religion as a mechanism for exploring larger questions of life.

I *get* what group you are talking about, I just don't think you get what group I'm talking about.

Yeah, you're right, I don't think I understand what group(s) you're talking about. So you're talking about people who are 'deeply devout' but also not literalists but also not purely philosophical? So they believe in...something? But they don't believe in the ridiculous stuff? By not being "merely philosophical," that implies they incorporate some element of worship/mythology/'faith without proof"/etc. into their lives. But words like "devout" and "belief" also imply prioritizing faith/feelings over evidence or objective analysis. Ok then.

My point remains, as it has from my very first post, that believing in ridiculous stuff like snakes speaking Hebrew, or demon pigs, or women turning to salt, or zombies (and yes this refers to the Jesus story) is non-scientific. Full stop. I mean, this is not exactly a provocative statement. It's frustrating that people even have to make this point.

I might regret wading into this conversation, but I will anyway. I am a Christian. I am also a scientist by both education and profession, and I don't see these two things as being in conflict. I believe that God created the universe and the natural laws, and that these natural laws govern the vast majority of what happens in the universe, but that God occasionally intervenes. If you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground unless something intervenes. If someone dies, they will stay dead unless someone (God) intervenes.

I believe that the New Testament is a literal account of Jesus' life, while the Old Testament contains a mix of history and allegory, and that there is room for debate about what falls into which category.

You can think I'm an idiot if you want; that's fine. But there are highly intelligent people with similar, or at least compatible, beliefs, and I would encourage you to read some of their writing, if nothing else than to broaden your understanding of others' viewpoints a little more. The Language of God by Francis Collins (former head of the Human Genome Project and NIH director) would be a good start, but I could recommend others if you're interested.

[Metalcat]

Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...

How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?

+1000

And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.

I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.

My experience comes from being associated with a religious group that was pro-life and very, very much about controlling women's bodies. Then I had a roommate who was the head of the largest pro-life organization in the country. Their agenda was very much based on the same religious sentiment about punishing women. Then I had friends working on a major anti-abortion conservative political campaign, and they DEFINITELY were all about controlling women's bodies.

I don't doubt that on the individual level, there are very conscientious, genuinely "pro-life" folks who deeply care about babies, but as a political interest, that's not what I've witnessed.

What do you mean specifically in the phrase "controlling women's bodies?" Are you meaning they wanted there to be as many kids as possible in they wanted women to keep having kids? Want women to have kids because they don't like women and it can be a challenging thing? Want women to have kids so they're more likely to stay at home? Just glad in general to be telling women what to do? I'm not trying to be flippant, but this phrase is used all the time in the debate, and I've almost never heard anything like this in any of my conversations with pro-life people. Again, the only thing I've heard anywhere along this line is it's a consequence for an action, so why punish someone who didn't do anything for your actions, which has some tinges of punishment but is not really the same thing imo.

It is the same thing. The belief that getting pregnant when it isn't wanted is the consequence of immoral behaviour and that women should be made to suffer the consequences of their immorality. Therefore, not about babies, all about sinners getting what they deserve. Hence why what happens to the babies isn't really all that concerning, the babies aren't precious gifts from God to be loved, they're burdens sinful women should have to bear, regardless of what it means for her life and her body.

And yes, I have heard it spelled out exactly that way by religious leaders and politicians.

[RetiredAt63]

Anyone who is against abortions should logically be actively working to make contraceptives easily and inexpensively available.  Equally that person should be agitating for good sex ed in schools so that young people understand sex and contraception and all the social issues (including the concept of no) before they are sexually active.  That way almost all babies would be wanted babies.  There would still be contraceptive failures and health issues but the number of abortions would be way down.

If anyone works to prevent abortions, limit sex ed and limit access to contraceptives, I doubt their main motive is love of all potential children.  By their actions shall ye know them.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...

How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?

+1000

And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.

I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.

My experience comes from being associated with a religious group that was pro-life and very, very much about controlling women's bodies. Then I had a roommate who was the head of the largest pro-life organization in the country. Their agenda was very much based on the same religious sentiment about punishing women. Then I had friends working on a major anti-abortion conservative political campaign, and they DEFINITELY were all about controlling women's bodies.

I don't doubt that on the individual level, there are very conscientious, genuinely "pro-life" folks who deeply care about babies, but as a political interest, that's not what I've witnessed.

What do you mean specifically in the phrase "controlling women's bodies?" Are you meaning they wanted there to be as many kids as possible in they wanted women to keep having kids? Want women to have kids because they don't like women and it can be a challenging thing? Want women to have kids so they're more likely to stay at home? Just glad in general to be telling women what to do? I'm not trying to be flippant, but this phrase is used all the time in the debate, and I've almost never heard anything like this in any of my conversations with pro-life people. Again, the only thing I've heard anywhere along this line is it's a consequence for an action, so why punish someone who didn't do anything for your actions, which has some tinges of punishment but is not really the same thing imo.

It is the same thing. The belief that getting pregnant when it isn't wanted is the consequence of immoral behaviour and that women should be made to suffer the consequences of their immorality. Therefore, not about babies, all about sinners getting what they deserve. Hence why what happens to the babies isn't really all that concerning, the babies aren't precious gifts from God to be loved, they're burdens sinful women should have to bear, regardless of what it means for her life and her body.

And yes, I have heard it spelled out exactly that way by religious leaders and politicians.

No, that is not the same thing. First, I'm not arguing that you've not heard it directly spelled out like that. I didn't say it was a consequence of immoral behavior. People with the view I'm familiar with, against abortion, may think it's immoral behavior, and they may not. I don't know of any group who would think a husband and wife having sex would be immoral, but everyone against abortion would still be against abortion in that situation. The emphasis I'm familiar with is just that it's a decision with a risk - becoming pregnant (excepting rape, of course, which did not involve the woman's decision). Then a third party (if you believe the child is a third party) is now intimately involved in the consequences of the decision, which came with the risk. In that view, yes, it most certainly is a potential consequence of an action. And yes, you can take it to the extreme of punishing a woman for making an immoral decision. You also can not take it there. It's not a direct logical follow through, and your concern can most certainly be on the child while acknowledging it was in most situations a result of a decision and potential consequence of an action.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

My theory is that a lot of anti-abortion folk are just conflicted because they never got to have sex outside marriage and they don't want others to have all that fun salacious fornication.

Otherwise, I cannot think of any proper rationale for being opposed to killing foetuses when the mum wants to kill it. Let the mum do as she likes! It's her body.

[iris lily]

My theory is that a lot of anti-abortion folk are just conflicted because they never got to have sex outside marriage and they don't want others to have all that fun salacious fornication.

Otherwise, I cannot think of any proper rationale for being opposed to killing foetuses when the mum wants to kill it. Let the mum do as she likes! It's her body.

This is so odd.

I am about as pro-choice as they come, but even I can understand disgust and discomfort with the idea of killing fetuses. Compassion for tiny babies even if not fully developed seems more within the realm of reasonable than does your...theory.

[Chris22]

Being wildly anti-goverment spending but rabidly pro-military. Like, losing your shit if a child gets a free lunch but marvelling at the Blue Angels.

You may disagree with it, but this is not inherently a conflict. Most people who are anti government spending want a small government. A military is one of the few things specifically enumerated in the Constituion as a federal duty. Providing handouts and running social programs are not. It’s not an inherent contradiction.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

My theory is that a lot of anti-abortion folk are just conflicted because they never got to have sex outside marriage and they don't want others to have all that fun salacious fornication.

Otherwise, I cannot think of any proper rationale for being opposed to killing foetuses when the mum wants to kill it. Let the mum do as she likes! It's her body.

This is so odd.

I am about as pro-choice as they come, but even I can understand disgust and discomfort with the idea of killing fetuses. Compassion for tiny babies even if not fully developed seems more within the realm of reasonable than does your...theory.

Disgust and discomfort with the idea of killing foetuses needs to be weighed up by the digest and discomfort of forcing a mother to deliver said foetus (and care for it) despite her express wishes.

I suppose if someone's 'compassion' is based wholly on whether a thing sounds icky or not - so the ethical dubiety of forcing a woman to care for a child for the rest of her life can be washed away because it's not explicitly icky - then yes, that makes perfect sense.

It's like when people say stem cell research should not go ahead if it involves killing foetuses/embryos/what have you. There must be an "icky" factor to killing a foetus but I guess letting someone die of cancer because the research wasn't funded has no "ick" factor therefore no compassion arises.

[Sid Hoffman]

universal background checks and waiting periods for prospective gun buyers (which would have prevented the Atlanta massacre, as that gun was purchased the same day, and possibly the Boulder massacre, as at least one report I read suggested that the murderer is known to be mentally unstable).

I'm in favor of improved gun safety laws, but I also like accuracy. You made a false statement when you said "which would have prevented" because there is no way to support such a statement. If you have a 10 day waiting period, it's entirely possible all you do is move the massacre to 10 days later. If we start doing mental stability tests, potentially all that does is deny "certain" people from every owning guns. If you never allow anyone with a criminal record to own guns, you're a racist because that will overwhelmingly target black people. There's no easy fix and with ~200 million guns in the country, even a total ban via changing the constitution could take quite a long time before the guns are actually gone.

Another facet to that: conservatives point to the fact that many liberals seem to adopt policies that simply do not affect themselves. For example, telling people they cannot defend themselves doesn't affect rich white liberals in the suburbs because there's no murders in those places. It affects the poor minorities who are now disarmed and unable to defend themselves. I know the temptation is always there to claim that every issue is incredibly simple, black & white with absolutely no nuance, but that simply isn't the real world. Please try to be more understanding and factually accurate in the future. Thank you!

[Syonyk]

From a European point of view: in the US, you guys seem to think abortion the most important political issue of this age.

When seen from the point of view of abortion being mass murder, on the order of a million people a year in the United States and 50-70 million/yr globally, one might consider it worth paying a bit of attention to.  When the opposing viewpoint (again, from the anti-abortion point of view) is that it's fine, and should be even more easily available... yeah.  There's a bit of a conflict to resolve.

You know what we did decades ago? We started making sure women don't get unwanted pregnancies anymore. So we've solved the teen mother issue as well as the abortion issue.

Ok, so... why is Europe's abortion rate still comparable to the US rate?

This thread is yet another example of us vs. them polarization. It's counterproductive from a policy perspective since it forces the debate into a binary decision that fails to reflect the nuance and diversity of positions.

Certainly.  Modern life, as amplified by social media.  You have to admit, it's super "engaging," right?  So profitable - and remember, What's Good for Zuck is Good for Zuck!

It's hard to have a conversation when the starting assumption is that anyone who disagrees you is evilly evil for evil's sake (see the endless list of posts here arguing that the only reason one could be opposed to generally available abortion is because you hate women, want to control women, are cruel, etc).

While the most ardent pro-lifers ague that life starts at conception (actually, I suppose the most ardent would even argue against contraception),

There's generally a distinction drawn between "barrier" style methods of birth control (preventing the sperm and egg from meeting in the first place) and "very early abortion" style birth control that interferes with implanting or causes early rejection - basically, anything that interferes after the sperm and egg have joined together.  The first type (to include rhythm methods, pull out, etc) is fine, the second is a concern.  There's usually a moderately strong opinion on interpretations of Onan over in Genesis 38 as well.

Finate, I want to point out that this false dichotomy (that pro choice people are pro abortion up until point of birth, ok with aborting viable babies) is a false one created by pro life group, to increase antagonism.

Except one can fairly easily find people in the pro-choice camp arguing exactly that...

...By the same coin if the fetus was able to live outside the womb (24, 25 weeks?) Then abortion is not allowed.

The problem with this sort of argument (viable outside the womb, detectable heartbeat, etc) is that you've moved a moral question ("When does life begin/when is life considered a human?") into the technical abilities realm ("When can we first detect a heartbeat/when can a preterm baby survive outside the womb?").

"When should we consider a fetus a human?" is not the sort of question that should be answered by technological capability - if one goes with heartbeat laws, does this mean that in countries with more advanced devices, a fetus is human a few weeks before other countries?  Is when it becomes human a factor of the skill of the technician searching for it?

Once you've determined that through whatever means you care to do so, then the rest of the answers come from that.  If you've decided that life begins at conception, and that a growing fetus is a human (regardless of what the laws say about it), then abortion is, quite literally, legal murder on a massive scale.  There's no moral difference between the deliberate killing of a 18 week old fetus and the deliberate killing a two month old newborn (infanticide being normally considered murder).  It's not a question of the mother's rights at that point - any more than the killing of a 2 month old would be.

I suspect that the flip side usually starts from the other side of things - that abortion ought to be legal, therefore it's not a human until... (some point here), though my deep conversations with the supporters of legal abortion have been somewhat limited (several I've known are now pretty firmly against abortion for a variety of reasons).

...I still think it's helpful for both sides to remember there are people on the "other side" who are there with good intentions and well reasoned arguments.

"Abortion ought to be legal, anyone who disagrees hates women and just wants to control their bodies!" being something I'd consider "not a well reasoned argument."  Personally.

Otherwise, I cannot think of any proper rationale for being opposed to killing foetuses when the mum wants to kill it. Let the mum do as she likes! It's her body.

Except the fetus is not "her body."  It only has half her genetic code, half coming from the other party, it has a separate circulatory system (exchanging with the mother's body, certainly, but still distinct), separate nervous system, etc.  If someone is seriously injured and unable to survive without various life support machines, we don't claim that they're part of the life support machine.

And if it is a distinct human, then that's reason enough not to kill it.

On the flip side of that argument, if it's not a human when supported by the mother's body inside, why is it a human when supported by the mother's body outside (in the case of a nursing mother), or by other people?  A one year old is still unable to survive entirely on their own left out in nature, they're still dependent on someone to take care of them.

You don't hold a particularly consistent, sane, or defendable standard as to when killing is permitted.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I agree it's inconsistent (if you simply look at a utilitarian/sentience argument) to allow a foetus to be killed while not allowing a small infant to be killed. In other words there's no bright line distinction between cell/ovum/zygote/foetus/baby/child (ethically, that is). Realistically there has to be some shading and if it is ethical to abort a 35 week old baby for certain reasons then it might be 80% as justified to abort a 45 week baby that is ex utero. You can't really draw bright lines. It's very much an ethical weighing. I don't actually think the "inside the body" is a great argument; it is, however, an easily drawn line and unfortunately practical ethics requires some consistency of application.

I do agree though - it is hard to be pro-killing foetuses without also accepting that there are difficult shades of grey.

I also agree that 'pro-choice' is a euphemism that is unhelpful. You are pro-killing a foetus in certain conditions. There is nothing wrong with killing in certain conditions and it's not to be feared.

I agree with Peter Singer's ethics on abortion.

[Syonyk]

I agree it's inconsistent (if you simply look at a utilitarian/sentience argument) to allow a foetus to be killed while not allowing a small infant to be killed. In other words there's no bright line distinction between cell/ovum/zygote/foetus/baby/child (ethically, that is). Realistically there has to be some shading and if it is ethical to abort a 35 week old baby for certain reasons then it might be 80% as justified to abort a 45 week baby that is ex utero.

I appreciate that you're willing to admit that the boundaries are quite fuzzy.

You can't really draw bright lines.

However, I disagree here: There is one very obvious, bright, crisp line one can draw: The point of conception, when the genetic code from two people combine in the egg.

I'm entirely aware that a lot of people reject that because they don't like the downstream consequences of that line, but it's a crystal clear, bright, obvious line: When the genetic code from the spem enters the egg, you've created something new that is neither the mother or father, but its own unique blend of DNA.

I also agree that 'pro-choice' is a euphemism that is unhelpful.

If nothing beyond "pro-life and pro-choice are terrible terms!" comes out of this thread in people's minds, I'd be happy.

There is nothing wrong with killing in certain conditions and it's not to be feared.

There is nothing wrong with killing in certain conditions, yes.  However, most cultures around the world generally frown on the killing of people who have done nothing on their part to justify the killing.  We generally frown on killing civilians in war, though tend to forget that when convenient.  If you go out on the street, pick a random person, and kill them for no reason beyond "they happened to be the 17th person to pass me," that's murder and just about every society out there does argue that's wrong - and that one should face consequences for it.  Etc.  That killing is justified in some cases doesn't mean one can then argue that the killing of a fetus is also justified.

(forgot to reply to this bit earlier)

Disgust and discomfort with the idea of killing foetuses needs to be weighed up by the digest and discomfort of forcing a mother to deliver said foetus (and care for it) despite her express wishes.

Having a child isn't a lifelong commitment for the mother.  There exist plenty of ways to either give your child up after birth (I know quite a few people who have adopted very young children - and there's usually quite a bit more demand than there is supply in those circles), or to have your child removed from you at birth (several-day-old newborns in the foster program are, sadly, common enough).

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

It's not an 'admission' that boundaries are fuzzy. As in, the fuzziness is not a bug, it's a feature. I prefer an ethical system that acknowledges shades of grey. Otherwise, you are left with extremely rigid bright lines which do not work in practice. E.g., using 'conception' as a bright line is neat when you really want to find bright lines, but it does not work well in actual ethical theory (for example, imagine a woman has triplets. A doctor would be guilty of murder if he decided two of the zygotes were unlikely to live and prioritised the health of the strongest zygote.)

So I think fuzziness is needed.

Even when it comes to killing innocents fuzziness is needed. Civilians are a collateral consequence of war and while that should never be celebrated or condoned, it is acknowledged as a consequence of war.

If nothing beyond "pro-life and pro-choice are terrible terms!" comes out of this thread in people's minds, I'd be happy.

You are either pro- or anti- the killing of an organic 'thing' that has some sentience but less than full sentience. But people on both sides dislike getting to the real ethical nitty gritty. "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are both absolute cop out terms, and disingenuous and ethically dishonest.

That killing is justified in some cases doesn't mean one can then argue that the killing of a fetus is also justified.

Sure but, obviously, it also doesn't mean killing of a foetus is not justified. It means that killing per se is not always wrong - it's just something that has to be weighed up ethically.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Certainly.  Modern life, as amplified by social media.  You have to admit, it's super "engaging," right?  So profitable - and remember, What's Good for Zuck is Good for Zuck!

It's hard to have a conversation when the starting assumption is that anyone who disagrees you is evilly evil for evil's sake (see the endless list of posts here arguing that the only reason one could be opposed to generally available abortion is because you hate women, want to control women, are cruel, etc).

And this is the inherent problem with having discussions about this on this board. There have been numerous people that at least seem pro-life posting here. I don't believe I've seen a single post tying into an accusation of the motivation of pro-choice people for being pro-choice (breaking the good rule you mentioned, Syonyk, of not simplifying it to pro-life/pro-choice for the sake of brevity).

When the assumption begins with not just this is what I believe, but I believe this, and I know that many/most/almost all people who disagree with me do so because of motivations that I also, already know, the conversation is almost always pointless. Why have a discussion if you not only know what I think but why I think it, right?

[iris lily]

Being wildly anti-goverment spending but rabidly pro-military. Like, losing your shit if a child gets a free lunch but marvelling at the Blue Angels.

You may disagree with it, but this is not inherently a conflict. Most people who are anti government spending want a small government. A military is one of the few things specifically enumerated in the Constituion as a federal duty. Providing handouts and running social programs are not. It’s not an inherent contradiction.

Yes, the libertarian ideal is that the Federal government exists to defend borders. Nation building and etc are actions of a bloated government.

Yet more misrepresentation of the “other “side in this potshot at seeming hypocrisy.

[iris lily]

My theory is that a lot of anti-abortion folk are just conflicted because they never got to have sex outside marriage and they don't want others to have all that fun salacious fornication.

Otherwise, I cannot think of any proper rationale for being opposed to killing foetuses when the mum wants to kill it. Let the mum do as she likes! It's her body.

This is so odd.

I am about as pro-choice as they come, but even I can understand disgust and discomfort with the idea of killing fetuses. Compassion for tiny babies even if not fully developed seems more within the realm of reasonable than does your...theory.

Disgust and discomfort with the idea of killing foetuses needs to be weighed up by the digest and discomfort of forcing a mother to deliver said foetus (and care for it) despite her express wishes.

I suppose if someone's 'compassion' is based wholly on whether a thing sounds icky or not - so the ethical dubiety of forcing a woman to care for a child for the rest of her life can be washed away because it's not explicitly icky - then yes, that makes perfect sense.

It's like when people say stem cell research should not go ahead if it involves killing foetuses/embryos/what have you. There must be an "icky" factor to killing a foetus but I guess letting someone die of cancer because the research wasn't funded has no "ick" factor therefore no compassion arises.

I am pro choice. I can understand both “sides”.

It isnt clear  to me if you do, but it doesnt matter, the abortion debate is tired,on any forum I am on.

I'm think there are so many interesting ethical issues around human reproduction that we could spend days making threadS.  But flog the tired old abortion debate we must. Carry on!

[iris lily]

I agree it's inconsistent (if you simply look at a utilitarian/sentience argument) to allow a foetus to be killed while not allowing a small infant to be killed. In other words there's no bright line distinction between cell/ovum/zygote/foetus/baby/child (ethically, that is). Realistically there has to be some shading and if it is ethical to abort a 35 week old baby for certain reasons then it might be 80% as justified to abort a 45 week baby that is ex utero. You can't really draw bright lines. It's very much an ethical weighing. I don't actually think the "inside the body" is a great argument; it is, however, an easily drawn line and unfortunately practical ethics requires some consistency of application.

I do agree though - it is hard to be pro-killing foetuses without also accepting that there are difficult shades of grey.

I also agree that 'pro-choice' is a euphemism that is unhelpful. You are pro-killing a foetus in certain conditions. There is nothing wrong with killing in certain conditions and it's not to be feared.

I agree with Peter Singer's ethics on abortion.

I agree with you that “pro-choice “is a clever euphanism.

I actually often use “pro-abortion” as in “I am pro-abortion” because it riles up the pro-choice people of which I am one, but realisitcally, I am also “pro-abortion.” Let’s call it what it is, I am not ashamed.

[ctuser1]

We will continue having problems as long as the Abrahamic religions demand that their specific version of God is the only true God, that their specific concept of morality is what needs to be obeyed by everyone else and overrides any other rights!

Unless that fundamental fundamentalist issue is actually addressed or driven under the rocks, where it belongs, brace for a lot more of this drama.

[GuitarStv]

Except the fetus is not "her body."  It only has half her genetic code, half coming from the other party, it has a separate circulatory system (exchanging with the mother's body, certainly, but still distinct), separate nervous system, etc.  If someone is seriously injured and unable to survive without various life support machines, we don't claim that they're part of the life support machine.

And if it is a distinct human, then that's reason enough not to kill it.

On the flip side of that argument, if it's not a human when supported by the mother's body inside, why is it a human when supported by the mother's body outside (in the case of a nursing mother), or by other people?  A one year old is still unable to survive entirely on their own left out in nature, they're still dependent on someone to take care of them.

You don't hold a particularly consistent, sane, or defendable standard as to when killing is permitted.

I agree with you that a fetus is not a woman's body.  It's a collection of living cells, incapable of survival on it's own.  But I'd counter that this argument you've put forth is not very logically consistent.  As a society we do not require people to risk their lives or give up their own bodily autonomy to maintain the life of another.

If your neighbour is dying of kidney problems and you're a transplant match . . . you're not required to maintain the life of your neighbour by donating your kidney.  A fetus will die without the support of the mother - in exactly the same way that your neighbour will die without a kidney transplant.

If your neighbour is handicapped and in his burning apartment unable to get free . . . you're not required to put your life at risk to run into the building and save him.  Even if you've got perfectly functioning legs.  Even if it would be easy for you to run in and save him.  Your inaction will sentence your neighbour to death, but we do not require action through our laws.

While reasonably safe, carrying a pregnancy to term does carry a 14 times higher risk of dying than getting an abortion for a woman.  Carrying a pregnancy to term means giving up bodily autonomy for nearly a year (at which point the child can be abandoned to adoption), but it also means long term and sometimes irreversible physiological changes.  This should not be forced on a person unwillingly.

The difference between a fetus and a one year old is purely one of bodily autonomy.  We can remove the one year old from the mother and give it to another person/family who is willing to care for it with no risks/damage to the mother.  We cannot remove the fetus from the mother without killing it.

If we had the technology to safely remove a fetus and then bring it to term (without significant risk to the mother), then I think that you would have a case that abortion should be outlawed or banned - it could be replaced with this kind of adoption.  Until that's a reality though we shouldn't treat pregnant women differently than we treat all other members of our society.  They should not be required to give up their bodily autonomy for another.  They should not be required to risk their lives for another.  If we are requiring that, then we should also require that anyone with two working kidneys give up one to save a life.  To do otherwise is logically and morally inconsistent.

[ctuser1]

But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.

Are you sure?

What if the kid in question is in a vegetative state, on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?

Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.

Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536

[nessness]

But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.

Are you sure?

What if the kid in question is on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?

Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.

Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536

Withholding life support is not the same as killing.

[ericrugiero]

...I still think it's helpful for both sides to remember there are people on the "other side" who are there with good intentions and well reasoned arguments.

"Abortion ought to be legal, anyone who disagrees hates women and just wants to control their bodies!" being something I'd consider "not a well reasoned argument."  Personally.

Sure.  It's a very poor argument and is very false.  But, there are many people who are in favor of abortion that have a more well reasoned argument.  I don't want you to lump everyone on one side into this particular belief for the same reason I don't want people to believe that all pro-life people just want to punish women for sinful actions.  Are there people who hold both opinions?  Sure.  Do all people believe one or the other?  Absolutely not.  Two people can start with different core beliefs, use sound reasoning and compassion, and end up with very different opinions on abortion.  I still think that abortion is wrong, but I don't despise everyone who supports it.

[ctuser1]

But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.

Are you sure?

What if the kid in question is on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?

Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.

Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536

Withholding life support is not the same as killing.

Isn't abortion that results in a fetus' death similar to withholding life support?

In one case the life support is administered via clumsy and inefficient feeding tubes and ventilator tubes, and in the other case it is the elegant mechanism of the fallopian tube.

Perhaps I did not understand your point?

[GuitarStv]

But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.

Are you sure?

What if the kid in question is on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?

Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.

Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536

Withholding life support is not the same as killing.

If that's the case, then abortion should be fine . . . as long as the fetus is alive while aborted.  Afterwards it would be fine for it to die naturally without support.  Is that what you're arguing?

[ctuser1]

But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.

Are you sure?

What if the kid in question is in a vegetative state, on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?

Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.

Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536

Singer's position includes actually, actively taking direct action to kill a child who would not die but for the active action taken to kill them.  That is what I was referring to by the use of the word "kill".

The situation I referred to would have required someone "actively" removing the feeding tubes and ventilator.

I haven't read Singer. So perhaps he distinguishes between degrees of "active action" and "intent" and such. But that is not relevant for a discussion on abortion. A doctor performing abortion and one removing the feeding tubes are essentially doing the same thing.

[ctuser1]

Perhaps you should read him.  Singer does not distinguish between active and passive action in his position on the matter, because he holds that it is irrelevant.

Ockhamist holds that there is a relevant difference.  So your quarrel is with that guy. Ockhamist holds that taking direct action to cause the death of someone who would otherwise live is different from removing a support which keeps them artificially alive. 

Most people do.

You don't see any difference between removing a breathing tube and smothering someone who was breathing just fine?  Well all I can tell you is that you are in a definite minority there.

To the bolded part, I hold that there is a difference between different types of active/passive activities, especially where the question of intent comes into play. However, that difference not a relevant one for the discussion at hand - which is abortion.

Cutting out the fallopian tube falls under the same ("active"/"passive" - whatever way you categorize it) type of activity as removing the feeding and breathing tubes.

And yes, Singer seems to have some very interesting opinions from what you say. I need to read him.

[iris lily]

But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.

Are you sure?

What if the kid in question is on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?

Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.

Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536

Withholding life support is not the same as killing.

What about non verbal children who do not react, but can completely chow down nutrients when given.

How is withholding food from them different from withholding food from a newborn healthy baby?

My own opinion is that in these cases of very damaged humans, one size doesn’t fit all, and one societal mandate doesn’t work. The family of the individual gets to decide how much life support, including nutrition, is given.

With two kids of exactly the same ability, if one family decides to feed and the other family decides not to feed, that is a realistic solution.

[Metalcat]

Perhaps you should read him.  Singer does not distinguish between active and passive action in his position on the matter, because he holds that it is irrelevant.

Ockhamist holds that there is a relevant difference.  So your quarrel is with that guy. Ockhamist holds that taking direct action to cause the death of someone who would otherwise live is different from removing a support which keeps them artificially alive. 

Most people do.

You don't see any difference between removing a breathing tube and smothering someone who was breathing just fine?  Well all I can tell you is that you are in a definite minority there.

To the bolded part, I hold that there is a difference between different types of active/passive activities, especially where the question of intent comes into play. However, that difference not a relevant one for the discussion at hand - which is abortion.

Cutting out the fallopian tube falls under the same ("active"/"passive" - whatever way you categorize it) type of activity as removing the feeding and breathing tubes.

And yes, Singer seems to have some very interesting opinions from what you say. I need to read him.

What do fallopian tubes have to do with anything? I'm so confused by this.