The Irony of Pro-Life Christians

Introduction


Few debates are as divisive and heated as the debate over abortion. Back when I was a Christian, and for a short time after, I held a pro-life view though eventually I came to see abortion as a necessary, if still unfortunate, reality of being part of a species that cannot fully control it's own sexual reproductive urges (and that I had no right telling a woman what she could and could not do with her body). Rather than discuss the actual issue however I am going to discuss the irony of Christians who call themselves pro-life and why this extremist view clashes harshly with the realities of Christian scripture and Christian history.

He Giveth

Along with the war against abortion certain fringes of the Christian faith have also begun attacking birth control. The idea that sexual union can take place without the chance of a pregnancy is apparently denying God the right to give life. God is, in this view, nothing more than a Cosmic stork, or perhaps a Universal Jedi guiding your sperm spiritually to the thermal exhaust port that is only two meters wide.

The idea that human beings might not be able to afford another child due to financial pressure, or simply that a family might not want another child, is apparently lost on God. God created us to be fruitful and multiply and some Christians take this so seriously that anything but good-ol'-fashion unprotected intercourse is forbidden.

Of course to sane Christians this is, well, insane, but then so is the view that once the sperm reaches the egg and forms a zygote that it becomes magical. Why does it become magical? Because the zygote is then infused with a spirit or soul and becomes, in the minds of pro-lifers, a full on PERSON. Even before the first cell division is underway, and way way before any brain-function begins, we apparently have ourselves a person. If something were to happen during pregnancy the soul would just be returned to sender unsuccessful leaving the child's purpose unfulfilled. Of course if any miscarriages happen naturally (which many many do) that's obviously God's will.

And He Taketh Away

God kills lot's of people. In the view of some Christians God has appointed every human being on Earth a time to die. This includes some folks who die before they can be born of perfectly natural causes, so one has to wonder why God even bothered. If indeed every sperm is a spirit guided missile designed to create life and God indeed does decide when a woman will get pregnant than God must be thwarting his own work with natural miscarriages. This whole business is, if you think about it, pretty fucked up.

The irony however comes from the idea that life is sacred and that life begins at conception. If life is so precious and sacred than why would Christians kill for God? What's that you say? Christians WOULDN'T kill for God? I think they would. What's that you're asking, God WOULDN'T demand Christians kill anyone?

For those asking those questions I have a question of my own, Have you read the Bible at all? God commands and commits horrifying acts all throughout the Bible, from the Old Testament right up to Revelation. For those Christians who believe that being under the so-called New Covenant exempts them from having to commit murder when their lord commands may I remind them that the scripture also says that God is the same yesterday, today and FOREVER. There is no new characteristic for God that prevents him from commanding killing. Even on the Cross Jesus alludes to the fact that if he felt like it he could call down an entire Angelic legion to wreck the Romans and get him the hell out of there.

Even if God doesn't directly command the killings Christianity's history is absolutely stuffed full of war, death, and forced assimilation of other cultures. You might argue that the Inquisitions were not commanded by God but they were carried out in his name, same for the Crusades.

The irony is that for folks that claim to be all about life the truth of Christianity and it's teachings hardly supports your beliefs regarding abortion. God commands the deaths of children, and God carries out the killings of the unborn. Your God drowned everyone, the innocent and guilty alike, in a horrific flood, this included any unborn children as well.

Death, and Taxes

At it's root Christianity is a death-cult. It surrounds a Martyr, after all, who was deified by his followers and whose sacrifice, they believe, brought the entire world a chance for eternal paradise. In order to gain the benefit that Christianity offers you must follow Jesus, to your grave. Your eternal reward isn't gained until you've accepted Christ, repented and died. In fact the connection to death is so powerful that most sects of Christianity make suicide a SIN to prevent desperate folks from just putting a gun to their head to get to Heaven or drinking the proverbial Kool-Aid.

The Old and New Testament are replete with death, genocide, slavery, destruction and all manner of horror. The authors in the New Testament refer to the metaphor of dying to yourself in order to be reborn in Christ and while this can be seen as a metaphor there is no doubt that getting to the actual Kingdom of God required you to be literally dead. Jesus even leads his disciples in a ritual of mock cannibalism where they pretend to feast on his flesh and drink his blood and amazingly, in the twenty-first century, this tradition still exists in many churches.

With all the death their God and their religion have commanded, condoned and committed, and the fact that their entire religion is based on the brutal execution of an innocent man, it is amazing that any Christian can oppose abortion with a straight-face. If anything those souls that are aborted go straight to Heaven right? Why on Earth would parents want to let their child ever be born? After all being born means being born into sin, and that means the chance of going to Hell. Without being born there is NO chance for the soul to go to Hell. So mass abortion isn't necessarily a bad thing then if Christianity is taken at face value.

Execution

Ironically many in the Christian right aren't just opposed to abortion they are actually pro-death penalty. They will protect the rights of a fetus, but abandon anyone found guilty. These seems utterly strange, to protect the unborn with venom and fury but support with similar fervor the killing of another human being. Surely the soul of a murderer is still in play? I thought that they believed that life was sacred and that only God could decide the appointed time that someone could be born or die - our use of birth control or abortion were somehow mucking up God's will and that all human life was precious to God and had to be defended.

No, apparently once you are convicted of a crime and sentenced to death some Christians revoke compassion. Sure they'll visit you before your execution, to make sure you convert to their way of thinking, but as far as actually caring about your mortal life, eh, not so much.

Life isn't what is sacred to these people, PRE-LIFE is, having control over your sexual tendencies is their goal here. They want to promote a world-view where sex is only between a man and a woman and is only allowed when procreation is a primary goal.

Conclusion

Believe what you will about abortion, have whatever position on the issue that you feel is right, but whatever you do do not be as detached from reality as the insane fringe Christians who promote these ideas. They are confused not only about abortion itself but about their own mythology and scripture which, rather than condemning killing, often approves of it in various forms. These folks serve a God who has aborted more fetuses than human doctors ever could and who, often times, let's those children that do successfully make it into this world starve to death or die of diseases.

There are children born addicted to drugs, with horrible deformities, with AIDS, with -insert terrible condition here-. Is this all God's will, God's brilliant plan, God's undeniable command - Be fruitful and multiply? But then who is to say that ABORTION isn't part of God's plan? Who is to say he is not planting the idea to abort fetuses into the minds of various women who's zygote's have souls that he would like to have back and who he feels are not ready for or in need of any (more) children.

I leave you Christians with the mercy of your God in 2nd Samuel 12:

“Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”

After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

On the seventh day the child died...”



More by this Author


Comments 70 comments

Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Of all the things that 'Christians' do, being pro-life and pro-war and pro-death penalty and pro-prayer for sick people (instead of proper health care) are truly the most insidious things I can think of.

And they are just so quick to judge others as being hypocritical.

And they also don't believe in euthanasia which would be such a relief for the old and sick and dying folks. For those that think they are going straight to heaven, they sure fight it.


Carneades-Georgia 4 years ago

Tittin Sxull and Austinstar, and what other implications of their superstition do they not fathom, and the same for advanced theologians?

I invite you two to comment on my hubs so as to sharpen our "evangel."

My emphasis centers on divine intent, and this hub goes there as to Yahweh's intent to murder in the manner y'all emphasize.

Any being requring worship has low self-esteem and high narcissism and should be in an asylum for the criminally-minded as Allah and Yahweh ever deserve!I go to the theistic jugular: As independent beings, we owe no other beings worship, and no other has dominion over us!

Yes, to that jugular! We owe even an omibenevolent God nothing! God would face the one-way street that the hub Fr. Meslier notes!


randslam profile image

randslam 4 years ago from Kelowna, British Columbia

The historical evolution of Christianity, whichever your creed, is dubious...to be kind.

The players in the Pro-Life drama have done little to understand their own faith, but have certainly felt the passion to speak for a deity. It has brought them the ability to decide what is right for all...some justice.

The sad truth is that after there miserable lives on the planet...they will rest as all those who have gone before. Their own Bible speaks of no immortal soul...no days of joyful bounty and eternal bliss in heaven--or of an eternal fiery Hell.

These are ideas which the early Greeks and Egyptians held to which the creeds of Catholicism, and the rest, adopted as articles of faith for the popular new rising theosophy in the 3rd and 4th Century A. C. E. Personally, I can't imagine wanting to drift around with anyone for all eternity...our mortal run is enough.

The very idea of putting one's own religious fervour onto anyone else simply stinks of self-absorption in one's own perceived piety--a real stench.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

IDK randslam, how do you REALLY feel about it?


randslam profile image

randslam 4 years ago from Kelowna, British Columbia

I like to focus on the work of writing...speeds up the day and minimizes the realization that we live on a planet where many don't require the facts...it's rather weird to realize how many of us need to depend on the evolution of our own mythologies.

At least, that's how I feel, Austinstar...lol.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Sounds like a good way to feel to me :-)


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"There are children born addicted to drugs, with horrible deformities, with AIDS, with -insert terrible condition here-. Is this all God's will, God's brilliant plan, God's undeniable command - Be fruitful and multiply?"

Argument from incredulity.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Incredulity is a valid argument. It's incredible to believe something that is not credible.

The bible says Gods loves his children. The song says, "Jesus loves me", yet as a father, God really sucks!


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 4 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@Nicomp

Pointing out that a perfect moral/loving God creating a system like that doesn't make any sense is hardly an argument from incredulity. When beliefs are illogical and don't make sense in light of reality to point this out is not an argument from incredulity, unless you suggest that I open my mind to believing things that make absolutely no sense.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Incredulity is a valid argument. It's incredible to believe something that is not credible."

You don't understand an argument from incredulity. He asserts that a point is incredible to him, then uses that assertion to dismiss the point.

The fact that he doesn't understand something cannot be used to invalidate it. Most people don't get calculus but whoop, there it is.

In other words, it's logically fallacious to say "I don't understand how X could happen, therefore it did not happen."


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 4 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@Nicomp

You do not understand an argument from incredulity.

"He asserts that a point is incredible to him, then uses that assertion to dismiss the point."

When something is illogical, when it is logically broken, that makes it incredible to me. Christians run around saying their perfect loving God has a plan for everyone's life but then children are born with horrific deformities and diseases. The idea that this is the perfect plan of a perfect deity is ILLOGICAL, so being incredulous toward the idea is NOT FALLACIOUS.


Charles Hilton 4 years ago

Thank you!

At its core, Christianity is a guilt-based death-cult. The "pro-life" moniker is nothing more than a term they adopted for political rhetoric.

They never even consider the contradiction of being pro-life AND pro-war/capital punishment.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 19 months ago

"let's those children that do successfully make it into this world starve to death or die of diseases."

But you don't want God interfering in your life, right? :)


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 19 months ago from back in the lab again Author

If a truly good or merciful God exists of course I would want that God intervening in my life.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"At its core, Christianity is a guilt-based death-cult. "

No, it isn't.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"They never even consider the contradiction of being pro-life AND pro-war/capital punishment."

There is no contradiction. Think it through, then bet back to us.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

nicomp, I may be dense, but are you saying that pro-lifers are that way just to breed fodder for wars?

They way I see it is that pro-lifers completely ignore the fact that everyone is going to die, it's just a question of when. Whether a fetus dies or a 90 year old war veteran dies, it's still death and no one can prevent it.

And people that are against abortions are just wasting their time. The baby is still going to die whether it gets to be born or not. It's the middle part, the part we call life, is the part pro-lifers should be most concerned with. We should all be working toward improving our life and our planet.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Of course there is a contradiction. The main contradiction is in the name, pro-life, if they were pro-life why would they want people to die? Why would they ever be in favor of violence or state sanctioned killing? Especially when they believe that abortion is state-sanctioned.

They do not believe women have the right to terminate a pregnancy. So apparently they think the State should coerce pregnant women under penalty of law into carrying a pregnancy to term.

Many believe that killing a fetus which is not even a human being yet, has no feelings, emotions, fear, has no life to speak of yet, is the same as murder. A fetus is aborted before it has a chance to lose anything. It is a loss of life before life has even begun. At the very least someone on death row or an enemy soldier is a fully formed human being with emotions, perhaps a family, something to lose. A fetus loses no more than if it had never been conceived at all.

Of course abortion is in a moral gray area, I for one don't like it all that much, but that gray area has to exist because human beings are sexually irresponsible. The alternative is to have the state force women to give birth to unwanted, unloved children. I don't think its any business of men to force women to carry a pregnancy to term.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

"If a truly good or merciful God exists of course I would want that God intervening in my life."

Really? Even if you disagreed with his point of view?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Well it depends how good that point of view is. A truly good or merciful God would have better morals than I do and be able to explain to me why they were better and why mine weren't quite right. But please note that when I say I would want that God to intervene, I don't mean I would SUBMIT to that God and let it run my life. But any truly good God would not have totalitarian desires that all living beings conform to its will and submit to its rule.

I'm talking about interventions such as miracles, helping us solve world hunger, helping us achieve our full potential as a species, NOT God coming down and taking over the UN like a super villain while rattling off a list of demands (Mount Sinai style).


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

In a sense a good God might be a bit like the Vulcans in Star Trek. Arrive on Earth, help us sort of space travel, hunger, war, disease. Help us mature as a species so we can be out among the stars exploring. Not in a complete take over sense but in a community sense, not over powering our wills.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

In other words, if you disagreed you wouldn't want him interfering in your life ...


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

It is my life Joe or are you're suggesting that its okay for God force himself on us?

I can point you to hubs where I argued that if there is a God his greatest gift of all might be our autonomy and freedom, what you would argue as Free Will but what I would simply say is our ability to decide for ourselves what direction our species takes. As they say in Terminator 2 "There is no fate but what we make for ourselves".

Such an absentee "God" wouldn't be "good" but it might be benign and a hell of a lot smarter than us.

I could go off into a whole weird talking about how useless the word god actually is because the moment we find an actual being that fit some definitions of god is the moment we insult our own intelligence by ascribing to something that actually exists a label previously given to the obviously fictional. Why even as a Christian I always found it weird that we usually just called God God, rather than using a name like Yahweh, Jehovah, etc, is it really a good idea to lump something you genuinely believe is real in with obvious fictions like Zeus and Thor? That's a rhetorical, not directed at you.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

" I don't think its any business of men to force women to carry a pregnancy to term."

This is a fascinating issue but a huge red-herring for the politically immature. Should women be permitted to take crystal meth? Should women be allowed to sell their organs on the black market? Should women have the right to starve themselves to death?

The laws of any civilized society are full of stuff that women aren't allowed to do.

I know: men aren't allowed to to that stuff either. That's beside the point.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"The laws of any civilized society are full of stuff that women aren't allowed to do."

All of the examples you gave are dangerous to the woman. An abortion, if carried out correctly, is not dangerous to the woman. Nor is it carried out in a black market or dark alley.

A better analogy would be something like mandatory vaccinations, is it fair for the government to force people to get vaccinated? Because there is debate to be had about pros vs cons.

If abortion is made illegal what do we get? Unloved unwanted children either having to be cared for by mothers who didn't want them or having to be put into foster care, women forced to birth them by the government, women who did get abortions having to do so illegally under dangerous conditions, potential penalties for any doctor who performs an abortion.

As I've said abortion is the unfortunate result of our sexual irresponsibility as a species but it is not the place of men to force women to carry a pregnancy to term.. Biggest way to prevent abortion - ubiquitous sex ed for all children and adults, free birth control. And what do religious groups often fight against? Sex ed in schools and birth control.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"All of the examples you gave are dangerous to the woman. An abortion, if carried out correctly, is not dangerous to the woman. Nor is it carried out in a black market or dark alley."

Your use if the word dangerous is subjective. You obviously have not read scientific literature researching the impact of abortion on women.

Anyway, why should men get to decide what is dangerous for women?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

" is it fair for the government to force people to get vaccinated?"

No, but it's fair for the government to force people who want to enter society to get vaccinated.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"As I've said abortion is the unfortunate result of our sexual irresponsibility"

OK. Good. Now tell us why it's unfortunate. Please.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

"It is my life Joe or are you're suggesting that its okay for God force himself on us?"

If it means ending all of the savage wars, violence, abuse, strife, discord, animosity, hatred, bigotry, inequality, injustice, abject squalor, preventable disease and depravity which has plagued humanity for thousands of years and creating a world where true peace and joy reign in its place?

I pray for that day to come and, thankfully, it will (Luke 23:43; John 17:3) :)


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

""As I've said abortion is the unfortunate result of our sexual irresponsibility""

Still waiting for an answer on this one. Why is it 'unfortunate?'


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

It shows that we are irresponsible enough to let a pregnancy even begin and then have to terminate it, which requires a careful medical procedure, money, doctors who could be doing other things. Of course some abortions are medically necessary or the result of rape, and again for those sorts of instances we need abortion BUT when its just the result of a man and a woman being stupid yes its unfortunate.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

"when its just the result of a man and a woman being stupid yes its unfortunate."

It's also evil per your own definition.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Really Joe? Does it cause harm to the well being of the Mother while providing little or no benefit to society?

You may argue that it causes emotional distress to some women who go through with it and maybe there are some instances with medical complications. But these themselves do not constitute evil. And what are the benefits? Well we don't have the state coercing women into carrying a pregnancy to term under penalty of law (and we won't see anyone prosecuted wrongfully due to miscarriage). We won't have as many unwanted accidental children floating through the foster system or getting raised by parents who don't love them or can't care for them in one way or another (poverty, mental illness, etc). It offers a way out for victims of rape and incest and can sometimes be medically necessary.

Or are you going to suggest that a fetus is equivalent to a born human being and argue that it is evil from that standpoint?

Now I do agree that a subset of abortions based solely on irresponsible sexual behavior lean closer to evil than they do to good from the gray area in which they exist, I've known of people on the periphery of my social circle who have gotten multiple abortions and still refuse to invest in simple birth control. That sort of behavior is stupid and irresponsible but hardly qualifies as evil.

We don't need more children born into poverty or being taken care of by parents who don't love them or dragged from foster home to foster home in a system that has far too many children. We don't need unwed teen Mothers running around with 3 kids because they go to a Texas school that teaches abstinence only. There should be a way out for those people as well. What we need is for birth control to be more readily available and reproduction itself to be better understood by adults and teens in school.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

You're question is malformed. It should be, "Does it cause harm to the well being of the CHILD while providing little or no benefit to society?"


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

There isn't a child involved.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

Oh no? What, then, do you call human offspring?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Well Joe when the egg is first fertilized, now remember this is after sexual intercourse has occurred, it forms what's called a zygote. After many many many cell divisions this zygote becomes a fetus. After many many more developments and divisions and the Mother gives birth, you have an infant, a child.

A fetus is not a child.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

And yet, according to Webster, it is-

CHILD: "an unborn or recently born person"

Now go ahead and tell me how an unborn child is not a person ...

Show us all how much Atheism has dehumanized you ...


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Abortion has fuck all to do with atheism Joe. Before I was an atheist my position on Capital Punishment and abortion had shifted. Do not foist upon me the same moral relativism that you use to defend scripture.

"Now go ahead and tell me how an unborn child is not a person"

A fetus which is not able to be viable outside of its Mother's womb is not a person in any meaningful sense of the word nor is it a child in any meaningful sense of the word.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

"A fetus which is not able to be viable outside of its Mother's womb is not a person"

PERSON: "a human being"

If an in-utero-child is NOT a human being what is it?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

I said its not a person in a meaningful sense.

"If an in-utero-child is NOT a human being what is it?"

It's a human fetus that if left to develop might be born and thus become a human being. Chances are you wouldn't call an egg a chicken, even a fertilized chicken egg. You wouldn't call a tadpole a frog either. These are different stages of development, calling a fetus a child or a person is an arbitrary thing indeed, same as calling the newly fertilized chicken egg a chicken. Biologically speaking you have a chicken egg, what else could it be but a chicken, except that it isn't one yet.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

"It's a human fetus that if left to develop might be born and thus become a human being."

So, in your mind, an 8 month old in-utero-child is NOT a human being ...

What an utterly loathsome and cold-blooded way for you to view humanity. But thank you for demonstrating how Atheism mangles the moral compass of its adherents and why we have every reason to fear its spread ...


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

It all depends on whether its viable outside the womb. Up to a certain point a fetus cannot survive outside its Mother. I am in no way shape or form advocating abortion of an 8 month old fetus. I think an argument could be made that it is a human being certainly in a more meaningful sense than a pregnancy that's lasted only 1-4 months.

"But thank you for demonstrating how Atheism"

Again my position on abortion changed after I left Christianity but well before I was an atheist so nice try linking the two together but you fail. I find it deliciously ironic that you say things like this after defending slavery and mass genocide depicted in the Bible. There are even instances in there where God kills the unborn, along with instances where God causes people to eat each other in acts of mass cannibalism that include children.

The projection of your moral relativism onto me is quite amusing.


Paladin_ profile image

Paladin_ 18 months ago from Michigan, USA

Because there are so many comments on these hubs, I don't often have the opportunity to participate, because the discussion often changes so dramatically by the time I can revisit that it is simply of no use to even try.

That said, every once in a while, I happen along at the right moment, where I can add something significant or relevant to the discussion at hand. Coming back into this hub, I find Joseph standing on what he believes to be a moral high ground, pontificating about the atheism and the "moral compass."

How rich.

Joseph, as I recall, your response to me when I pointed out the horrific slaughter of children and fetuses commanded by God was (verbatim),

"...Prove those children were innocent little angels..."

I can't recall ever reading any comment more morally and ethically repugnant and reprehensible than this sickening attempt at apologetics by you. You have NO STANDING whatsoever to utter anything here regarding the moral compass or manipulations of atheists. With that phrase, you surrendered any moral 'high ground' you could ever claim.

In other words, STFU.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

And just how does viability determine how human any in-utero human being actually is?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

I mentioned tad poles as an analogy, to illustrate how we differentiate between what is and isn't a human being in a similar to way to what is and is not a frog. These are different stages of development. A tadpole isn't a frog yet, but if it has the legs and shape of a frog and still only has yet to lose its tail you might say its more frog than tadpole.

If a fetus can survive outside its Mother you might argue that its no longer merely a fetus, no longer a potential human life but an actual human life with some amount of rights, the ability to potentially suffer pain and something to lose.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"In other words, STFU."

Thanks Paladin but I fear it will just fall on deaf ears. I figured out a little while back that in his defense of the horrors of the Bible Joe displays a high degree of moral relativism that he then projects onto others. He will beg for me to prove that something is right or wrong and when I actually spell it out, reason it out, he will ignore the reasons and ignore my definition of right and wrong altogether. With regards to genocide he seems to think these children were inevitably going to be evil and has compared them to Hitler and other historical monsters as if to incriminate them before they even had a chance (since God knows the future). But of course God can change the future to whatever he wants, God can change each child's life, if he wants each child can have their own version of the Damascus experience and come to God.

He apparently thinks that terminating a life before it has really begun in a controlled medical procedure is somehow worse than putting an actual born child who can feel pain, loss, who is watching their civilization torn asunder, get killed by the sword of an Israelite when they have done nothing wrong.

I find it amusing when those who propose an absolute moral standard turn out to actually espouse a very relative one, so relative as to be heartless and justify slavery and genocide and other horrifying evils.

Meanwhile I'm here in the middle saying that yes morality is somewhat subjective but if we keep it correctly related to human well being, which is more and more an objective measure (especially in medical terms), and if we use reason and empathy both to guide us we can improve morality and society in a very real way.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

And just how does viability determine how human any in-utero human being actually is?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"If a fetus can survive outside its Mother you might argue that its no longer merely a fetus, no longer a potential human life but an actual human life with some amount of rights, the ability to potentially suffer pain and something to lose."

Hmmm.... if you fall into a coma do you want to be kept on life support? Or, are only you a potential human life because you can't survive outside the ICU?


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

@Nicomp

Brilliant! lol :D


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

Depends on If the coma was reversable or not. Living as a permanent drain on family, friends, society, the medical staff and no hope of recovery - pull the plug!


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"The external cause of the universe must necessarily be a beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent and personal being."

I have to wonder what goes through your mind when you think things like this and actually take the time to post them. A fully grown person who has already been through all the developmental stages from fetus to adult and you're comparing them to a fetus that is not viable outside the womb? What in the world is the similarity here?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Yes, so bright and so brilliant that I had to shield my eyes. Oh wait no, that was a facepalm because it was some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Yes, so bright and so brilliant that I had to shield my eyes. Oh wait no, that was a facepalm because it was some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard."

Think it through. You're in a coma. You are a drain on society, you require constant care, you cannot survive outside the ICU. You are inconvenient. Should society have the "right to choose?"


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Depends on If the coma was reversable or not"

OK, let's assume it is reversible.

Let's assume that with only normal care you will leave the coma and become a functioning member of society.

Now substitute "coma" with "womb."


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"@Nicomp

Brilliant! lol :D"

Joseph O Polanco , we know we're on the right track when Titen-Sxull is reduced to profanity rather than engaging in thoughtful discussion.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

I think what you're looking for is vegetative state, not coma, and yes it's a question of ethics that has to do with what your chances of recovering any semblance of meaningful brain activity is. Someone in such a state does not naturally progress into a human being through stages of gradual development, they also aren't growing inside a womb and chances are they are in that state AFTER having been born and grown for some amount of time.

My argument in favor of abortion is not based upon brain activity, doesn't involve grown human beings, its not similar to your example.

Unless you're merely trying to change the subject to something that has nothing to do with abortion.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

@Nicomp

You know it! :D


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"My argument in favor of abortion is not based upon brain activity, doesn't involve grown human beings, its not similar to your example."

My argument is not based on brain activity either. My argument is that 'you' in a coma or vegetative state should be subject the same logic that you apply to unborn babies. Both you (in that helpless state) and the baby are a burden on society, possibly unloved, and perhaps inconvenient.

So, can society pull the plug on you even though you might recover?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

The issue you are talking about is a completely different issue. It's another horrendously poor analogy on your part.

If I go into a coma its not even remotely similar to a fetus being terminated in the early stages of a pregnancy. I was already born, I've already gone through the developmental stages all the way to adulthood. I might have a family, a life to get back to, I have something to lose.

The other poorly adjusted part of your analogy is that you have society making the decision rather than family members. Also being in a coma is not like being in a womb, in a womb you would be dependent on your Mother. We do not say that society has a choice to pull the plug on those who will make a full recovery but we do say a woman can choose to end a pregnancy, the two situations are quite different.

I offer a counter thought experiment, what if tomorrow a wizard magically transformed you into a fetus and implanted you in a woman's stomach. Is she required to carry you to term now? Should she be forced by the rest of society to do something against her will that will not only cost her 9 months of work (maybe even her job) but also 18 years of caring for you? You really think the STATE should be able to coerce someone into carrying a fetus to term? I certainly do not think a woman should be forced under penalty of law to carry a pregnancy to term.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

And again, it's MEN who are trying to tell women what to do with their bodies. I really vomit when some Senator says (and you know who it is) that Rape/Incest babies are "miracles". So they pass laws that say victims MUST continue to be victims because they were RAPED!

If I could rape a man and force him to carry a viable fetus to term, then force him to risk his life by delivering that parasitic mass who's father was a RAPIST, then force him to be responsible for this child for the rest of its life, I would then listen to what he had to say about the matter. But, actually, I would never be so cruel in the first place as to force a man by law to deliver a rape/incest baby.


cam8510 profile image

cam8510 18 months ago from Columbus, Georgia until the end of November 2016.

I was a Christian until just the last few years. I spent fifteen years in ministry and in college preparing for ministry. I can't be a part of that any more.

You mentioned something that I also discovered about the Evangelical/pro life crowd. The final issue is not that they are anti abortion. It is that they want to control the sexual behavior of people. They absolutely refuse to get behind birth control for everyone, regardless of age and without parental consent for minors. This would drastically cut the abortion rate, but they choose a path that actually leads to more abortions, that of no birth control for those who need it most. The only acceptable birth control to them is abstinence and it will not work. Christian/Pro lifers are responsible, in my view, of many more abortions than planned parenthood, simply because they oppose birth control for minors without parental consent. They would rather a young woman, a minor, have an abortion than have access to birth control. That is so hypocritical. Out of one side of their mouths they are anti abortion. Out of the other side, they are the greatest promoters of abortion.

Thanks for bringing this up. I did so as well a couple of years ago in the forums and had a very productive discussion with lots of people.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Thank you for your reasonable and thoughtful comments Cam8510.

It seems so counter-intuitive to be against abortion but ALSO against birth control. I think it may have something to do with the obsessive idea that sexual reproduction is meant almost exclusively for procreation and that if it isn't accomplishing the goal of bringing a child into this world it isn't right.

Ideally we would not even need abortion if humanity matured to the point where we only risked pregnancy when we actually wanted a child. Sexual education, birth control and increased social stability cause the birth rate to drop and will cause the abortion rate to drop.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

On a side note, Titen, that other hub is back up under a new name. Maybe if you report it, it will get taken down? They don't seem to care what I think.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Ideally we would not even need abortion if humanity matured to the point where we only risked pregnancy when we actually wanted a child. "

We don't need it now.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Yes we need abortion, unless you'd prefer the word to be overrun with unwed teenage Mothers, many many more children up for adoption, and would like the state to force women, victims of rape and incest included, to carry a pregnancy to term. There needs to be a safe way for women to end a pregnancy, until humanity can get its head out of its own ass about reproduction (which I suspect is impossible with religious attitudes towards sex floating around polluting the air).


Stargrrl 18 months ago

Abortion is wrong, all the way. Women need to be more responsible when it comes to sex. They should use birth control, or abstain. As for rape victims, it is unfortunate that they were raped, but the baby didn't do anything wrong. Perhaps that baby was meant for good, to find a cure for cancer.


cam8510 profile image

cam8510 18 months ago from Columbus, Georgia until the end of November 2016.

stargrrl, I personally am opposed to abortion, but find that focussing my efforts fighting against it have been fruitless as have those of the anti abortion groups in general. The focus does need to transition to birth control. That is where we can reduce the number of unborn being killed. But I find that anti abortionists are so opposed to birth control for minors that they will not support it. This, of course, means they are more interested in controlling the sexual behavior of people than they are saving the lives of the unborn. I do see signs of at least one influential person coming around to this sane approach. Nothing could be more absurd than to continue to put time, energy and money into overturning Roe vs Wade or into a pro life amendment when those tactics have not worked for nearly half a century. How many babies have been aborted while the anti abortionists wasted all available resources on these two approaches? It is truly sad and absurd.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 18 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Yes we need abortion, unless you'd prefer the word to be overrun with unwed teenage Mothers, many many more children up for adoption, and would like the state to force women, victims of rape and incest included, to carry a pregnancy to term. "

Overrun. Sure.

It's ironic that liberals are suddenly wary of government forcing people to do things.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again Author

Except that I'm not a liberal Nicomp. I don't identify with any political label. On some issues I lean left, on some right, on some I'm more libertarian.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working