Evidence for God from Science

Nils, the right or wrong of abortion should be tied to what you believe abortion actually accomplishes.

Ask yourself:

A) Do you believe and unborn baby is a living human being? (And if not, why not?)

B) Do you believe it is okay to unnecessarily take another human being's life? (Note that the necessity of aborting a baby "to save a mother's life is exceptionally rare!)

C) Of the usual "necessary" reasons pro-abortion people usual spout (can't afford a baby, or the time required, the cost involved, the medical expenses, the disruption of one's personal life, etc.), how is any of that different from what one often faces with an elderly, frail, can't take care of or feed themself, can't communicate - all that?

D) As the circumstances with an elderly parent or relative noted in "C)" (above), is there a point where you think it's also just to take that elderly person's life - as the same inconveniences, time and costs are often very similar)?

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:31 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:57 am

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:31 am

Byblos wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:18 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:17 am As I described in my first post #17, I know that Christians also have other reasons but the religious arguments and I am well acquainted with those arguments but I have noticed that Christians generally are more against abortion that atheists so I think the Christian arguments are of general interest.
Nils

The Christian argument (if one could even call it that) against abortion is not a theistic argument at all but a philosophical one. The two are most often conflated (see my friend Kenny's most recent posts in the PROOF thread). I don't know to what extent you know the argument since you claim to know well the Christian argument but it starts with the theory of natural law. If you're familiar with that, you should know that it's not a religious argument at all.

Oops, I was unclear. What I meant that I know the secular arguments well not the Christian arguments. I’m not certain which argument you refer to. Please explain.
Nils

The argument against abortion based on Natural Law theory is not dissimilar to the secular argument and, to a large extent, it can be called as such (secular) if it weren't for the law's origins (the divine law). Taken on its own, natural law theory is arrived at by reason and reason alone. First I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the Natural Law Theory. Then look up arguments against abortion based on the natural law (like here and here).

The description of Natural Law Theory in your reference is a bit vague so I concentrate on your last reference. It is interesting that in the last section V Evaluation and Recommendation the author summarizes that both the pro-life and pro-choice side can refer to the Natural Law. He doesn´t accept the pro-choice argument and instead recommends a modified pro-life policy. He argues that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, incest and when the mothers life is in danger. About the first two cases he writes: “There is a good preserved reason allowing women in these situations to have an abortion. The author agrees with pro-choice advocates in this matter because the fundamental inclination to self-preserve the woman’s quality of life by aborting a fetus of rape or incest in the long run will benefit the common good of society”. This is exactly the same argument I use for advocating free abortion up to week 18 and in special cases week 22. The reason for this liberty is that in the long run it will benefit the common good of society. Of course this can be debated but it is not an ideological debate, it is a debate about the pros and cons of the benefits to the society.

However I don´t like the NY law. There will be many problems both practical and philosophical.
Nils

Debate about the pros and cons of the benefits of society?

If we based laws on how they benefit society, instead of if they're right or wrong, slavery wouldn't have ended here in the U.S., in the 1800's. Chattel slavery was a great benefit to the society in the south. Of course it didn't benefit the slaves, just like abortion doesn't benefit the little one who is killed.

Philip wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:21 pm Nils, the right or wrong of abortion should be tied to what you believe abortion actually accomplishes.

Ask yourself:

A) Do you believe and unborn baby is a living human being? (And if not, why not?)

This is a matter of definitions and I’m certainly not an expert on English language. I’m claiming that the human rights should include all individuals of homo sapiens but those that are under 18 weeks old. What you call those is up to you, perhaps prehuman or human fetus. They have some human properties but far from all so I hesitate to call them human but I’m far from sure how to best handle this semantic problem.

B) Do you believe it is okay to unnecessarily take another human being's life? (Note that the necessity of aborting a baby "to save a mother's life is exceptionally rare!)

If you are talking about a human embryo or young fetus (less than 18 weeks) it is OK assuming that the mother accepts it.

C) Of the usual "necessary" reasons pro-abortion people usual spout (can't afford a baby, or the time required, the cost involved, the medical expenses, the disruption of one's personal life, etc.), how is any of that different from what one often faces with an elderly, frail, can't take care of or feed themself, can't communicate - all that?

The difference is that elderly person are included in the human rights independent of age or circumstances.

D) As the circumstances with an elderly parent or relative noted in "C)" (above), is there a point where you think it's also just to take that elderly person's life - as the same inconveniences, time and costs are often very similar)?

See C)
Nils

Nils: This is a matter of definitions and I’m certainly not an expert on English language. I’m claiming that the human rights should include all individuals of homo sapiens but those that are under 18 weeks old.

Why do you change the definition of human per the age of the fetus? YOU were a fetus - were you not human then? Did you not have your own unique DNA and blood type? You know it's not going to be a hamster.

Here's a 12-month-old human baby:

Nils: They have some human properties but far from all so I hesitate to call them human but I’m far from sure how to best handle this semantic problem.

"Nils the baby was a human at a certain stage of development - as will be Nils the old man - and fully human at both stages!

Nils: The difference is that elderly person are included in the human rights independent of age or circumstances

Why?

Looks like N.Y. is up to all sorts of stuff.

New U.S. Experiments Aim To Create Gene-Edited Human Embryos
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... an-embryos

Does this sound Ethical for the purpose of eradicating inherited diseases ??

Knowing the yanks in N.Y. though, if there's a dollar in it, I don't think they would stop at disease eradication.

Dial-a-pre-fab-embryo coming soon

LittleHamster wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:26 am Looks like N.Y. is up to all sorts of stuff.

New U.S. Experiments Aim To Create Gene-Edited Human Embryos
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... an-embryos

Does this sound Ethical for the purpose of eradicating inherited diseases ??

Knowing the yanks in N.Y. though, if there's a dollar in it, I don't think they would stop at disease eradication.

Dial-a-pre-fab-embryo coming soon

We don't know nearly enough to go around messing with genes. We are learning new things all the time.

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:40 pm
Here's a 12-month-old human baby:

I think you meant "12-week-old human baby:" ?

LittleHamster wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:47 pm

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:40 pm
Here's a 12-month-old human baby:

I think you meant "12-week-old human baby:" ?

If philip said 12 months, I'm sure he meant 12 months. Btw, it's Andre the Giant's hand. That's why the one year old looks so small.

12 weeks fetus - let's please not get off track with humor over that photo that reveals an obvious truth. That is a human being, already incredibly formed at just 3 months. Just as it was human in it's first tiny moments of life.

Ever seen a woman who miscarried, and just blew it off as just having been "an undeveloped fetus?" Neither have I! To a one, of such women I've known, all saw that sad event as having lost their child.

What are the consequences of abortion ? Is it just part of being under the curse of the law ? Since it's not against our civil laws there is no judicial punishment. Psychologically however, women have reported that they have regretted what they did 10,20 even 40 years after the fact. So it tends to haunt them for quite a while. Spiritually, I don't think it would be good for them in the afterlife either (unless they get saved). As for the person carrying out the abortion, I'd imagine they would cop a fair share of the consequences too. Christians tend to look at abortion/murder in a really bad light as far as the after life is concerned. So do you reckon hell suddenly gets worse for abortionists ? Does it reduce your chances of salvation ?

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:31 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:57 am

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:31 am

Byblos wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:18 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:17 am As I described in my first post #17, I know that Christians also have other reasons but the religious arguments and I am well acquainted with those arguments but I have noticed that Christians generally are more against abortion that atheists so I think the Christian arguments are of general interest.
Nils

The Christian argument (if one could even call it that) against abortion is not a theistic argument at all but a philosophical one. The two are most often conflated (see my friend Kenny's most recent posts in the PROOF thread). I don't know to what extent you know the argument since you claim to know well the Christian argument but it starts with the theory of natural law. If you're familiar with that, you should know that it's not a religious argument at all.

Oops, I was unclear. What I meant that I know the secular arguments well not the Christian arguments. I’m not certain which argument you refer to. Please explain.
Nils

The argument against abortion based on Natural Law theory is not dissimilar to the secular argument and, to a large extent, it can be called as such (secular) if it weren't for the law's origins (the divine law). Taken on its own, natural law theory is arrived at by reason and reason alone. First I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the Natural Law Theory. Then look up arguments against abortion based on the natural law (like here and here).

The description of Natural Law Theory in your reference is a bit vague so I concentrate on your last reference. It is interesting that in the last section V Evaluation and Recommendation the author summarizes that both the pro-life and pro-choice side can refer to the Natural Law. He doesn´t accept the pro-choice argument and instead recommends a modified pro-life policy. He argues that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, incest and when the mothers life is in danger. About the first two cases he writes: “There is a good preserved reason allowing women in these situations to have an abortion. The author agrees with pro-choice advocates in this matter because the fundamental inclination to self-preserve the woman’s quality of life by aborting a fetus of rape or incest in the long run will benefit the common good of society”. This is exactly the same argument I use for advocating free abortion up to week 18 and in special cases week 22. The reason for this liberty is that in the long run it will benefit the common good of society. Of course this can be debated but it is not an ideological debate, it is a debate about the pros and cons of the benefits to the society.

However I don´t like the NY law. There will be many problems both practical and philosophical.
Nils

With reference to the underlined, there are some who use scripture to argue for a 6,000 year old earth or those who use science to argue against evolution. What is your point? The fact is that natural law can be construed as a secular theory of nature and which gives human life an intrinsic value, especially unborn life. No one has the right to decide where to draw the proverbial line in the sand as to when life begins or what is life and what isn't because life then becomes arbitrary.

For a better reference on natural law theory, there is a ton of material out there but I would recommend the following books if interested:

• St.Thomas Aquinas, Treatise on Law
  C.S.Lewis, The Abolition of Man
  Charles Rice, 50 Questions on the Natural Law
  Heinrich Rommen, The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy

Hammy: So do you reckon hell suddenly gets worse for abortionists ? Does it reduce your chances of salvation ?

Abortion is the pre-meditated taking of a human life - it's murder. So, the question them becomes, can a murderer be saved? Of course they can. And there is not REDUCTION of one's chances for salvation - as if our sin is weighed on a scale as if God considers whatever sins like karma. It a matter of what totally prevents salvation - which is only one thing: A person who remains with a cold, hard mind/heart respond to God that keeps them in rebellion against Him for their entire lives! The moment an unsaved person dies - that's the end, their fate is sealed. And for those saved, their fate is sealed at their very first moment of faith in Christ. And yet, from the point of God's eternal knowledge of everyone's entire life and final response to Him - EVERYONE'S fate (saved or not / Heaven or Hell) is already known / has ALWAYS and FOREVER been known by God.

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:40 pm

Nils: This is a matter of definitions and I’m certainly not an expert on English language. I’m claiming that the human rights should include all individuals of homo sapiens but those that are under 18 weeks old.

Why do you change the definition of human per the age of the fetus? YOU were a fetus - were you not human then? Did you not have your own unique DNA and blood type? You know it's not going to be a hamster.

Nils: They have some human properties but far from all so I hesitate to call them human but I’m far from sure how to best handle this semantic problem.

"Nils the baby was a human at a certain stage of development - as will be Nils the old man - and fully human at both stages!

Nils: The difference is that elderly person are included in the human rights independent of age or circumstances

Why?

You want to call the homo sapiens fetus huaman directly after the conception. That is OK with me even if it to me seems a bit confusing. Certainly the embryo has the potentiality to become an adult human even if it has few of the adult human properties. But if we agree on your definition we have to discuss when the human rights shall apply to the embryo/fetus/child. Almost everybody agrees that it shall apply to the newborn child and all adults. Other possibilities are that the start of the applicability is the conception, when it looks like an adult (as you seem to suggest), when it is starts to have important cognitive capabilities (as I think), when it would survive if born too early and all medical resources are used (as the Swedish law says), when it would survive without any medical help if born too early, or up till birth (the NY law).

How to choose between the alternatives is to choose which “in the long run will benefit the common good of society” (to site Byblos reference Altbregen in AVE MARIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL). As Rick pointed out this is not obvious but not trying, i.e. going for the rights at conception or rights at birth will certainly not result in the best possible society.

I understand that you and others want a limit that is determined in a fundamental way but I think that such a rule is a far to high price to pay for having a simple solution. I think that all children has the right to be born by parents that want them.
Nils

Nils: When it looks like an adult (as you seem to suggest)...

No, Nils, I affirm human life begins at the moment it becomes ALIVE. And ONLY "if" God gives and is the only one with the right to assert life in the womb is human and that NO human life (in or outside the womb) it is to be deliberately taken, unless defensively or in war, does it matter. The rest is all personal opinion and based upon arbitrary definitions and whatever one thinks is appropriate. However, even from a logic-based argument, I see massive hypocrisy in the reasoning of the pro-abortion arguments.

Small News flash. Trumpster announced today that he will ask congress to agree to pass legislation that prohibits late term abortions. This seems to be in response for what is happening in N.Y.. I wonder what the chances are of congress playing ball on this issue ? Everyone was cheering after this particular announcement.