tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post2970122411709800283..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Obscuring the lightRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-5052244665136317442012-07-18T07:26:01.238-05:002012-07-18T07:26:01.238-05:00Abortion is murder--it's that simple, right?
...<i>Abortion is murder--it's that simple, right?</i><br /><br />Pretty much, yes.<br /><br /><br /><i> we simultaneously value human life and a woman's right to decide if she's going to be pregnant.</i><br /><br />You fail to properly prioritise them, though. That's the problem. <br />Prohibition of abortion limits a woman’s rights to life and liberty in no meaningful sense. If a law prohibiting a woman from hiring an abortionist to kill her unborn child limits her rights to life and liberty, then a law prohibiting a woman from hiring a hit man to kill her husband also limits her right to life and liberty. In both cases, the laws would prohibit a woman from hiring someone to kill another human being. The only difference between the two cases is the location of the individual that the woman wants to kill.<br />By this same token, legalized abortion is unconstitutional. It inhibits the unborn child’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.<br /><br /><br /><i>When these two values come into conflict, it's difficult to know what's right.</i><br /><br />No, I'm sorry, but it's really not.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>technological advances in medicine like fertility treatment and the morning-after pill, and abortion raise ethical issues for which the bible does not provide clear cut guidance.</i><br /><br />Well, hold on a moment. Just b/c I'd never thought this esoteric and pretty unrealistic thought experiment all the way through in my spare time doesn't mean the Bible doesn't provide clear cut guidance. You haven't made that case yet.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>the bible does not explicitly forbid abortion</i><br /><br />Yes, it does.<br />Exodus 21:22, for example. John the Baptist, a fetus of like 1 month, leaping in his mother's womb. Psalm 139. "Do not murder."<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>. And in Exodus 21:22-23, if a man causes a miscarriage he is punished less severely than if he kills an adult.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://abolishhumanabortion.com/faq/#in-exodus-2122-god-did-not-regard-the-preborn-child-as-human-lifewhat-right-do-you-have-to-judge-anyone" rel="nofollow">That's incorrect.</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Lev 27:6</i><br /><br />B/c in that time, people making difficult vows could be placed into slavery if they defaulted on the loan/vow. An able-bodied male who can work hard is obviously worth more than a child slave (a child could become a slave if his father defaulted to such an extent that the family would go into slavery; ie, indentured servitude). <br />Economic value is only one measure of worth, and it's certainly not an excuse to murder anyone.<br /><br /><br /><i> I've read some self-serving modern interpretations of this last passage, but they strain credulity.</i><br /><br />I'd be interested in your critique of our FAQ item, then.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>we're left to ourselves to choose what to value more: unborn human life or a woman's right to decide if she is going to be pregnant</i><br /><br />If that's the case, there is literally no value to anything and no reason to choose one or the other or both or neither. <br />There are no moral duties, not even to believe or seek truth. <a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/05/meh-atheism.html" rel="nofollow">Atheism is meh.</a>Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-43665839129974043532012-07-17T23:16:21.740-05:002012-07-17T23:16:21.740-05:00So it seems that you agree that a woman's cons...So it seems that you agree that a woman's consent as to whether or not she becomes pregnant is something morally valuable. It matters. To undermine that consent is to do something wrong.<br /><br />My impression of your work with "Abolish Human Abortion" is that you disregard this moral concern when it comes to the issue of abortion. Abortion is murder--it's that simple, right?<br /><br />But the reason why people struggle with this question and why they don't see it in the black and white terms that you do is precisely because we simultaneously value human life and a woman's right to decide if she's going to be pregnant. When these two values come into conflict, it's difficult to know what's right.<br /><br />With my little thought experiment, I hoped to illustrate that the technological advances in medicine like fertility treatment and the morning-after pill, and abortion raise ethical issues for which the bible does not provide clear cut guidance.<br /><br />After all, the bible does not explicitly forbid abortion. Its prohibition of murder along with some inference is what leads you to your conclusion. But there are reasonable alternate inferences to be made.<br /><br />For example, in Leviticus 27:6, no value is assigned to infants under a month of age. And in Exodus 21:22-23, if a man causes a miscarriage he is punished less severely than if he kills an adult. I've read some self-serving modern interpretations of this last passage, but they strain credulity.<br /><br />And so we're left to ourselves to choose what to value more: unborn human life or a woman's right to decide if she is going to be pregnant. Weighing these against each other should be the focus of the debate. Instead, "Abolish Human Abortion" and initiatives employing similar rhetoric want to make it seem as though the issue is clear cut and was decided long ago in scripture. I find that approach highly unproductive.sanscredonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-78671041714242934682012-07-17T14:12:48.726-05:002012-07-17T14:12:48.726-05:00I laid out the OB/GYN patient scenario carefully i...<i>I laid out the OB/GYN patient scenario carefully in my first comment to prevent the discussion from being side-tracked with issues of kidnapping or assault.</i><br /><br />Ah, indeed. Sorry about that.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Given that you consider artificial insemination without consent to be "rape", would you consider artificial insemination with consent to be "fornication"?</i><br /><br />Hmm, that's a fine question. Probably couldn't say it is fornication, no. I disagree with that course of action for a few reasons, but I don't think I could defend calling it fornication.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Consider this scenario: Husband and Wife with fertility problems use Husband's brother's sperm to get pregnant.</i><br /><br />I advise them to adopt. Just saying. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>If you don't consider artificial insemination with consent to be fornication, then how can the presence of consent change a non-sexual act into a sexual one?</i><br /><br />Yeah, that's also a good question. I can't think of a way to defend my original contention of rape, so I'll have to concede you that one. <br />It's not kidnapping in your scenario, either.<br />I'd still call it assault. Quasi-sexual assault? Semi-sexual assault?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-10222300917447827482012-07-17T14:08:07.201-05:002012-07-17T14:08:07.201-05:00Hi Rho,
Thanks for the response.
I laid out the ...Hi Rho,<br /><br />Thanks for the response.<br /><br />I laid out the OB/GYN patient scenario carefully in my first comment to prevent the discussion from being side-tracked with issues of kidnapping or assault.<br /><br />Given that you consider artificial insemination without consent to be "rape", would you consider artificial insemination with consent to be "fornication"?<br /><br />Consider this scenario: Husband and Wife with fertility problems use Husband's brother's sperm to get pregnant. During the IUI procedure, is the doctor fornicating with Wife? Or is Husband's brother fornicating with her?<br /><br />If you don't consider artificial insemination with consent to be fornication, then how can the presence of consent change a non-sexual act into a sexual one?sanscredonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-2251790614488283742012-07-16T08:51:31.839-05:002012-07-16T08:51:31.839-05:00The normative means of impregnating a woman is sex...The normative means of impregnating a woman is sexual intercourse, and God has expressly commanded that such relations occur only in the confines of the marital bond.<br /><br />Thus impregnating a women sans consent would be tantamount to rape. <br />If you're speaking of a person kidnapping a woman and impregnating her via a hypodermic needle or something, we don't even need to parse whether it's OK to impregnate; kidnapping and corporal assault with a pointy weapon are most certainly not justifiable. Nor would such an action be a gift nor constitute a "lack of harm". Kidnapping and assault are certainly harmful.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-9318564427648512382012-07-15T09:05:50.772-05:002012-07-15T09:05:50.772-05:00Ok. That's reasonable.
But how do we know it...Ok. That's reasonable.<br /><br />But how do we know it's wrong to impregnate women without their consent? Does the bible explicitly forbid it? Or is it an obvious extension of something it forbids?<br /><br />By impregnating someone, could you even say that you've harmed them or violated them in any way? Isn't it a gift?sanscredonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-49005724083304771802012-07-14T00:39:48.842-05:002012-07-14T00:39:48.842-05:00So was it wrong for God to impregnate Mary against...<i>So was it wrong for God to impregnate Mary against her consent?</i><br /><br />This assumes that Mary was not wiling to be the mother of Christ, which is contradicted by the text of Scripture:<br /><br /><i>“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” </i> (Luke 1:38)Matthew C. Martellushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06674090990305919761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-35461771689096183952012-07-13T23:06:22.924-05:002012-07-13T23:06:22.924-05:00So was it wrong for God to impregnate Mary against...So was it wrong for God to impregnate Mary against her consent?sanscredonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-25112499218736770372012-07-13T15:15:01.525-05:002012-07-13T15:15:01.525-05:00He did wrong by impregnating her against her conse...He did wrong by impregnating her against her consent.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63685962845530666702012-07-13T13:59:12.413-05:002012-07-13T13:59:12.413-05:00Let's say that a woman goes in for her regular...Let's say that a woman goes in for her regular gynecological exam, and the doctor decides to artificially inseminate her during the exam without her consent. As a result, she becomes pregnant. When the procedure is complete, he informs her of what he's done. <br /><br />Has the doctor done anything wrong to the woman? Or did the doctor do good by creating a new instance of human life?sanscredonoreply@blogger.com