XML FeedsProsecuting Victims of Rape
By Burr Deming on Jan 28, 2013 | In News, Religion, Policy | 40 feedbacks »
It used to be easier to talk about the legal status of abortion. We mainly had to demonstrate absurdity. The debate involved drawing lines where there were no sensible lines.
If we talk about when life begins, we fall into an endless loop. Life begins several billion years ago. It is a continuum. Before an egg and sperm unite, they are both alive. After they unite, the resulting zygote will not survive unless it becomes attached to the wall of the uterus around a week or week and a half later. Even that is a process that begins several days after conception when the blastocyst hits the wall and completes several days after that. Viability, the point at which life is self sustaining, happens about 5 months into the pregnancy. It is sometimes earlier, sometimes later.
So do we define the beginning of life as happening at birth? How about the most common popular definition, the ever shifting point of viability? Does the medical definition of pregnancy, the attachment to the uterus, work? Even that is a little ambiguous, since it takes a few days of work on the part of the zygote. How about what most anti-abortion folks want, the moment the sperm collides with the egg?
How about the true definition of life, well before the great-grandparents of the parents were born?
Applying religious teachings isn't a big help. For one thing, how far must we go in imposing a set of religious principles on an unwilling subject? A bigger problem is that God has been remarkably silent on the subject. There is no direct mention of abortion in the Bible. A few friends, from time to time, bring up scriptures that talk about identity. For example, David talks about how he was "conceived in sin." Aha! He didn't specify that he meant to refer to his fetus that later developed into himself, that it was the fetus that was conceived. Should King David have elaborated in order to forestall confusion thousands of years later? That awkward rhetorical responsibility seems a heavy burden to place on an ancient King. There is some biblical discussion about God knowing us before we were born, an expression of divine knowledge which you would think might go to the beginning of time. God knew each of us before humans walked the earth, right?
That is not to say the termination of pregnancy isn't mentioned at all. Exodus proscribes death as the penalty for killing someone. But a culprit guilty of injuring a pregnant woman to the point of miscarriage is forced to pay a fine, a distinction that would seem odd if the same laws advocated by anti-abortion advocates were in force back then. Such implied definitions of the value of life are not firm, though, are they? The more ancient of the scriptures also endorsed slavery. Authors, even when inspired, are limited by the wisdom of their times.
The real question is not when life begins, but rather when abortion should be illegal. This practical application, and the necessity of severely restricting women, is what produces a hard obstacle for anti-abortion activists.
Criminal law demands fixed lines. Otherwise the law becomes only advisory. Determining fixed lines on the basis of when life begins leads us into territory that ranges from absurdity to oppression.
I suspect it is the attempt to resolve religious ambiguity into religious certainty that pushed some political conservatives into self-destructive rhetoric. Humans have an abhorrence to injustice that runs deep. Sometimes it motivates us to act against injustice. Sometimes it drives us to deny that injustice exists. Every once on a while, Fellowship Hall discussions in the occasional house of worship fall into denial. Should we really punish rape victims if they seek abortions. Oh, that never happens with legitimate rape. If she looks for an abortion, she is evil. If she is evil, she must have been asking for it. And pregnancy can't happen unless the sin of sex is voluntary.
And so a candidate goes down in flames and "legitimate rape" becomes the talk of the nation.
The truth that God creates life even before sperm meets egg, knowing and loving us eons before, can lead some to a prohibition of any contraception at all. Contraception was indeed forbidden for a long, long time. It still is for some religious folk. The problem is the logical next step that is almost never mentioned, that God might regard pregnancy, even from rape, as a gift not to be tampered with. The step after that would see resistance to rape as immoral, but nobody goes there. Thank God.
So another candidate sinks beneath the waves and rape pregnancy as a "gift from God" gets a national airing.
Where to draw the line of prohibition, when we endow developing life with the protections and rights as developed life, becomes a problem when the implications are confronted. One of the most uncomfortable questions that anti-abortion advocates try to get out of is one of penalties for women seeking abortion. How long a prison term should be imposed on a woman? How about in cases of rape? How about incest? How about danger to a woman's life?
Should miscarriage be investigated as a possible homicide? Many zygotes do not find a uterine wall. Should a woman have to answer to authorities on whether she took a morning after pill to prevent uterine implantation?
The early abortion debates: those were the good old days.
Now the theoretical reduction of anti-abortion laws to silly standards - how long should prison sentences be on women - is no longer an uncomfortable hypothetical issue.
This is a bill introduced by Republicans in New Mexico that makes it a felony for a raped woman to get an abortion. The reasons? Well look (pdf):
Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.
Yeah. The Republican bill, if passed, will regard an abortion following rape as a felony. The rape victim will be prosecuted for tampering with evidence.
Those absurd hypothetical questions are becoming real, existential, facts as the attack on abortion takes the necessary leap into an attack on women.
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
40 comments
Comment from: Jerry Critter [Visitor] · http://critterscrap.blogspot.com
The bible in Genesis 2:7 suggests that life begins at birth.
01/28/13 @ 10:42
Comment from: T. Paine [Visitor] · http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com
Burr, this whole topic brings such profound sorrow to me. It is impossible for me to fathom that 55 million children are not alive since the egregious and pernicious Roe v. Wade decision was rendered forty years ago. 55 million people have been killed because some people saw these lives as a “choice”. This was a recent article I wrote on that dreadful anniversary last Tuesday, which ironically is also the birthday for my youngest daughter. http://www.savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2013/01/40-years-of-roe-v-wade-and-55-million_22.html
You stated, “A bigger problem is that God has been remarkably silent on the subject. There is no direct mention of abortion in the Bible.” Come on Mr. Deming! You are being a little disingenuous here, sir. God also never specifically mentioned pedophilia either in the Bible, but I think it is safe for us to assume which side of the argument He would come down on there too. Do you really think that God would be happy that we sometimes choose to terminate a life because it might be inconvenient to us, or for whatever other justification we decide to use for killing our unborn?
“Should we really punish rape victims if they seek abortions.” That is a really good question and a very tough one to answer. For those of us who believe that life, as defined scientifically, morally, and theologically does indeed start at conception, it strikes me that abortion for any reason other than to save the mother’s life would indeed be murder. I cannot even begin to imagine the horrific pain, sorrow, and emotional impact that a woman who has been raped must be going through. That said, for those of us that believe that a pregnancy conceived even in such a horrible manner is still a life, it is not inconsistent to want to protect that life.
Further, it does not help the mother to add the abortion of a child onto the evil perpetrated by a rapist. I have met several incredibly remarkable people who were the fruition of life from their mothers having been raped. We would have a much sadder world without these good people in it, if they have been aborted in order to lessen the pain of the raped mother. Further, and I don’t honestly know the answer, or if there even is a correct one, but does the emotional sorrow of aborting one’s baby only exacerbate the fear and sorrow of having been raped in the first place? I suspect it varies with the woman, but often times I think the answer is a profound YES.
“The step after that would see resistance to rape as immoral, but nobody goes there.” I know you are simply trying to point out what you see as absurdity by being even more absurd, but that really is quite distasteful, Burr. I have a hard time imagining that any reasonable person anywhere would advocate such a position, sir.
The bottom line is that this issue is immensely fraught with emotion, morality, ambiguity, science, and theology. While I certainly do not want and am not an advocate for a theocratic society, I think as a civilized society, we have an absolute obligation to protect all life from the point of its coming into existence (conception) until natural death occurs. Sadly, this also entails life that is conceived unwillingly via evil men’s acts. If a mother chooses to abort her baby thusly conceived, I don’t know that there should be any severe civil penalties for this. I suspect her soul will suffer enough for having done so. The person that needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law is the rapist.
You stated, “A bigger problem is that God has been remarkably silent on the subject. There is no direct mention of abortion in the Bible.” Come on Mr. Deming! You are being a little disingenuous here, sir. God also never specifically mentioned pedophilia either in the Bible, but I think it is safe for us to assume which side of the argument He would come down on there too. Do you really think that God would be happy that we sometimes choose to terminate a life because it might be inconvenient to us, or for whatever other justification we decide to use for killing our unborn?
“Should we really punish rape victims if they seek abortions.” That is a really good question and a very tough one to answer. For those of us who believe that life, as defined scientifically, morally, and theologically does indeed start at conception, it strikes me that abortion for any reason other than to save the mother’s life would indeed be murder. I cannot even begin to imagine the horrific pain, sorrow, and emotional impact that a woman who has been raped must be going through. That said, for those of us that believe that a pregnancy conceived even in such a horrible manner is still a life, it is not inconsistent to want to protect that life.
Further, it does not help the mother to add the abortion of a child onto the evil perpetrated by a rapist. I have met several incredibly remarkable people who were the fruition of life from their mothers having been raped. We would have a much sadder world without these good people in it, if they have been aborted in order to lessen the pain of the raped mother. Further, and I don’t honestly know the answer, or if there even is a correct one, but does the emotional sorrow of aborting one’s baby only exacerbate the fear and sorrow of having been raped in the first place? I suspect it varies with the woman, but often times I think the answer is a profound YES.
“The step after that would see resistance to rape as immoral, but nobody goes there.” I know you are simply trying to point out what you see as absurdity by being even more absurd, but that really is quite distasteful, Burr. I have a hard time imagining that any reasonable person anywhere would advocate such a position, sir.
The bottom line is that this issue is immensely fraught with emotion, morality, ambiguity, science, and theology. While I certainly do not want and am not an advocate for a theocratic society, I think as a civilized society, we have an absolute obligation to protect all life from the point of its coming into existence (conception) until natural death occurs. Sadly, this also entails life that is conceived unwillingly via evil men’s acts. If a mother chooses to abort her baby thusly conceived, I don’t know that there should be any severe civil penalties for this. I suspect her soul will suffer enough for having done so. The person that needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law is the rapist.
01/28/13 @ 11:47
Comment from: T. Paine [Visitor] · http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com
Jerry stated, “The bible in Genesis 2:7 suggests that life begins at birth.”
As there was no mother for Adam, he was never in the womb. Abortion of him was not even a possibility accordingly.
The New Testament in Luke 1:41-44 states,
41: And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
42: and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43: And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44: For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.
Seems to me that Elizabeth’s child, St. John the Baptist, was cognizant of Mary and was indeed alive even in the womb when he “leapt for joy”.
As there was no mother for Adam, he was never in the womb. Abortion of him was not even a possibility accordingly.
The New Testament in Luke 1:41-44 states,
41: And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
42: and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43: And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44: For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.
Seems to me that Elizabeth’s child, St. John the Baptist, was cognizant of Mary and was indeed alive even in the womb when he “leapt for joy”.
01/28/13 @ 12:00
Comment from: F&B [Visitor]
Deming: "Exodus proscribes death as the penalty for killing someone. But a culprit guilty of injuring a pregnant woman to the point of miscarriage is forced to pay a fine."
Actually, if you read the passage in Exodus 21:22, the person who causes the miscarriage only has to pay a fine if the baby is OK, i.e. if there is no further injury. If the baby dies or there are other injuries, the person causing the death should be put to death, or given similar injury, i.e. eye for an eye, etc.
Also, in the Bible, unborn children are always referred to as children. There is no mention of zygotes, or masses of cells, or fetuses - it is always about children.
Maybe the concept of aborting a living human being was so far removed from the reality of Biblical authors that they never even considered it as a possibility.
Jerry: The passage you cite doesn't suggest that at all.
I do not agree with the bill you mentioned Mr. Deming - probably few republicans would. This is a very small group within the party.
Maybe we could develop a compromise . . . Until a baby reaches a certain age within the womb, it is subject only to God's law. After it is born, it is subject also to the laws of man.
Actually, if you read the passage in Exodus 21:22, the person who causes the miscarriage only has to pay a fine if the baby is OK, i.e. if there is no further injury. If the baby dies or there are other injuries, the person causing the death should be put to death, or given similar injury, i.e. eye for an eye, etc.
Also, in the Bible, unborn children are always referred to as children. There is no mention of zygotes, or masses of cells, or fetuses - it is always about children.
Maybe the concept of aborting a living human being was so far removed from the reality of Biblical authors that they never even considered it as a possibility.
Jerry: The passage you cite doesn't suggest that at all.
I do not agree with the bill you mentioned Mr. Deming - probably few republicans would. This is a very small group within the party.
Maybe we could develop a compromise . . . Until a baby reaches a certain age within the womb, it is subject only to God's law. After it is born, it is subject also to the laws of man.
01/28/13 @ 12:09
Comment from: Burr Deming [Member] 
Thank you, F&B.
Actually, you are incorrect.
Exodus does exempt the culprit if there is no further injury, which is to say no further injury after the miscarriage.
When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
One point in your favor, as I see it:
Such scripture is not exactly to be taken as authoritative, the author having been limited to the wisdom prevalent at the time.
Actually, you are incorrect.
Exodus does exempt the culprit if there is no further injury, which is to say no further injury after the miscarriage.
When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
One point in your favor, as I see it:
Such scripture is not exactly to be taken as authoritative, the author having been limited to the wisdom prevalent at the time.
01/28/13 @ 12:42
Comment from: F&B [Visitor]
Yes, Burr, I agree that we have to be very careful how scripture is interpreted. As you said, because it is limited to the wisdom or knowledge prevalent at the time, and also because there are various translations that affect subtle differences in how we perceive the information today. E.g., the meaning of the word "miscarriage" today may be somewhat different than it was in King James' day.
An alternate translation from the New International Bible is as follows: "22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
"Gives birth prematurely" could be a miscarriage in which the baby dies, or a premature birth which produces a healthy infant. A "miscarriage" resulting in injury to the child would be punishable as described.
If the baby dies, the person responsible should be put to death. (Bearing in mind that this section of Exodus was instruction for judges on how to mete out punishment for various offenses.)
An alternate translation from the New International Bible is as follows: "22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
"Gives birth prematurely" could be a miscarriage in which the baby dies, or a premature birth which produces a healthy infant. A "miscarriage" resulting in injury to the child would be punishable as described.
If the baby dies, the person responsible should be put to death. (Bearing in mind that this section of Exodus was instruction for judges on how to mete out punishment for various offenses.)
01/28/13 @ 15:00
Comment from: Emily [Visitor]
"E.g., the meaning of the word "miscarriage" today may be somewhat different than it was in King James' day."
I'm no Biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that book you keep talking about wasn't written in King James's day. I'm also pretty sure that the word "miscarriage" wasn't used. It was probably something in Hebrew.
My point? You guys can do whatever you want, but it's probably a pretty bad idea to let a 5000 year old document written in a language that a lot of people don't even know control the lives of a everyone in a diverse nation. This document has been translated and passed down orally so many times, I'd say it's impossible to know what the original writer(s) had in mind. Even in one of T. Paine's comments on here he misquotes himself. Some on here would say that they can speak for God and determine God's opinion on certain matters. Interesting, since religious doctrine disagrees on these very issues which people on here claim to know God's mind about. (Abortion in Judaism, you know, the people that wrote [not translated] the book you're talking about, is mandatory in some cases. No matter what quotes you can make up about how God breathing life into Adam means that life begins before pregnancy, according to the people that first wrote down that story, abortion's generally acceptable.) T. Paine's presumption that he knows where God would stand on pedophilia is pretty laughable considering that I hope to God his position is not shared by his own Church.
""Should we really punish rape victims if they seek abortions.” That is a really good question and a very tough one to answer."
Where else do crime victims lose their Constitutionally protected rights?
I'm no Biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that book you keep talking about wasn't written in King James's day. I'm also pretty sure that the word "miscarriage" wasn't used. It was probably something in Hebrew.
My point? You guys can do whatever you want, but it's probably a pretty bad idea to let a 5000 year old document written in a language that a lot of people don't even know control the lives of a everyone in a diverse nation. This document has been translated and passed down orally so many times, I'd say it's impossible to know what the original writer(s) had in mind. Even in one of T. Paine's comments on here he misquotes himself. Some on here would say that they can speak for God and determine God's opinion on certain matters. Interesting, since religious doctrine disagrees on these very issues which people on here claim to know God's mind about. (Abortion in Judaism, you know, the people that wrote [not translated] the book you're talking about, is mandatory in some cases. No matter what quotes you can make up about how God breathing life into Adam means that life begins before pregnancy, according to the people that first wrote down that story, abortion's generally acceptable.) T. Paine's presumption that he knows where God would stand on pedophilia is pretty laughable considering that I hope to God his position is not shared by his own Church.
""Should we really punish rape victims if they seek abortions.” That is a really good question and a very tough one to answer."
Where else do crime victims lose their Constitutionally protected rights?
01/28/13 @ 20:15
Comment from: Jerry Critter [Visitor] · http://critterscrap.blogspot.com
""Should we really punish rape victims if they seek abortions.” That is a really good question and a very tough one to answer."
That's an easy question to answer. Hell yes they should...and they should get it free or at least make the rapist pay for it!
That's an easy question to answer. Hell yes they should...and they should get it free or at least make the rapist pay for it!
01/28/13 @ 21:40
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
Mr. Paine,
“God also never specifically mentioned pedophilia either in the Bible, but I think it is safe for us to assume which side of the argument He would come down on there too.”
You make a good point. Perhaps, so long as there is no damage imposed by cultural mores on a child, pedophilia is not inherently wrong. Clearly, in America, victims of pedophilia are damaged, so in America, it is wrong, but your argument that pedophilia may not be a sin in some cultures is powerful. I have no rebuttal to this, sir.
“Do you really think that God would be happy that we sometimes choose to terminate a life because it might be inconvenient to us.”
I am pretty sure He not only allowed it, but ordered it, on occasion.
“For those of us who believe that life, as defined scientifically, morally, and theologically does indeed start at conception…”
Now, you mean Republican Science, not real Science, right?
“it strikes me that abortion for any reason other than to save the mother’s life would indeed be murder.”
C’mon, Drama, let’s just say it is, hmm, killing a baby, and leave it at that. You make it sound unjustified when you call it murder.
“I have met several incredibly remarkable people who were the fruition of life from their mothers having been raped.”
How are you meeting all these children of rape victims?
“God also never specifically mentioned pedophilia either in the Bible, but I think it is safe for us to assume which side of the argument He would come down on there too.”
You make a good point. Perhaps, so long as there is no damage imposed by cultural mores on a child, pedophilia is not inherently wrong. Clearly, in America, victims of pedophilia are damaged, so in America, it is wrong, but your argument that pedophilia may not be a sin in some cultures is powerful. I have no rebuttal to this, sir.
“Do you really think that God would be happy that we sometimes choose to terminate a life because it might be inconvenient to us.”
I am pretty sure He not only allowed it, but ordered it, on occasion.
“For those of us who believe that life, as defined scientifically, morally, and theologically does indeed start at conception…”
Now, you mean Republican Science, not real Science, right?
“it strikes me that abortion for any reason other than to save the mother’s life would indeed be murder.”
C’mon, Drama, let’s just say it is, hmm, killing a baby, and leave it at that. You make it sound unjustified when you call it murder.
“I have met several incredibly remarkable people who were the fruition of life from their mothers having been raped.”
How are you meeting all these children of rape victims?
01/29/13 @ 10:15
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
F&B,
“Also, in the Bible, unborn children are always referred to as children. There is no mention of zygotes, or masses of cells, or fetuses - it is always about children.”
I don’t think God understand zygotes and such.
“Maybe we could develop a compromise . . . Until a baby reaches a certain age within the womb, it is subject only to God's law. After it is born, it is subject also to the laws of man.”
This makes perfect sense to me. Outside the context of religion, it is irrational to treat a zygote as a human being. Aborting the zygote is harmless. At some point, aborting a fetus causes it pain and it is surely “a something” at that point. Whether that “something” is human or not is wholly irrelevant outside of a religious or self-serving concept. There is no rational difference between a fertilized egg and an egg that will be fertilized in a few minutes. Eggs don’t need human rights, and so they should not be awarded them. However, those who say the point of birth should be the relevant point, make the same error as those who say that conception is the relevant point. A baby that is about to be born is nothing different from a baby that was just born.
Both sides of the debate tend to justify their absurd positions instead of arguing rational ones. I think any rational person would consider an 8.5 week old fetus a baby and any rational person would not consider a zygote a baby (outside of a religious context, that is). If we cannot agree on what a baby is, then the whole argument is pointless.
One more thing, people: I keep hearing that we are terminating the life of the human fetus because the fetus is an inconvenience for us. Of course we are. Why else would we do it? As for the argument that the fetus is a human fetus, I think that fact is pretty obvious. We do not terminate the life of an arachnid fetus in order to kill the little tyke. We know that it is a development human. The point of an abortion is to stop that development.
“Also, in the Bible, unborn children are always referred to as children. There is no mention of zygotes, or masses of cells, or fetuses - it is always about children.”
I don’t think God understand zygotes and such.
“Maybe we could develop a compromise . . . Until a baby reaches a certain age within the womb, it is subject only to God's law. After it is born, it is subject also to the laws of man.”
This makes perfect sense to me. Outside the context of religion, it is irrational to treat a zygote as a human being. Aborting the zygote is harmless. At some point, aborting a fetus causes it pain and it is surely “a something” at that point. Whether that “something” is human or not is wholly irrelevant outside of a religious or self-serving concept. There is no rational difference between a fertilized egg and an egg that will be fertilized in a few minutes. Eggs don’t need human rights, and so they should not be awarded them. However, those who say the point of birth should be the relevant point, make the same error as those who say that conception is the relevant point. A baby that is about to be born is nothing different from a baby that was just born.
Both sides of the debate tend to justify their absurd positions instead of arguing rational ones. I think any rational person would consider an 8.5 week old fetus a baby and any rational person would not consider a zygote a baby (outside of a religious context, that is). If we cannot agree on what a baby is, then the whole argument is pointless.
One more thing, people: I keep hearing that we are terminating the life of the human fetus because the fetus is an inconvenience for us. Of course we are. Why else would we do it? As for the argument that the fetus is a human fetus, I think that fact is pretty obvious. We do not terminate the life of an arachnid fetus in order to kill the little tyke. We know that it is a development human. The point of an abortion is to stop that development.
01/29/13 @ 10:16
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
Critter,
“The bible in Genesis 2:7 suggests that life begins at birth.”
I read that and it did not mention birth. It mention formation.
“The bible in Genesis 2:7 suggests that life begins at birth.”
I read that and it did not mention birth. It mention formation.
01/29/13 @ 10:17
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
Mr. Deming,
I am sorry to say that after reviewing F & B’s citation, there is nothing that implies that the baby is not human:
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[c] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Nowhere does it say: “Baby for baby,” as if the baby were a part of the women and not a thing unto itself. I must assume its eyes and teeth count. Additionally, the fact that the author mentioned that the lady was pregnant at all, instead of saying, “if people are fighting and hit someone’s wife,” indicates that it was the thing growing inside the women that was of concern. I don’t think the author of this section of text differentiated between an unborn baby and a born one.
And finally, it is clear that if you hit the pregnant lady and she bursts into flames, you have to light the attacker.
Oh, and one more thing: What in the hell does this mean?!!!!
“29 “Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats.[g]
“You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.”
Give them how?
I am sorry to say that after reviewing F & B’s citation, there is nothing that implies that the baby is not human:
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[c] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Nowhere does it say: “Baby for baby,” as if the baby were a part of the women and not a thing unto itself. I must assume its eyes and teeth count. Additionally, the fact that the author mentioned that the lady was pregnant at all, instead of saying, “if people are fighting and hit someone’s wife,” indicates that it was the thing growing inside the women that was of concern. I don’t think the author of this section of text differentiated between an unborn baby and a born one.
And finally, it is clear that if you hit the pregnant lady and she bursts into flames, you have to light the attacker.
Oh, and one more thing: What in the hell does this mean?!!!!
“29 “Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats.[g]
“You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.”
Give them how?
01/29/13 @ 10:18
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
Emily,
As soon as you discount the credibility of the Bible's take on abortion, you lose your audience. The people commenting here, except me, that is, are all very religious. They all care what God would have thought about abortion if He had known about it.
They do not realize that God was no smarter than the people of that time were, as they were the voice and thoughts of God. If they don't realize this, and cannot realize this, then it is important to analyze what the 5000 year old Bible suggests about it.
As soon as you discount the credibility of the Bible's take on abortion, you lose your audience. The people commenting here, except me, that is, are all very religious. They all care what God would have thought about abortion if He had known about it.
They do not realize that God was no smarter than the people of that time were, as they were the voice and thoughts of God. If they don't realize this, and cannot realize this, then it is important to analyze what the 5000 year old Bible suggests about it.
01/29/13 @ 10:21
Comment from: T. Paine [Visitor] · http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com
Emily, where did I misquote myself, ma’am?
As for my speaking for God, I don’t do so on my own authority by any means but rather relay what is taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. (You know, the ones that actually canonized scripture into the Bible that remained intact until Martin Luther decided he didn’t like several of those Old Testament books in the canon and took them out of the new Protestant Bible accordingly.)
And please do tell me where abortion is mandatory in ancient Judaism. As F&B stated, I seriously doubt that the concept even occurred to the ancient Hebrews.
As for pedophilia, please don’t tell me that you think that such an evil would be condoned by God, Emily. And yes, my church does indeed teach that this is evil and a mortal sin.
“Where else do crime victims lose their Constitutionally protected rights?”
Do you mean like crime victims that have been disarmed by their government from having the means to protect themselves? Our right to keep and bear arms, by the way, is one that is SPECIFICALLY codified in the Constitution.
This is a messed up world when progressives can create out of the Constitution a “right” that provides for a woman to kill her unborn child. I still don’t understand the twisted logic that the SCOTUS used to invent that “constitutional right”. Where exactly is that found in the Constitution anyway? I haven’t seen the article or amendment that provides an American the right to kill the unborn. Interesting. Progressives generally create a non-existent right to abortion out of the Constitution but refuse to abide by a right that is clearly and specifically stated within it.
Jerry, how does killing a child who was the product of rape help the mother? How does it help society? It strikes me that adding another evil on top of the one already perpetrated against the woman will not make things right.
As for my speaking for God, I don’t do so on my own authority by any means but rather relay what is taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. (You know, the ones that actually canonized scripture into the Bible that remained intact until Martin Luther decided he didn’t like several of those Old Testament books in the canon and took them out of the new Protestant Bible accordingly.)
And please do tell me where abortion is mandatory in ancient Judaism. As F&B stated, I seriously doubt that the concept even occurred to the ancient Hebrews.
As for pedophilia, please don’t tell me that you think that such an evil would be condoned by God, Emily. And yes, my church does indeed teach that this is evil and a mortal sin.
“Where else do crime victims lose their Constitutionally protected rights?”
Do you mean like crime victims that have been disarmed by their government from having the means to protect themselves? Our right to keep and bear arms, by the way, is one that is SPECIFICALLY codified in the Constitution.
This is a messed up world when progressives can create out of the Constitution a “right” that provides for a woman to kill her unborn child. I still don’t understand the twisted logic that the SCOTUS used to invent that “constitutional right”. Where exactly is that found in the Constitution anyway? I haven’t seen the article or amendment that provides an American the right to kill the unborn. Interesting. Progressives generally create a non-existent right to abortion out of the Constitution but refuse to abide by a right that is clearly and specifically stated within it.
Jerry, how does killing a child who was the product of rape help the mother? How does it help society? It strikes me that adding another evil on top of the one already perpetrated against the woman will not make things right.
01/29/13 @ 11:30
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
T. Paine,
"...I seriously doubt that the concept even occurred to the ancient Hebrews."
You don't think that abortion is a modern concept, do you? There is recorded evidence of it taking place millennia ago. But evidence shouldn't be necessary to understand a simple point: As long as pregnancy and childbirth can be perceived as problems, people will seek ways to prevent them. It is reasonable to assume that abortions have been taking place as long as people have known how to perform them.
"...how does killing a child who was the product of rape help the mother?"
You know the answer to this. Many rape victims are averse to giving birth to the product of their rape, which may serve to remind them of the experience. But don't take my word for it. Just ask the victims themselves. You know, the ones who actually had the abortions and know why they did so.
Of course, this is irrelevant to you. You regard abortion as murder and therefore as evil. We do not. Whether or not abortion helps the mother or our society is therefore a red herring.
"...I seriously doubt that the concept even occurred to the ancient Hebrews."
You don't think that abortion is a modern concept, do you? There is recorded evidence of it taking place millennia ago. But evidence shouldn't be necessary to understand a simple point: As long as pregnancy and childbirth can be perceived as problems, people will seek ways to prevent them. It is reasonable to assume that abortions have been taking place as long as people have known how to perform them.
"...how does killing a child who was the product of rape help the mother?"
You know the answer to this. Many rape victims are averse to giving birth to the product of their rape, which may serve to remind them of the experience. But don't take my word for it. Just ask the victims themselves. You know, the ones who actually had the abortions and know why they did so.
Of course, this is irrelevant to you. You regard abortion as murder and therefore as evil. We do not. Whether or not abortion helps the mother or our society is therefore a red herring.
01/29/13 @ 12:34
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
John,
Have you had success with this method? Or are personal interpretations of the Bible so conflated with truth and morality that it is just as much a waste of time as rejecting the Bible outright?
Have you had success with this method? Or are personal interpretations of the Bible so conflated with truth and morality that it is just as much a waste of time as rejecting the Bible outright?
01/29/13 @ 12:39
Comment from: Emily [Visitor]
First, I'd like to correct my earlier post. The Torah is not 5000 years old. Some would say around 3000, and I mistakenly applied the date at which Jews begin counting to the writing of the Torah. I am sorry for my error.
T. Paine,
You do know that not everyone's Catholic, right? You speak for your God, fine. But not mine. They didn't canonize my Bible. And I think this is my whole point. Because we live in a diverse nation, why should one group's interpretation of a book rule everyone? You think you're right the same as I think I'm right. How would you respond if a Jewish law maker proposed a law requiring abortions in certain circumstances? Don't you think that would infringe on your religious liberties? And wouldn't you feel uncomfortable taking a pregnant loved one to a Jewish hospital knowing that they require abortions in certain circumstances?
"And yes, my church does indeed teach that this is evil and a mortal sin."
It may "teach" one thing, but it condones it in practice. (An argument that can even be made that it facilitates it.) To be trite, actions speak louder than words.
A baby leaping does not mean necessarily it leaped for joy. Maybe there was more context in the original quote, but to me it was a perfect illustration of how words can be twisted or changed so easily without our realizing it.
You probably don't understand the logic of Roe v. Wade because, respectfully, you don't seem to understand that the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it limits government. The enumeration of the right to no unreasonable search and seizure (for example) does not mean that we don't have other rights. (9th amendment.) We also have the enumerated right to liberty. (14th amendment.) Which includes a right to privacy. The Constitution can't be read in a vacuum. Complaining about how SCOTUS adds rights demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the judicial system and the Constitution work.
And calling the 2nd amendment clear is disingenuous. Nothing in law is clear (especially an amendment that has a clause that doesn't seem to limit the main clause or really do anything, which is patently contrary to the ideas of statutory construction that say we have to give each clause effect, but I digress). That's why we have courts.
So people lose their right to bear arms after their home was broken into? No. I hear your argument equating reasonable restrictions on gun ownership to the outright removal of a constitutional right, but you're grossly exaggerating and there is no cause and effect in your example.
JMyste,
I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were merely arguing scripture. I thought we were talking about how to rule a nation. Are we the only ones that don't want to live in a theocracy?
"However, those who say the point of birth should be the relevant point, make the same error as those who say that conception is the relevant point...I think any rational person would consider an 8.5 week old fetus a baby and any rational person would not consider a zygote a baby (outside of a religious context, that is)."
You might be right, but I think you're conflating two things. Just because I think abortion should be legal until birth doesn't mean I don't consider it a baby (and potentially a moral wrong). I just think life is too messy (strange genetic diseases that you can't know about until later) and government too inefficient to draw any other bright line.
T. Paine,
You do know that not everyone's Catholic, right? You speak for your God, fine. But not mine. They didn't canonize my Bible. And I think this is my whole point. Because we live in a diverse nation, why should one group's interpretation of a book rule everyone? You think you're right the same as I think I'm right. How would you respond if a Jewish law maker proposed a law requiring abortions in certain circumstances? Don't you think that would infringe on your religious liberties? And wouldn't you feel uncomfortable taking a pregnant loved one to a Jewish hospital knowing that they require abortions in certain circumstances?
"And yes, my church does indeed teach that this is evil and a mortal sin."
It may "teach" one thing, but it condones it in practice. (An argument that can even be made that it facilitates it.) To be trite, actions speak louder than words.
A baby leaping does not mean necessarily it leaped for joy. Maybe there was more context in the original quote, but to me it was a perfect illustration of how words can be twisted or changed so easily without our realizing it.
You probably don't understand the logic of Roe v. Wade because, respectfully, you don't seem to understand that the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it limits government. The enumeration of the right to no unreasonable search and seizure (for example) does not mean that we don't have other rights. (9th amendment.) We also have the enumerated right to liberty. (14th amendment.) Which includes a right to privacy. The Constitution can't be read in a vacuum. Complaining about how SCOTUS adds rights demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the judicial system and the Constitution work.
And calling the 2nd amendment clear is disingenuous. Nothing in law is clear (especially an amendment that has a clause that doesn't seem to limit the main clause or really do anything, which is patently contrary to the ideas of statutory construction that say we have to give each clause effect, but I digress). That's why we have courts.
So people lose their right to bear arms after their home was broken into? No. I hear your argument equating reasonable restrictions on gun ownership to the outright removal of a constitutional right, but you're grossly exaggerating and there is no cause and effect in your example.
JMyste,
I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were merely arguing scripture. I thought we were talking about how to rule a nation. Are we the only ones that don't want to live in a theocracy?
"However, those who say the point of birth should be the relevant point, make the same error as those who say that conception is the relevant point...I think any rational person would consider an 8.5 week old fetus a baby and any rational person would not consider a zygote a baby (outside of a religious context, that is)."
You might be right, but I think you're conflating two things. Just because I think abortion should be legal until birth doesn't mean I don't consider it a baby (and potentially a moral wrong). I just think life is too messy (strange genetic diseases that you can't know about until later) and government too inefficient to draw any other bright line.
01/29/13 @ 14:05
Comment from: T. Paine [Visitor] · http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com
Emily, since I am not going to convince you and likewise, you are not going to convince me, I won’t waste much more time on this issue any more.
Suffice it to say the following:
I understand that the absolute primary purpose of the Constitution is to limit government and that all rights not specifically given to the government within it are reserved to the states or the people. This is true despite the fact that President Obama, the great constitutional scholar that he is, has stated that the Constitution is a list of negative liberties, evidently because it constrains what he can do as a part of the government.
As for the 2nd amendment, it dictates a right that is reserved to the People and recently confirmed yet again by SCOTUS within the past few years that this was an individual right. All ten amendments to the Bill of Rights are guarantees of our natural rights that government doesn’t grant us, but is their job to secure and protect. It would be nonsensical to assume that all of the other nine amendments were clarifying rights of We The People, but the 2nd amendment was merely granting the federal government the means to regulate and raise a militia. If that was indeed its purpose, it would have been stated within the main body of the Constitution giving such powers to the federal government.
Next, I understand and appreciate the fact that not everyone is Catholic and doesn’t believe as I do; however, as this is still a largely Christian nation, it would seem logical to assume that the primary Christian authority that was responsible for compiling the New Testament based on sacred tradition from the teachings of the first apostles of Christ himself should hold some sway over those that cared about such things. It wasn’t until the last five hundred years and the last two hundred years in particular that men started creating their own versions of Christianity based on what they thought it should be. They seem to forget that Christ established His catholic (universal) Church as stated in scripture.
“So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.” - Matthew 16:18
As for the evil acts of pedophilia that have occurred within the church, that is not condoned by it nor by God. Unfortunately there are those people in various authorities that did condone it though. As far as I am concerned, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The fact that fallen man commits such horrible acts against innocent children is atrocious. Any group, any institution, even the Church, is comprised of fallen men and women who are sinners. That said, any institution that provides access to children have similar sins committed, whether it be in schools, scouts, sports, etc. Indeed, far more molestations occur via public school teachers than ever has happened in the Catholic Church. Neither is acceptable or to be condoned, despite Mr. Myste’s statements of cultural moral relativity to the contrary. That is not to equate the those in the Church’s behavior with an “everybody else does it too” defense. It is simply an observation of fact regarding some sinful human nature.
As for abortion, I appreciate your intellectual honesty in admitting it is a baby before being born. Admittedly I do not understand the disconnect that an unborn child should be able to be aborted right up until birth in your estimation. The fact that life is messy strikes me as very poor reasoning, with all due respect, ma’am. Our founding document as a nation stated that our rights come from God and not the government, and that among those rights was the right to life. Too bad that doesn’t mean the most vulnerable among us to many Americans.
How is it that so many people can be so upset about the heinous murder of 20 children in an elementary school and yet they seemingly could care less and indeed can somehow justify the 55 MILLION unborn killed since 1973? Does the fact that the physical location of the child differs by the length of a woman’s birth canal really make all the difference to when we instill the rights afforded to all other humans?
Suffice it to say the following:
I understand that the absolute primary purpose of the Constitution is to limit government and that all rights not specifically given to the government within it are reserved to the states or the people. This is true despite the fact that President Obama, the great constitutional scholar that he is, has stated that the Constitution is a list of negative liberties, evidently because it constrains what he can do as a part of the government.
As for the 2nd amendment, it dictates a right that is reserved to the People and recently confirmed yet again by SCOTUS within the past few years that this was an individual right. All ten amendments to the Bill of Rights are guarantees of our natural rights that government doesn’t grant us, but is their job to secure and protect. It would be nonsensical to assume that all of the other nine amendments were clarifying rights of We The People, but the 2nd amendment was merely granting the federal government the means to regulate and raise a militia. If that was indeed its purpose, it would have been stated within the main body of the Constitution giving such powers to the federal government.
Next, I understand and appreciate the fact that not everyone is Catholic and doesn’t believe as I do; however, as this is still a largely Christian nation, it would seem logical to assume that the primary Christian authority that was responsible for compiling the New Testament based on sacred tradition from the teachings of the first apostles of Christ himself should hold some sway over those that cared about such things. It wasn’t until the last five hundred years and the last two hundred years in particular that men started creating their own versions of Christianity based on what they thought it should be. They seem to forget that Christ established His catholic (universal) Church as stated in scripture.
“So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.” - Matthew 16:18
As for the evil acts of pedophilia that have occurred within the church, that is not condoned by it nor by God. Unfortunately there are those people in various authorities that did condone it though. As far as I am concerned, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The fact that fallen man commits such horrible acts against innocent children is atrocious. Any group, any institution, even the Church, is comprised of fallen men and women who are sinners. That said, any institution that provides access to children have similar sins committed, whether it be in schools, scouts, sports, etc. Indeed, far more molestations occur via public school teachers than ever has happened in the Catholic Church. Neither is acceptable or to be condoned, despite Mr. Myste’s statements of cultural moral relativity to the contrary. That is not to equate the those in the Church’s behavior with an “everybody else does it too” defense. It is simply an observation of fact regarding some sinful human nature.
As for abortion, I appreciate your intellectual honesty in admitting it is a baby before being born. Admittedly I do not understand the disconnect that an unborn child should be able to be aborted right up until birth in your estimation. The fact that life is messy strikes me as very poor reasoning, with all due respect, ma’am. Our founding document as a nation stated that our rights come from God and not the government, and that among those rights was the right to life. Too bad that doesn’t mean the most vulnerable among us to many Americans.
How is it that so many people can be so upset about the heinous murder of 20 children in an elementary school and yet they seemingly could care less and indeed can somehow justify the 55 MILLION unborn killed since 1973? Does the fact that the physical location of the child differs by the length of a woman’s birth canal really make all the difference to when we instill the rights afforded to all other humans?
01/29/13 @ 17:04
Comment from: Emily [Visitor]
"How is it that so many people can be so upset about the heinous murder of 20 children in an elementary school and yet they seemingly could care less and indeed can somehow justify the 55 MILLION unborn killed since 1973? Does the fact that the physical location of the child differs by the length of a woman’s birth canal really make all the difference to when we instill the rights afforded to all other humans?"
In short, yes.
"Life is messy..." This is not poor reasoning. It's a shortened version of a long argument based in compassion. I suggest you read about the women Dr. Tiller helped. Try this: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/02/mercy-abortions-what-dr-tiller-did Scroll down to the part where the article talks about "fetal anomaly."
One final issue, if you don't mind. I asked you before about Jewish law makers who would (hypothetically) propose laws mandating abortion (in certain circumstances) and taking loved ones to Jewish hospitals. I'm still very curious to hear your response. I hope you don't think I'm trying to convince you that abortion is right. I'm only trying to convince you that we shouldn't make laws based on one religion. If you disagree, please tell me why and why you think the first amendment shouldn't apply. Do you think you would feel the same way if you weren't part of the majority religion?
In short, yes.
"Life is messy..." This is not poor reasoning. It's a shortened version of a long argument based in compassion. I suggest you read about the women Dr. Tiller helped. Try this: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/02/mercy-abortions-what-dr-tiller-did Scroll down to the part where the article talks about "fetal anomaly."
One final issue, if you don't mind. I asked you before about Jewish law makers who would (hypothetically) propose laws mandating abortion (in certain circumstances) and taking loved ones to Jewish hospitals. I'm still very curious to hear your response. I hope you don't think I'm trying to convince you that abortion is right. I'm only trying to convince you that we shouldn't make laws based on one religion. If you disagree, please tell me why and why you think the first amendment shouldn't apply. Do you think you would feel the same way if you weren't part of the majority religion?
01/29/13 @ 18:33
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
T. Paine,
"How is it that so many people can be so upset about the heinous murder of 20 children in an elementary school and yet they seemingly could care less and indeed can somehow justify the 55 MILLION unborn killed since 1973?"
A zygote has no consciousness, no personality, no memories, no emotions, no self-interest, etc. For some of us, this means that it is not a "person" and is therefore not entitled to rights. In contrast, a child does have these features and is therefore entitled to rights. At least some animals do as well, so some of us believe that they deserve protection that we may not offer to zygotes.
At some point in fetal development, the personhood argument in favor of abortion grows weaker, as it becomes reasonable to believe that the fetus does possess some of these features. This leaves the argument concerning a woman's bodily autonomy. Naturally, someone who values the fetus as a person more than such autonomy will find this argument unconvincing, so I understand that you completely reject it. But I do not understand your confusion over the ability to value a child more than a zygote. It is alive and has human DNA, but it otherwise does not share any of the significant features that you and I have. Surely you can understand that we do not all share your religious definition of personhood, especially if you were once an atheist.
"How is it that so many people can be so upset about the heinous murder of 20 children in an elementary school and yet they seemingly could care less and indeed can somehow justify the 55 MILLION unborn killed since 1973?"
A zygote has no consciousness, no personality, no memories, no emotions, no self-interest, etc. For some of us, this means that it is not a "person" and is therefore not entitled to rights. In contrast, a child does have these features and is therefore entitled to rights. At least some animals do as well, so some of us believe that they deserve protection that we may not offer to zygotes.
At some point in fetal development, the personhood argument in favor of abortion grows weaker, as it becomes reasonable to believe that the fetus does possess some of these features. This leaves the argument concerning a woman's bodily autonomy. Naturally, someone who values the fetus as a person more than such autonomy will find this argument unconvincing, so I understand that you completely reject it. But I do not understand your confusion over the ability to value a child more than a zygote. It is alive and has human DNA, but it otherwise does not share any of the significant features that you and I have. Surely you can understand that we do not all share your religious definition of personhood, especially if you were once an atheist.
01/29/13 @ 23:34
Comment from: T. Paine [Visitor] · http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com
Emily, your hypothetical question is rather preposterous since orthodox Judaism would not require the mandating of abortion in certain circumstances as per the Torah. That said, if such a law did exist, I suppose Jewish people would be free to abide by it. If you mean that a secular law mandated abortion because of some non-existent but hypothetical Jewish law requirement, I would do one of two things. I would either move to a nation where such affronts to my core beliefs did not exist, or I would follow my conscience. Since in my opinion, God’s law trumps man’s law. I would not abide by such a mandate. The fact that God in the Old Testament for the Jews is also God of the New Testament for Christians means that your hypothetical has no basis in fact other than as a point of discussion, ma’am.
The truth of the matter is that the core laws of our nation are indeed based on natural law and Judeo-Christian belief. If you were to look at the carvings on the building that houses the Supreme Court, you would see depictions of Moses – the law giver, and representations of the ten commandments. Such is the nation you live in today. You have three choices in how to deal with such religiously-inspired laws. You can either comply, work to change them, or conscientiously object to complying. A fourth alternative I suppose would be to move.
All of that said, if I lived in a Muslim nation, I would be obliged to try and live by Sharia law… up unto the point where it conflicted with my own faith. If that was an issue, again I would move to another nation.
Since I am a Christian, I tend to agree with our basic core laws and have no problem complying with them. I would not, however, advocate for a theocracy to govern America.
Ryan, I am aghast that you somehow have come to the conclusion that I “value a zygote more than a child”. If I gave you that impression, please let me correct it and assure you that I think both are absolutely human lives and thus deserving the full protection of the law accordingly. Both are of inestimable value that must be protected. I do understand that based on physical characteristics and such that you and many others do not deem a zygote to be a person. Such is your right and I evidently don’t possess the knowledge or ability to convince you otherwise. I, on the other hand, say that it is a human life based on two things. One is the inarguable scientific fact that as a “zygote”, this life is self replicating with its own unique DNA and individual characteristics that will continue to grow and mature into what every human would recognize as a person, assuming that this life is not prematurely terminated. The second argument, which you will reject and have every right to do so, is my belief that at conception that life is imbued with a soul. Destroying that life is not therefore an option to me.
The truth of the matter is that the core laws of our nation are indeed based on natural law and Judeo-Christian belief. If you were to look at the carvings on the building that houses the Supreme Court, you would see depictions of Moses – the law giver, and representations of the ten commandments. Such is the nation you live in today. You have three choices in how to deal with such religiously-inspired laws. You can either comply, work to change them, or conscientiously object to complying. A fourth alternative I suppose would be to move.
All of that said, if I lived in a Muslim nation, I would be obliged to try and live by Sharia law… up unto the point where it conflicted with my own faith. If that was an issue, again I would move to another nation.
Since I am a Christian, I tend to agree with our basic core laws and have no problem complying with them. I would not, however, advocate for a theocracy to govern America.
Ryan, I am aghast that you somehow have come to the conclusion that I “value a zygote more than a child”. If I gave you that impression, please let me correct it and assure you that I think both are absolutely human lives and thus deserving the full protection of the law accordingly. Both are of inestimable value that must be protected. I do understand that based on physical characteristics and such that you and many others do not deem a zygote to be a person. Such is your right and I evidently don’t possess the knowledge or ability to convince you otherwise. I, on the other hand, say that it is a human life based on two things. One is the inarguable scientific fact that as a “zygote”, this life is self replicating with its own unique DNA and individual characteristics that will continue to grow and mature into what every human would recognize as a person, assuming that this life is not prematurely terminated. The second argument, which you will reject and have every right to do so, is my belief that at conception that life is imbued with a soul. Destroying that life is not therefore an option to me.
01/30/13 @ 11:03
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
T. Paine,
At no point did I suggest that you value a zygote more than a child. Your quotation does not exist anywhere in my comment.
Your arguments in favor of treating a zygote as a person are essentially that it has (1) the potential to become like the rest of us and (2) a soul.
The second argument, of course, is religious in nature and unprovable. A law based on that belief is therefore inappropriate, just as would be a law mandating abortions in order to please Moloch.
The first argument, while not religious, is a little strange. We do not normally value unrealized potential as much as realized potential; realization makes all the difference. If we lived in some post-apocalyptic scenario and desired to repopulate the world, it would make more sense to value unborn life because it would be the only way to fulfill that desire. As we are now, however, we don't need more people. Other desires, such as to avoid the costs of raising a child or the experiences of pregnancy and childbirth, may take precedence, depending on the woman.
Still, as the second argument is secular, it is a much better basis for law and has a place in the debate. I just hope that you can understand how people can value children or even their own desires more than the continued existence of an unfeeling collection of cells that merely has the potential to become human.
At no point did I suggest that you value a zygote more than a child. Your quotation does not exist anywhere in my comment.
Your arguments in favor of treating a zygote as a person are essentially that it has (1) the potential to become like the rest of us and (2) a soul.
The second argument, of course, is religious in nature and unprovable. A law based on that belief is therefore inappropriate, just as would be a law mandating abortions in order to please Moloch.
The first argument, while not religious, is a little strange. We do not normally value unrealized potential as much as realized potential; realization makes all the difference. If we lived in some post-apocalyptic scenario and desired to repopulate the world, it would make more sense to value unborn life because it would be the only way to fulfill that desire. As we are now, however, we don't need more people. Other desires, such as to avoid the costs of raising a child or the experiences of pregnancy and childbirth, may take precedence, depending on the woman.
Still, as the second argument is secular, it is a much better basis for law and has a place in the debate. I just hope that you can understand how people can value children or even their own desires more than the continued existence of an unfeeling collection of cells that merely has the potential to become human.
01/30/13 @ 12:27
Comment from: T. Paine [Visitor] · http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com
Ryan stated, "But I do not understand your confusion over the ability to value a child more than a zygote."
In re-reading your quotation, I now understand that you were referring not to my own thoughts but my failure to recognize this reasoning in others.
Next, it is at the point of conception that scientifically and inarguably a new life is formed with its own unique DNA. We could even theoretically remove that life and continue to let it grow in a "test tube". It is indeed a separate individual life inarguably. It is human inarguably. What is arguable to you is at what point it is considered a "person". I would suggest that any point you pick after conception to make that determination is arbitrary and based on your own ethics and desires/purpose accordingly. The fact that there are many such thresholds after conception for pro-abortion advocates to determine personhood seems to prove that point. It is my contention that we should, as a supposed civilized society, always work to protect the innocent and most vulnerable amongst us. I think nearly everyone, with the exception of Peter Singer and a few other ghouls, would be horrified at the suggestion that a child five minutes old should be killed for the convenience of the mother. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that wouldn’t be opposed to terminating that same child five minutes before it was born if the mother chose to do so. I guess for some people, ten minutes and the length of a birth canal are what determines personhood.
In re-reading your quotation, I now understand that you were referring not to my own thoughts but my failure to recognize this reasoning in others.
Next, it is at the point of conception that scientifically and inarguably a new life is formed with its own unique DNA. We could even theoretically remove that life and continue to let it grow in a "test tube". It is indeed a separate individual life inarguably. It is human inarguably. What is arguable to you is at what point it is considered a "person". I would suggest that any point you pick after conception to make that determination is arbitrary and based on your own ethics and desires/purpose accordingly. The fact that there are many such thresholds after conception for pro-abortion advocates to determine personhood seems to prove that point. It is my contention that we should, as a supposed civilized society, always work to protect the innocent and most vulnerable amongst us. I think nearly everyone, with the exception of Peter Singer and a few other ghouls, would be horrified at the suggestion that a child five minutes old should be killed for the convenience of the mother. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that wouldn’t be opposed to terminating that same child five minutes before it was born if the mother chose to do so. I guess for some people, ten minutes and the length of a birth canal are what determines personhood.
01/30/13 @ 12:57
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
Sorry, that last line should end with:
"...the potential to become a person."
And you know what I mean by person.
"...the potential to become a person."
And you know what I mean by person.
01/30/13 @ 12:58
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
T. Paine,
"I would suggest that any point you pick after conception to make that determination is arbitrary and based on your own ethics and desires/purpose accordingly."
I agree that it is based on my own ethics (as is your position), but not that it is arbitrary. It is one of the answers to an important question: What do I value and why? (Or: What do people generally value and why?) This has a non-arbitrary answer.
While I value other humans, I do not value them simply because they are alive and have human DNA. Life is a necessary but insufficient condition for my concern for other beings while human DNA is neither necessary nor sufficient. Instead, I place value in the features that I listed earlier in these comments. This is not an arbitrary conclusion, but an identification of my values. It is for such reasons as these that I am also not motivated to protect trees and rocks.
Of course, other people may value different features, though there is generally significant overlap among them. This simply means that people have different beliefs and desires. Yours lead you to value human life from the moment of conception, but the fact that your values coincide with the scientific definition of life does not lend them any more moral weight than my values have. It simply makes it easier for you to determine the precise point at which we should begin to care about a human life. Those of us who value some other form of personhood instead must know enough about prenatal development to say when a feature like consciousness finally arises. In short: the neatness of your answer has its appeal, but is not in itself a compelling reason for the rest of us to prefer it.
As for those who support abortion up until five minutes before birth, I cannot say that I am among them.
"I would suggest that any point you pick after conception to make that determination is arbitrary and based on your own ethics and desires/purpose accordingly."
I agree that it is based on my own ethics (as is your position), but not that it is arbitrary. It is one of the answers to an important question: What do I value and why? (Or: What do people generally value and why?) This has a non-arbitrary answer.
While I value other humans, I do not value them simply because they are alive and have human DNA. Life is a necessary but insufficient condition for my concern for other beings while human DNA is neither necessary nor sufficient. Instead, I place value in the features that I listed earlier in these comments. This is not an arbitrary conclusion, but an identification of my values. It is for such reasons as these that I am also not motivated to protect trees and rocks.
Of course, other people may value different features, though there is generally significant overlap among them. This simply means that people have different beliefs and desires. Yours lead you to value human life from the moment of conception, but the fact that your values coincide with the scientific definition of life does not lend them any more moral weight than my values have. It simply makes it easier for you to determine the precise point at which we should begin to care about a human life. Those of us who value some other form of personhood instead must know enough about prenatal development to say when a feature like consciousness finally arises. In short: the neatness of your answer has its appeal, but is not in itself a compelling reason for the rest of us to prefer it.
As for those who support abortion up until five minutes before birth, I cannot say that I am among them.
01/30/13 @ 15:34
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
Ryan,
T. Paine states: “The second argument, which you will reject and have every right to do so, is my belief that at conception that life is imbued with a soul. Destroying that life is not therefore an option to me.”
Do you see that you cannot try to discount one’s religion and make a secular arguments to prove your point? Your point is illogical to the guy holding the religious belief. You can make a new argument, if you like, one that has nothing to do with abortion, but rather is about religion. However, you can make no progress promoting secular dogma to a believer anymore than the religious man can use his religion to convince you.
T. Paine states: “The second argument, which you will reject and have every right to do so, is my belief that at conception that life is imbued with a soul. Destroying that life is not therefore an option to me.”
Do you see that you cannot try to discount one’s religion and make a secular arguments to prove your point? Your point is illogical to the guy holding the religious belief. You can make a new argument, if you like, one that has nothing to do with abortion, but rather is about religion. However, you can make no progress promoting secular dogma to a believer anymore than the religious man can use his religion to convince you.
01/30/13 @ 17:07
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
Emily,
“You might be right, but I think you're conflating two things. Just because I think abortion should be legal until birth doesn't mean I don't consider it a baby (and potentially a moral wrong). I just think life is too messy (strange genetic diseases that you can't know about until later) and government too inefficient to draw any other bright line.”
Understood. I don’t agree, but I do respect the logic.
“You might be right, but I think you're conflating two things. Just because I think abortion should be legal until birth doesn't mean I don't consider it a baby (and potentially a moral wrong). I just think life is too messy (strange genetic diseases that you can't know about until later) and government too inefficient to draw any other bright line.”
Understood. I don’t agree, but I do respect the logic.
01/30/13 @ 17:10
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
T. Paine,
As a very wise man once said: “A zygote has no consciousness, no personality, no memories, no emotions, no self-interest, etc. For some of us, this means that it is not a "person" and is therefore not entitled to rights.”
This sums it up. You cannot use religion to rebut this logic and science does not address it. The only way to modify the thinking of philosophers who think this way, of which I am one, is to logically rebut the secular idea, which you have not attempted to do. I believe you have no rebuttal, anymore than I can rebut that if the zygote has a newly formed soul, then we should consider the soul.
As a very wise man once said: “A zygote has no consciousness, no personality, no memories, no emotions, no self-interest, etc. For some of us, this means that it is not a "person" and is therefore not entitled to rights.”
This sums it up. You cannot use religion to rebut this logic and science does not address it. The only way to modify the thinking of philosophers who think this way, of which I am one, is to logically rebut the secular idea, which you have not attempted to do. I believe you have no rebuttal, anymore than I can rebut that if the zygote has a newly formed soul, then we should consider the soul.
01/30/13 @ 17:13
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
Ryan,
You asked:
John, have you had success with this method? Or are personal interpretations of the Bible so conflated with truth and morality that it is just as much a waste of time as rejecting the Bible outright?
It depends on what you call success. I believe I have had as much success as anyone has arguing a position with someone that they are attempting to rebut. I have, many times, had people challenge me on Biblical terms (after I present my regular secular arguments), only to stop responding once I rebut with a Biblical argument. I believe, in those cases, often they feel like their position was refuted and therefore, they stop responding.
Once people realize that I am able to use the Bible to rebut religious positions, they often cease making their religious arguments, which I do consider success.
You asked:
John, have you had success with this method? Or are personal interpretations of the Bible so conflated with truth and morality that it is just as much a waste of time as rejecting the Bible outright?
It depends on what you call success. I believe I have had as much success as anyone has arguing a position with someone that they are attempting to rebut. I have, many times, had people challenge me on Biblical terms (after I present my regular secular arguments), only to stop responding once I rebut with a Biblical argument. I believe, in those cases, often they feel like their position was refuted and therefore, they stop responding.
Once people realize that I am able to use the Bible to rebut religious positions, they often cease making their religious arguments, which I do consider success.
01/30/13 @ 20:19
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
Emily said: "Do you think you would feel the same way if you weren't part of the majority religion?"
Surely T. Paine believes that God's law supersedes the laws of man?
If we know, with certainty, what God's law is, must we not obey it, regardless of whether our knowledge is shared by the majority?
Surely T. Paine believes that God's law supersedes the laws of man?
If we know, with certainty, what God's law is, must we not obey it, regardless of whether our knowledge is shared by the majority?
01/30/13 @ 20:23
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
John,
"Do you see that you cannot try to discount one’s religion and make a secular arguments to prove your point?"
On the contrary: secular arguments are the most effective because of their broad appeal. Even theists generally prefer secular arguments that support their positions for precisely this reason. We might debate the existence of the soul and the afterlife, but we all acknowledge the existence of the body and this life.
Obviously, this does not mean that a secular argument will necessarily trump an individual's religious one. As you point out in your rhetorical question:
"If we know, with certainty, what God's law is, must we not obey it, regardless of whether our knowledge is shared by the majority?"
However, in this case, Emma and I have also appealed to T. Paine's "secular sense" as a sort of last resort. If we cannot argue idealism, then we can argue pragmatism. He wishes to ban abortion in accordance with his religious beliefs, but this opens the door for other sorts of theists to impose their religious beliefs upon him and the rest of us. He has some choices: (1) accept these consequences and hope that no other religion gains power in the United States, (2) rely on his secular argument about potentiality, or (3) abandon the fight.
Admittedly, even this argument is a long shot. A Christian who gambles on option 1 has good odds, as our country does not appear likely to adopt a different majority religion. If even this type of argument fails alongside religious and secular ones, it seems reasonable to give up. But here even you still are, making Biblical arguments of your own about giving up firstborn sons. What compels you?
"Do you see that you cannot try to discount one’s religion and make a secular arguments to prove your point?"
On the contrary: secular arguments are the most effective because of their broad appeal. Even theists generally prefer secular arguments that support their positions for precisely this reason. We might debate the existence of the soul and the afterlife, but we all acknowledge the existence of the body and this life.
Obviously, this does not mean that a secular argument will necessarily trump an individual's religious one. As you point out in your rhetorical question:
"If we know, with certainty, what God's law is, must we not obey it, regardless of whether our knowledge is shared by the majority?"
However, in this case, Emma and I have also appealed to T. Paine's "secular sense" as a sort of last resort. If we cannot argue idealism, then we can argue pragmatism. He wishes to ban abortion in accordance with his religious beliefs, but this opens the door for other sorts of theists to impose their religious beliefs upon him and the rest of us. He has some choices: (1) accept these consequences and hope that no other religion gains power in the United States, (2) rely on his secular argument about potentiality, or (3) abandon the fight.
Admittedly, even this argument is a long shot. A Christian who gambles on option 1 has good odds, as our country does not appear likely to adopt a different majority religion. If even this type of argument fails alongside religious and secular ones, it seems reasonable to give up. But here even you still are, making Biblical arguments of your own about giving up firstborn sons. What compels you?
01/30/13 @ 22:47
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
“On the contrary: secular arguments are the most effective because of their broad appeal.”
I see no evidence that secular arguments have a broader appeal than religious ones in America. Additionally, secular arguments made to religious people, which is what we are discussing, has virtually no appeal.
“Even theists generally prefer secular arguments that support their positions for precisely this reason.”
No, theists prefer persuasive arguments and they know that religious arguments don’t persuade secularists. I promise you that in religious circles, religious arguments rule.
“However, in this case, Emma and I have also appealed to T. Paine's "secular sense" as a sort of last resort. If we cannot argue idealism, then we can argue pragmatism.”
It will not work. You cannot trump God’s law in the name of pragmatism or any other ism.
“. He wishes to ban abortion in accordance with his religious beliefs, but this opens the door for other sorts of theists to impose their religious beliefs upon him and the rest of us. He has some choices: (1) accept these consequences and hope that no other religion gains power in the United States, (2) rely on his secular argument about potentiality, or (3) abandon the fight.”
OK, very well stated. This is a good argument to make to T. Paine. It will not make him abandon God, but it does present him with a real-world problem he must answer.
“But here even you still are, making Biblical arguments of your own about giving up firstborn sons. What compels you?”
Is someone uses the Bible to support their philosophy and the Bible does not actually uphold their philosophy, then using the Bible is the best rebuttal you could possibly have. You cannot communicate with someone in a language they do not speak, but you can communicate with them in their own language, and sometimes that is all that is logically needed. Once you refute a Biblical position, then secular arguments are back in play.
I see no evidence that secular arguments have a broader appeal than religious ones in America. Additionally, secular arguments made to religious people, which is what we are discussing, has virtually no appeal.
“Even theists generally prefer secular arguments that support their positions for precisely this reason.”
No, theists prefer persuasive arguments and they know that religious arguments don’t persuade secularists. I promise you that in religious circles, religious arguments rule.
“However, in this case, Emma and I have also appealed to T. Paine's "secular sense" as a sort of last resort. If we cannot argue idealism, then we can argue pragmatism.”
It will not work. You cannot trump God’s law in the name of pragmatism or any other ism.
“. He wishes to ban abortion in accordance with his religious beliefs, but this opens the door for other sorts of theists to impose their religious beliefs upon him and the rest of us. He has some choices: (1) accept these consequences and hope that no other religion gains power in the United States, (2) rely on his secular argument about potentiality, or (3) abandon the fight.”
OK, very well stated. This is a good argument to make to T. Paine. It will not make him abandon God, but it does present him with a real-world problem he must answer.
“But here even you still are, making Biblical arguments of your own about giving up firstborn sons. What compels you?”
Is someone uses the Bible to support their philosophy and the Bible does not actually uphold their philosophy, then using the Bible is the best rebuttal you could possibly have. You cannot communicate with someone in a language they do not speak, but you can communicate with them in their own language, and sometimes that is all that is logically needed. Once you refute a Biblical position, then secular arguments are back in play.
01/31/13 @ 08:54
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
"I see no evidence that secular arguments have a broader appeal than religious ones in America."
Broadest appeal means "relevant to the greatest number of people." As I said, we do not all believe in a soul or agree on its nature if it does exist, but we do all acknowledge that we have a body and the common desire to protect at least our own. Even though T. Paine and Burr are Christian, they can understand and identify with non-religious arguments and rules, such as the Golden Rule. The issue here is that T. Paine's belief in the soul trumps, for him, my argument about personhood and quite possibly the argument about political pragmatism.
"No, theists prefer persuasive arguments and they know that religious arguments don’t persuade secularists. I promise you that in religious circles, religious arguments rule."
1.) The world is not divided up simply into theists and atheists. Theists from one religion are often forced to make secular arguments to theists from another religion because (1) they do not agree on religious points and (2) they do agree on many secular points.
2.) Even within religious circles, it is desirable to be able to point to an entirely logical argument or something in the physical world as actual evidence for a belief. It confers a sense of certainty that is often (and appropriately) stronger than faith. Apologetics isn't just about convincing other people; it's about forming a reasonable basis for one's own beliefs, even if the beliefs come first.
You say: "You cannot trump God’s law in the name of pragmatism or any other ism."
But then you say: "This is a good argument to make to T. Paine. It will not make him abandon God, but it does present him with a real-world problem he must answer."
That argument is pragmatic. Make up your mind!
"Once you refute a Biblical position, then secular arguments are back in play."
Unless it is impossible to refute a Biblical position because the other person can always "interpret" his way out of it or "just knows" that it's right. How many times have you convinced T. Paine to abandon a Biblical argument by making your own Biblical arguments?
Broadest appeal means "relevant to the greatest number of people." As I said, we do not all believe in a soul or agree on its nature if it does exist, but we do all acknowledge that we have a body and the common desire to protect at least our own. Even though T. Paine and Burr are Christian, they can understand and identify with non-religious arguments and rules, such as the Golden Rule. The issue here is that T. Paine's belief in the soul trumps, for him, my argument about personhood and quite possibly the argument about political pragmatism.
"No, theists prefer persuasive arguments and they know that religious arguments don’t persuade secularists. I promise you that in religious circles, religious arguments rule."
1.) The world is not divided up simply into theists and atheists. Theists from one religion are often forced to make secular arguments to theists from another religion because (1) they do not agree on religious points and (2) they do agree on many secular points.
2.) Even within religious circles, it is desirable to be able to point to an entirely logical argument or something in the physical world as actual evidence for a belief. It confers a sense of certainty that is often (and appropriately) stronger than faith. Apologetics isn't just about convincing other people; it's about forming a reasonable basis for one's own beliefs, even if the beliefs come first.
You say: "You cannot trump God’s law in the name of pragmatism or any other ism."
But then you say: "This is a good argument to make to T. Paine. It will not make him abandon God, but it does present him with a real-world problem he must answer."
That argument is pragmatic. Make up your mind!
"Once you refute a Biblical position, then secular arguments are back in play."
Unless it is impossible to refute a Biblical position because the other person can always "interpret" his way out of it or "just knows" that it's right. How many times have you convinced T. Paine to abandon a Biblical argument by making your own Biblical arguments?
01/31/13 @ 12:46
Comment from: T. Paine [Visitor] · http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com
Ryan and John, your bantering back and forth was fascinating.
And no, Ryan, John has not ever to my recollection caused me to abandon my Biblical argument by making a Biblical argument of his own, despite the fact that Mr. Myste is indeed well versed in much of the Bible.
And no, Ryan, John has not ever to my recollection caused me to abandon my Biblical argument by making a Biblical argument of his own, despite the fact that Mr. Myste is indeed well versed in much of the Bible.
01/31/13 @ 13:58
Comment from: JMyste [Visitor]
“The issue here is that T. Paine's belief in the soul trumps, for him, my argument about personhood and quite possibly the argument about political pragmatism.”
He thinks your argument about personhood is absurd, morally relativistic and arbitrary.
"No, theists prefer persuasive arguments and they know that religious arguments don’t persuade secularists. I promise you that in religious circles, religious arguments rule."
1.) The world is not divided up simply into theists and atheists. Theists from one religion are often forced to make secular arguments to theists from another religion because (1) they do not agree on religious points and (2) they do agree on many secular points.
Everyone thinks what they think partially on faith and partially on reason, combined, but that is a larger topic. All beliefs are finished with faith.
2.) Even within religious circles, it is desirable to be able to point to an entirely logical argument or something in the physical world as actual evidence for a belief. It confers a sense of certainty that is often (and appropriately) stronger than faith. Apologetics isn't just about convincing other people; it's about forming a reasonable basis for one's own beliefs, even if the beliefs come first.
The belief almost always comes first, but secularists find that idea objectionable and personally offensive.
You say: "You cannot trump God’s law in the name of pragmatism or any other ism."
But then you say: "This is a good argument to make to T. Paine. It will not make him abandon God, but it does present him with a real-world problem he must answer."
That argument is pragmatic. Make up your mind!
I gave you credit for scoring a point, but then also described how in the real-world other things motivate T. Paine. I am not required to choose one or the other to please you, as they both apply. You are now trying to score points first, and logic second. That does not appeal to me at all.
"Once you refute a Biblical position, then secular arguments are back in play."
Unless it is impossible to refute a Biblical position because the other person can always "interpret" his way out of it or "just knows" that it's right. How many times have you convinced T. Paine to abandon a Biblical argument by making your own Biblical arguments
Your question is irrational unless you can list the times you have changed T. Paine’s mind with your secular approach. I have, on T. Paine’s blog, got those in religious debate to back down from their position, the way most people do, simply not responding if they feel defeated (myself notwithstanding. I always analyze anew, so my position can change in the face of reason, but I am the exception). How many times have you done that? Has your secular approach ever changed the tone of a single religious debater in any way? I doubt it. To ignore the fundamental axioms on which a position is formed and attack them on other bases is illogical. If you are going to challenge a position, you have to challenge the reason someone actually holds the position, not the reason you think they should reject or accept your opinion, an opinion they axiomatically discount.
He thinks your argument about personhood is absurd, morally relativistic and arbitrary.
"No, theists prefer persuasive arguments and they know that religious arguments don’t persuade secularists. I promise you that in religious circles, religious arguments rule."
1.) The world is not divided up simply into theists and atheists. Theists from one religion are often forced to make secular arguments to theists from another religion because (1) they do not agree on religious points and (2) they do agree on many secular points.
Everyone thinks what they think partially on faith and partially on reason, combined, but that is a larger topic. All beliefs are finished with faith.
2.) Even within religious circles, it is desirable to be able to point to an entirely logical argument or something in the physical world as actual evidence for a belief. It confers a sense of certainty that is often (and appropriately) stronger than faith. Apologetics isn't just about convincing other people; it's about forming a reasonable basis for one's own beliefs, even if the beliefs come first.
The belief almost always comes first, but secularists find that idea objectionable and personally offensive.
You say: "You cannot trump God’s law in the name of pragmatism or any other ism."
But then you say: "This is a good argument to make to T. Paine. It will not make him abandon God, but it does present him with a real-world problem he must answer."
That argument is pragmatic. Make up your mind!
I gave you credit for scoring a point, but then also described how in the real-world other things motivate T. Paine. I am not required to choose one or the other to please you, as they both apply. You are now trying to score points first, and logic second. That does not appeal to me at all.
"Once you refute a Biblical position, then secular arguments are back in play."
Unless it is impossible to refute a Biblical position because the other person can always "interpret" his way out of it or "just knows" that it's right. How many times have you convinced T. Paine to abandon a Biblical argument by making your own Biblical arguments
Your question is irrational unless you can list the times you have changed T. Paine’s mind with your secular approach. I have, on T. Paine’s blog, got those in religious debate to back down from their position, the way most people do, simply not responding if they feel defeated (myself notwithstanding. I always analyze anew, so my position can change in the face of reason, but I am the exception). How many times have you done that? Has your secular approach ever changed the tone of a single religious debater in any way? I doubt it. To ignore the fundamental axioms on which a position is formed and attack them on other bases is illogical. If you are going to challenge a position, you have to challenge the reason someone actually holds the position, not the reason you think they should reject or accept your opinion, an opinion they axiomatically discount.
01/31/13 @ 18:04
Comment from: T. Paine [Visitor] · http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com
"To ignore the fundamental axioms on which a position is formed and attack them on other bases is illogical. If you are going to challenge a position, you have to challenge the reason someone actually holds the position, not the reason you think they should reject or accept your opinion, an opinion they axiomatically discount."
And THAT right there is why you are probably the most challenging debater I have come across, Mr. Myste. It is also the reason why I tend to admire and respect you over most all other folks I have encountered in the blogosphere. (And this is so, despite your heathen and misguided progressive ways!) :)
And THAT right there is why you are probably the most challenging debater I have come across, Mr. Myste. It is also the reason why I tend to admire and respect you over most all other folks I have encountered in the blogosphere. (And this is so, despite your heathen and misguided progressive ways!) :)
01/31/13 @ 20:21
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
"If you are going to challenge a position, you have to challenge the reason someone actually holds the position, not the reason you think they should reject or accept your opinion, an opinion they axiomatically discount."
This is not news to me. I argue it all the time, usually in some form like "if you want to motivate someone to do something, you must appeal to his existing desires and beliefs."
As I perceive that I am unable to appeal to T. Paine's religious desires and beliefs, I try to instead appeal to his non-religious ones. Perhaps this is futile as well, which would only mean that I should not ever argue with him again.
But let's not forget my intent in joining this discussion. T. Paine asked how people could object to a massacre of children but not to 50 million abortions. I explained how, even though he already knew.
When he presented his arguments against abortion (the unborn child has both a soul and the potential to become what we would all recognize as a person), I pointed out that a law based on the religious belief in the soul would open the doors to laws based on other religious beliefs. I accepted the potentiality argument as a "legitimate" point because it both appeals to a fact about the world that we all accept and avoids the political problems of the soul argument.
"I am not required to choose one or the other to please you, as they both apply."
T. Paine need not address the political problem if he refuses to ignore God's law. As you suggested yourself, he must obey it. This is the logical problem I see; I am not trying to score points. Perhaps next time you can simply ask me to explain the logic rather than jump to the conclusion that I am pointlessly trying to one-up you.
"Your question is irrational unless you can list the times you have changed T. Paine’s mind with your secular approach."
It was an appropriate question, given your point. Secular arguments are not back in play unless you actually convince the other person that you have refuted his Biblical position.
"I have, on T. Paine’s blog, got those in religious debate to back down from their position, the way most people do, simply not responding if they feel defeated..."
Do you really know that they ceased to respond for that reason? More importantly, did they actually change their position accordingly?
"Has your secular approach ever changed the tone of a single religious debater in any way?"
My goal is almost always to either (1) defend my own positions from secular critique or (2) refute other positions through secular arguments. If I wanted to challenge a religious argument, I could attempt to offer a different religious argument, as you do, but I prefer to challenge the religion itself. (This is how I was led away from my religious beliefs.) Unfortunately, that it is a more troublesome task. Moreover, as T. Paine is already (largely) familiar with and rejects the challenges that I have already written on my own blog, there is no point in bringing them up again. So, in this case, I have not tried to refute his religious belief. The discussion that we are having barely applies to the one that I had with him.
To answer your question: Yes. Of course, it is entirely dependent on the individual. Those who desire but struggle to reconcile faith with reason are sometimes open to my approach. Those who lack this desire or do not struggle to fulfill it are rarely open to it--but then, I don't bother with them if I know so ahead of time.
Again, as T. Paine falls into the camp of those who do not seem to struggle to reconcile faith and reason in their minds, it was not my goal to convince him to accept my moral position on abortion. I could only hope to change his legal position.
Once again, I doubt that we disagree on much here. However, I have perceived a change for the worse in our interactions since you ceased to be active on my blog. Is that all in my mind?
This is not news to me. I argue it all the time, usually in some form like "if you want to motivate someone to do something, you must appeal to his existing desires and beliefs."
As I perceive that I am unable to appeal to T. Paine's religious desires and beliefs, I try to instead appeal to his non-religious ones. Perhaps this is futile as well, which would only mean that I should not ever argue with him again.
But let's not forget my intent in joining this discussion. T. Paine asked how people could object to a massacre of children but not to 50 million abortions. I explained how, even though he already knew.
When he presented his arguments against abortion (the unborn child has both a soul and the potential to become what we would all recognize as a person), I pointed out that a law based on the religious belief in the soul would open the doors to laws based on other religious beliefs. I accepted the potentiality argument as a "legitimate" point because it both appeals to a fact about the world that we all accept and avoids the political problems of the soul argument.
"I am not required to choose one or the other to please you, as they both apply."
T. Paine need not address the political problem if he refuses to ignore God's law. As you suggested yourself, he must obey it. This is the logical problem I see; I am not trying to score points. Perhaps next time you can simply ask me to explain the logic rather than jump to the conclusion that I am pointlessly trying to one-up you.
"Your question is irrational unless you can list the times you have changed T. Paine’s mind with your secular approach."
It was an appropriate question, given your point. Secular arguments are not back in play unless you actually convince the other person that you have refuted his Biblical position.
"I have, on T. Paine’s blog, got those in religious debate to back down from their position, the way most people do, simply not responding if they feel defeated..."
Do you really know that they ceased to respond for that reason? More importantly, did they actually change their position accordingly?
"Has your secular approach ever changed the tone of a single religious debater in any way?"
My goal is almost always to either (1) defend my own positions from secular critique or (2) refute other positions through secular arguments. If I wanted to challenge a religious argument, I could attempt to offer a different religious argument, as you do, but I prefer to challenge the religion itself. (This is how I was led away from my religious beliefs.) Unfortunately, that it is a more troublesome task. Moreover, as T. Paine is already (largely) familiar with and rejects the challenges that I have already written on my own blog, there is no point in bringing them up again. So, in this case, I have not tried to refute his religious belief. The discussion that we are having barely applies to the one that I had with him.
To answer your question: Yes. Of course, it is entirely dependent on the individual. Those who desire but struggle to reconcile faith with reason are sometimes open to my approach. Those who lack this desire or do not struggle to fulfill it are rarely open to it--but then, I don't bother with them if I know so ahead of time.
Again, as T. Paine falls into the camp of those who do not seem to struggle to reconcile faith and reason in their minds, it was not my goal to convince him to accept my moral position on abortion. I could only hope to change his legal position.
Once again, I doubt that we disagree on much here. However, I have perceived a change for the worse in our interactions since you ceased to be active on my blog. Is that all in my mind?
02/01/13 @ 01:41
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
T. Paine,
I am deeply wounded that I do not top your list instead.
I am deeply wounded that I do not top your list instead.
02/01/13 @ 01:43
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor] · http://secularethics.wordpress.com
John,
I forgot to mention:
People do not always hold their beliefs for the reasons that they provide. A theist's thought process does not always begin with "God says X is wrong" and end with "X is wrong." Often it is reversed, even if he says otherwise. If we can get at the true reasons for which the theist believes that X is wrong, we can sometimes convince him to change his position for secular reasons even without challenging his religion. Sometimes this leads to the theist abandoning his religion, but usually it leads to the theist adjusting what he believes God condemns.
For example: Joe is raised to believe that (1) God approves of slaughtering infidels and (2) God is benevolent. He later encounters a very compelling argument against slaughtering infidels that appeals to his desires as a social creature with empathy. Since he retains belief #2, which is more important to him than belief #1, he is forced to adjust belief #1 to: God disapproves of slaughtering infidels.
The mistake in believing that secular arguments cannot change religious beliefs is in assuming that the religious beliefs are more valuable to the theist than they often really are. We can be taught to ignore what you would call the moral sense and I would call a particular set of desires, only to later be reminded of it and compelled to change.
I forgot to mention:
People do not always hold their beliefs for the reasons that they provide. A theist's thought process does not always begin with "God says X is wrong" and end with "X is wrong." Often it is reversed, even if he says otherwise. If we can get at the true reasons for which the theist believes that X is wrong, we can sometimes convince him to change his position for secular reasons even without challenging his religion. Sometimes this leads to the theist abandoning his religion, but usually it leads to the theist adjusting what he believes God condemns.
For example: Joe is raised to believe that (1) God approves of slaughtering infidels and (2) God is benevolent. He later encounters a very compelling argument against slaughtering infidels that appeals to his desires as a social creature with empathy. Since he retains belief #2, which is more important to him than belief #1, he is forced to adjust belief #1 to: God disapproves of slaughtering infidels.
The mistake in believing that secular arguments cannot change religious beliefs is in assuming that the religious beliefs are more valuable to the theist than they often really are. We can be taught to ignore what you would call the moral sense and I would call a particular set of desires, only to later be reminded of it and compelled to change.
02/01/13 @ 02:52
Comment from: Emily [Visitor]
"Emily, your hypothetical question is rather preposterous since orthodox Judaism would not require the mandating of abortion in certain circumstances as per the Torah."
You are flat out wrong. Orthodox Judaism requires abortions in certain circumstances. But I appreciate you answering my question even if you don't know everything about faiths other than your own. (I know you don't believe me, but just fair warning: don't bring a pregnant loved one to a Jewish hospital. They might actually save her life.)
"The truth of the matter is that the core laws of our nation are indeed based on natural law and Judeo-Christian belief."
Please familiarize yourself with the Treaty of Tripoli.
Moving for religious freedom is a good idea. My family did to escape pogroms. But what do we do when the country we move to for religious freedom, where the idea of religious freedom is enshrined in its constitution, tries to make us live life according to a foreign religious beliefs?
You are flat out wrong. Orthodox Judaism requires abortions in certain circumstances. But I appreciate you answering my question even if you don't know everything about faiths other than your own. (I know you don't believe me, but just fair warning: don't bring a pregnant loved one to a Jewish hospital. They might actually save her life.)
"The truth of the matter is that the core laws of our nation are indeed based on natural law and Judeo-Christian belief."
Please familiarize yourself with the Treaty of Tripoli.
Moving for religious freedom is a good idea. My family did to escape pogroms. But what do we do when the country we move to for religious freedom, where the idea of religious freedom is enshrined in its constitution, tries to make us live life according to a foreign religious beliefs?
02/01/13 @ 09:47
Leave a comment
| « Not Ready for Democracy | Introduction - Sweet Hour Of Prayer » |
