Interesting Essay on Abortion

[Odale]

When you're trying to make a point, don't you usually use the device that will deliver the most devastating impact that you can find?

Yes; however, you should provide some proof of research to make yourself seem credible, something this author failed to do.

 

[Durruck]

Actually, we don't know that for certain. It looks like TJ copied & pasted from another source. Any hyperlinks in the text would have been lost.

TJ, can you show us where you got this opinion article?

*edit*

I found it on her blog. The text does, in fact, include hyperlinks to references.

 

[Avesther]

Just thought that went through my mind about the Freedom of Choice Act. Isn't it strange that in order for somebody to have freedom of choice somebody else must give up their freedom of choice.

So that somebody can freely choose to have an abortion, a doctor (who does not work for the government) somewhere is forced against their own value system to perform it. That is not freedom of choice, that is the worst kind of socialism (state control of private assets).

 

[ppar3566]

It's not using fear if it's the truth -_-. It's like renaming the "Jewish Holocaust" the "Jewish loss of life during the war" because the first term sounded too harsh. It sounds bad because it acquired the connotations from the act. If that term starts to sound bad are you going to keep changing it until it loses the bad association completely? You aren't going to get the point across that it is bad then so what's the point? Why not just affirm to people that abortion is just a bad habit like biting your nails? In a murder case do you change the term to life dis-continuance and be more and more vague until the idea is lost completely? For me calling abortion murder to shock people has nothing to do with it, I call it that because that's what it is. People don't want to listen to anything they may be doing wrong no matter how you phrase it but they have to hear it or they can't change. Yes many shirk away (even before you even say I'm pro-lif... and they are trying to get away) but this is not however what a Christian should do. As Christians we should be trying to do better, to seek out our faults (at least I try too) and hold each other accountable in fellowship. Yes we should use some tact but we can't dilute the truth either or people aren't going to get the idea a horrible act is horrible. Also while I'd much prefer a true belief how many things are not done purely because it is seen as socially unacceptable (I guess you are against all those shocking, fear inducing, ads against smoking).

You have misunderstood me. What I am saying is that these tactics simply dont work and if they do work it leads to strained relationships and other consequences that can lead to more problems. I assume the object is to get people to stop abortion not to make us feel good that we have this moral position and isn't everyone else so evil. Also I was not saying you could not call it murder/genocide (though I do think that this is a stretch) but rather you need to support it with quality argument that includes evidence rather than sophistry- this article is pure an utter sophistry and if I, like you, would like to see an end to abortion then we need more than clever speech and fear we need substance and that is something that is sadly lacking in Christian arguments. I suppose what I am saying is that if linking abortion to murder/genocide is justified then the link should be made but just saying it does not make it so and our moral outrage on the issue or our ability to squeeze it into a definition does not count as evidence. Nor might i add is using one metaphore to support another metaphore. Us christians are excellent at saying something is just like something else and pulling at the heart strings with the comparison but pretty poor at actually providing a rationale for why this is so. So I am saying make the link but if you are going to bring such serious accusations then you have a responsibility to back it up with very strong evidence. I might say that this holds for both side and I dont think it is good enough that pro-choice people suggest they are protecting the rights of women when that link is not clearly expressed or supported and nor is there any effort made to suggest that supporting abortion is the only way by which womens rights can be maintained. But I am not on their side of this debate so I have no interest in holding them accountable.

The other thing is what rivertigress said. It is all well and good to rant against abortion but if we are unwilling to see how Christians make the life of single mothers all the harder. Without us actually trying to improve the lot of disadvantaged women both before and after birth of a baby I think all this ranting is fairly hollow.

The problem with this argument is abortion is already being used as a sin, drinking by itself is not (the only possible non-sinful use of abortion is if both the mother and child will die without it). Sin begets more sin so you have to go deeper because it will never for fill you or solve problems without creating more. In the case of drinking alcohol it is not a sin it's being drunk that is a sin. Yes defining the exact line when you've had enough is tricky and varies with people's physical constitution but it does exist. I do admit better ties to the patterns of behavior could have been made in the article but then that's a very long subject. It is a misguided, humanistic belief that we have somehow evolved beyond the sinful patterns of the past yet it is very prevalent today. There is nothing new under the sun.

No no this is a misunderstanding. I was using an illustration to explain what a slippery slope arguement was. I was not comparing drinking to abortion. I was using it to show how an x will lead to y argument without reference to evidence, tracking how x leads to y or understanding the contingencies that lead to y is not a sound argument style. It is my strong belief that devoid of this additional information (which is my main problem with the essay) any x leads to y argument is designed purely to convince people by fear. Before anyone says it yes I did read the one with the links and no I dont think they made it any better.

BTW before WWII America was very reluctant to get into the war. The main thing that shifted public option was the belief we were next not the idea of protecting others. Stories like Germans arming civilian planes in South America shifted opinion towards the war with Pearl Harbor making it certain. Then there things like 9/11. Repeatedly though history we don't want to get involved in the middle east and it comes back to bite us, then we get involved, but it's not our problem when other people are at stake. My point is a simple one, people are selfish and do not want to give up something they want until it directly threatens them but because sin is an ever growing corruption it always will. The parallels in basic motivation and outcomes are there so I understand the article.

Just because people are selfish does not mean playing on that selfishness makes the argument anymore justified. If it is selfishness then this author is leveraging off one lot of sin to use it to gain support for removing another sin. Politics in the western world have for far to long gained support for there policies (both government, church, and other institutions) by appealing to our base nature rather than appealing to what is best in us. It may work but it does not feel very good. I for one wish people would try and motivate me to action by logically and rationally showing the benefits of there approach (thus changing my cognitions) and would try and motivate me by appealing to what I could be rather than what it means for me (thus changing my emotions). I have said it once before but I think the movie Juno did more for changing young girls attitudes to abortion than all the efforts of Christian and their outrage put together.

Edit: I just noted that I switch between a utilaterian argument (The essay wont work so why bother) to an individual rights argument (the essay is wrong because it plays on peoples fear and selfishness and damaging if successful). I apologize the only thing I can say in my defense is that I have been consistent in my inconsistency in saying that I think it is both wrong particularly if it is successful but also that it is unlikely to be successful.

How about the fact that the US executed 83 prisoners in 2000?

Really, that is crazy. I remember when an Australian convicted drug mule got executed in Singapore on my 22nd birthday and nobody seemed to care. I am reminded of a quote from "The idiot" where the main character is saying that the cruelest part of execution is horror and fear that occurs in the lead up to the event. IN that link it says that the average stay on death row is over 11 years. I know thisisn't the topic but there is something seriously wrong with that. Completely of the topic I know but Wow I really get upset about executions (can't say I know whether it is ever justified or not but it still makes me sad). Thanks for the link

Genocide and Slavery are two pretty big crimes against humanity. Equating elective abortions for convenience to them really isn't such a big stretch.

My above reply to MG outlines what I am saying a bit more clearly.