Abortion and covid

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 389
#181
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
(IFF) a competent adult wishes to painlessly opt-out (THEN) what moral theory would deny them this option ?
Simply put, suicide is murdering yourself.
I'm going to need you to make your personally preferred definition of "murder" explicit.
#182
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm going to need you to make your personally preferred definition of "murder" explicit.
Without having placed this definition under strict scrutiny, I would personally use this one as biblically accurate:
  • Killing a human being without justification or excuse.

If every life has inherent value, it is wrong for me to murder someone else. But it is also wrong for me to end my own life without justification or excuse. Discomfort, discontent, or poverty is not a justification to end someone else's life, nor my own.

Why do you think different factions of christians have historically slaughtered each other ?

Is there one specific interpretation of the "ethics" outlined in the holy scriptures that is superior to any other ?
Yes, there is one correct interpretation of every biblical text. It is superior because it is correct, but it requires a consistent method of interpretation. Consistency is typically where people go wrong, and that error has led to disastrous results as you pointed out. But that shows a problem with the people not the text.

Why do you think the circumstances leading to the conception of the child (and or any incidental "medical issues") would have any effect whatsoever on the proposed "moral" responsibility or the proposed implicit contract between the foetus and the womb ?
I was just citing the arguments people most often go to. I don't believe circumstances leading up to conception make a difference on moral obligations. If a woman conceives a child after being raped, I believe the rapist deserves the death penalty and not the child.

The only exception I can see as possibly being justified would be if the unborn child puts the life of the mother in jeopardy. But those are the exception and must be approached individually based on the situation.
#183
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Without having placed this definition under strict scrutiny, I would personally use this one as biblically accurate:
  • Killing a human being without justification or excuse.
If every life has inherent value, it is wrong for me to murder someone else. But it is also wrong for me to end my own life without justification or excuse. Discomfort, discontent, or poverty is not a justification to end someone else's life, nor my own.
Who exactly do you have to "justify" or "excuse" your action to ?

And what qualifies in your opinion as a proper "justification" or "excuse" ?

Would it be murder to kill someone who attacked you ?

Would it be murder to kill someone who broke into your house but didn't specifically attack you ?
#184
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Why do you think different factions of christians have historically slaughtered each other ?

Is there one specific interpretation of the "ethics" outlined in the holy scriptures that is superior to any other ?
Yes, there is one correct interpretation of every biblical text. It is superior because it is correct, but it requires a consistent method of interpretation. Consistency is typically where people go wrong, and that error has led to disastrous results as you pointed out. But that shows a problem with the people not the text.
Oh good.

Which faction has the most correct interpretation ?
#185
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The only exception I can see as possibly being justified would be if the unborn child puts the life of the mother in jeopardy. But those are the exception and must be approached individually based on the situation.
So, for example, if a woman gets severe and persistent blood-clots while pregnant and her doctor warns that she is at risk of having a stroke, would that be a situation that might qualify ?
#186
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Why does the mother bear a responsibility to carry the baby until it's born? What creates this responsibility?
If we deal with fundamental principles first, I think we can say that a normal pregnancy occurs as the result of consensual sex. If two people are having sex, they bear the responsibility if conception occurs as a result. And if you determine where rights come from, you probably know where responsibilities come from. I would say from God.


I disagree. Is there a just reason to intentionally kill?
Yes, if someone is shooting up a Walmart, that person has immediately forfeited their life.


Our dispute however is whether "intentionally letting it die" constitutes murder. So let me cite a scenario: if a man knocks on my door claiming he needs to enter my home because some raging psychopath intends to kill him, and I decided not to let him in, did I murder him?
In general, I would say that if you have the ability to intervene in a situation like that, you would have the responsibility to do so. The full context obviously matters. But I also don't have the same responsibility to another grown adult as a parent has to their child.


If extreme cases like rape and medical issues mitigate her responsibility to carry the baby until it's born, then can I fairly assume that your notions of her responsibility are contingent on the idea that she is responsible because she elects to have sex under circumstances where coitus is voluntary? That is, an action she herself controls?
My statement was probably unclear. I was just citing the arguments people most often go to. I don't believe circumstances leading up to conception make a difference on moral obligations. If a woman conceives a child after being raped, I believe the rapist deserves the death penalty and not the child.

The only exception I can see as possibly being justified would be if the unborn child puts the life of the mother in jeopardy. But those are the exception and must be approached individually based on the situation.
#187
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Who exactly do you have to "justify" or "excuse" your action to ?

And what qualifies in your opinion as a proper "justification" or "excuse" ?

Would it be murder to kill someone who attacked you ?

Would it be murder to kill someone who broke into your house but didn't specifically attack you ?
  • God.
  • If it can be justified by the Bible.
  • That would depend on the situation. I think use of force guidelines are generally helpful.
  • See above answer.

Which faction has the most correct interpretation ?
I would argue Reformed Baptists, but that is a general term.


So, for example, if a woman gets severe and persistent blood-clots while pregnant and her doctor warns that she is at risk of having a stroke, would that be a situation that might qualify ?
If the stroke is only a potential risk and there is no danger to the baby, I would say the mother should assume the risk. It would be no different than if a parent had to assume life-threatening risk to save the life of their newborn. But every situation is different and requires the full context.
#188
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm not sure the holy scriptures say you should kill people if they attack you.

I was checking and ran across this gem,

Consider also Proverbs 24:11, which indicates we have a duty to preserve the lives of those who are harming themselves:
Proverbs 24:11 Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.

Which seems to suggest that we should forcibly detain anyone who is trying to join the military.

#189
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Who exactly do you have to "justify" or "excuse" your action to ?

  • God.
Ok, so why not let each individual answer for themselves ?

So, like, what if I prayed really really hard and god told me it was ok ?
#190
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
This is where consistent principles of interpretation are critical. What does the phrase "those stumbling to the slaughter" mean? There seems to be two main options:

  1. Those stumbling to slaughter others
  2. Those stumbling to be slaughtered

Which do you think is the best grammatical interpretation for that verse and why?
#191
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
  1. Those stumbling to slaughter others
  2. Those stumbling to be slaughtered

Which do you think is the best grammatical interpretation for that verse and why?
Both would apply to someone intending to join the military.
#192
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so why not let each individual answer for themselves ?
Each person can decide for themselves. Just like any person can decide for themselves what the answer to 2+2 is. Opinions can be wrong.


So, like, what if I prayed really really hard and god told me it was ok ?
No amount of prayer will change what the Bible says. You're free to try though.


Both would apply to someone intending to join the military.
That did not answer the question.
#193
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,072
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Well.

Selective morality means picking and choosing what life is or isn't a significant enough life to warrant your concern.... Which you might refer to as your "foundation".

I'm not criticising, as we are all the same....Ultimately the survival of one life depends upon the death of another.

Your "foundation" is simply your acquired and established database, from which you will select what you consider to be appropriate morality.

So the death of an embryonic bundle might be considered to be unjustifiable.....Listen to the news report and then make a song and dance about it.

Yet the death of an Afghan child might be regarded as being justifiable collateral damage.....Listen to the news report and then worry about the weather forecast.

#194
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Is suicide a sin?

Many people assume the Bible condemns taking one’s own life. However, even a careful reader will search in vain for any explicit prohibition of self-killing in the Bible. In fact, the biblical attitude toward suicide ranges from ambivalence to praise.

There are seven unambiguous examples of suicide in the Bible: Abimelech, mortally wounded by a millstone, ordered his armor-bearer to dispatch him to avoid the suggestion he had been slain by the woman who had thrown the stone (Judg 9:52-54); the prophet Ahithophel hanged himself after betraying David (2Sam 17:23); Zimri burned down his house around himself after military defeat (1Kgs 16:18); and the more familiar stories of Saul and his armor-bearer (1Sam 1:1-6; 1Chr 10:1-6), Samson, (Judg 16:28), and, of course, Jesus’ disciple Judas—although it is only in Matthew’s Gospel where he kills himself (Matt 27:3-5; compare with Acts 1:18).

There is nothing in any of these stories to suggest that the biblical narrators disapprove of the characters’ suicides.

Suicide in the ancient world did not carry the same negative connotations as it does today. For Greco-Roman philosophers, suicide in correct circumstances constituted a “noble death.” Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.) chose to drink hemlock rather than endure exile, a choice enthusiastically endorsed by most of the philosophical schools at the time. If carried out for country or friends, or in the face of intolerable pain, incurable disease, devastating misfortune or shame, or to avoid capture on the battlefield, suicide constituted a noble death. Each of the instances of suicide found in the Bible fits comfortably with noble-death ideals. Saul’s death, for example, finds a strikingly close parallel with that of the Greek general Publius, who, when similarly wounded on the battlefield ordered his armor-bearer to kill him (Plutarch, Crassus 25.11).

Two of the incidents of self-killing in the Bible exhibit a positive attitude toward suicide. Arguably, the author of the Gospel of Matthew intends the reader to interpret the disciple Judas’s hanging as an act of remorse. Judas repents (metamelētheis) and returns the blood money that he received for turning Jesus over to the authorities who executed him (Matt 27:3). Judas acknowledges that he has “sinned in betraying innocent blood” (Matt 27:4). His suicide may be interpreted as an act of atonement because he himself carries out the penalty laid down in the Hebrew Bible for taking a life: “no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of him who shed it” (Num 35:33; see also Lev 24:17). There is no hint of condemnation of Judas’s self-killing in Matthew.

If anything, it is a solution to his guilt rather than something that adds to it.

The Israelite leader Samson’s suicide is interpreted positively. [**]
#195
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
  1. Those stumbling to slaughter others
  2. Those stumbling to be slaughtered

Which do you think is the best grammatical interpretation for that verse and why?
Proverbs 24:11 (CJB) Yes, rescue those being dragged off to death -won't you save those about to be killed? [**]
#196
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
You just copied and pasted an article as a "rebuttal" without actually making an argument yourself. The article itself displays inconsistent methods of interpretation. I'll make an erroneous syllogism since you like if/then type statements:

  • IF a passage mentions an action within the context of historical narrative
  • AND that passage doesn't specifically mention that action as sinful
  • THEN we can assume that action is not sinful

Do you see any problems with this line of reasoning? Is that a consistent way to read the historical narrative genre in the Bible?

Regarding Proverbs 24:11, you still didn't answer the question. You just found a different English translation that better suited your purposes. Again, that is a terrible method of interpretation. Can you answer the original question or not?
#197
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Since my foundation is the Bible and not myself, I am bound by the ethics of that external source. And the Bible reveals God's will, so He is ultimately the final source of my ethics. If the Bible says all humans are image-bearers of God and thus have inherent value, then I am bound to view all humans that way. But if the Bible also says homosexuality is an abomination, I am bound to view human sexuality in that way.

But do you not care about the death of an Afghan child? When did I say that I don't? Not all actions of the military are justifiable. If a drone strike is carried out knowing that children will be among the casualties, that is abhorrent and evil. I'm guessing we can agree upon that much.

But what if terrorists are about to bomb an Afghan orphanage? Is the military justified in killing those terrorists to save the lives of the Afghan children? Or are we just supposed to let it happen and then grieve the loss of life afterwards?


I'm not criticising, as we are all the same....Ultimately the survival of one life depends upon the death of another.
You're right.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not die but have everlasting life." - John 3:16
#198
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
  • IF a passage mentions an action within the context of historical narrative
  • AND that passage doesn't specifically mention that action as sinful
  • THEN we can assume that action is not sinful
aRE yOU sUGGESTING tHE iNVERSE ?

  • IF a passage mentions an action within the context of historical narrative
  • AND that passage doesn't specifically mention that action as sinful
  • THEN we can assume that action IS sinful
#199
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Again, that is a terrible method of interpretation. Can you answer the original question or not?
How can it possibly be a "terrible method of interpretation" ?

Locating a less AMBIGUOUS translation seems like a much better solution than trying to engage in "special pleading".

I'd also like to point out that you have not made your personally preferred interpretation of the verse clear.

It appears to be a directive for responsible parties (followers of the scriptures) to somehow prevent other individuals from placing themselves in harm's way.
#200
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,072
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Good reply.

And therein lies the dilemma that is consciousness with intellect.
#201
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
But what if terrorists are about to bomb an Afghan orphanage? Is the military justified in killing those terrorists to save the lives of the Afghan children? Or are we just supposed to let it happen and then grieve the loss of life afterwards?
The united states military has never been deployed to protect an orphanage.
#202
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
And therein lies the dilemma that is consciousness with intellect.
Please explain.
#203
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Recall that the phrase in question was "those stumbling to the slaughter" in Proverbs 24:11. There seems to be two main options as to how that phrase should be read:

  • Those stumbling to slaughter others
  • Those stumbling to be slaughtered

Grammatically speaking, there should only be one correct answer. If you cannot even tell me what the phrase is actually saying, then we cannot take the next step of interpreting what the text means. So which option would be the grammatically correct one?


aRE yOU sUGGESTING tHE iNVERSE ?
No. Both are incorrect when you understand the genre of historical narrative. This is why a consistent method of textual interpretation is critical.
#204
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
And therein lies the dilemma that is consciousness with intellect.
I am also unsure exactly what the dilemma is.
#205
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Grammatically speaking, there should only be one correct answer. If you cannot even tell me what the phrase is actually saying, then we cannot take the next step of interpreting what the text means. So which option would be the grammatically correct one?
The grammar is mostly a stylistic choice made by the specific translator (not infallible).

The most obvious method of deciphering the essential aspect is to look at the original text in the original language.

I'M WAITING TO HEAR YOUR INTERPRETATION.
#206
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The united states military has never been deployed to protect an orphanage.
That's irrelevant. I am looking at general principles. It seems I am being called a hypocrite because I am not a pacifist. However, it seems ridiculous to say that it would be morally better to allow terrorists to bomb an orphanage than to intervene and stop the threat. Even if that means the terrorists will be killed.

Which would be morally preferable, preventing the death of orphans with violence or preserving the life of the terrorists with pacifism?
#207
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The most obvious method of deciphering the essential aspect is to look at the original text in the original language.
Exactly! So what is the meaning of the original text grammatically?
  • Those stumbling to slaughter others
  • Those stumbling to be slaughtered

#208
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
aRE yOU sUGGESTING tHE iNVERSE ?
No. Both are incorrect when you understand the genre of historical narrative. This is why a consistent method of textual interpretation is critical.
The holy scripture does not explicitly prohibit or condemn suicide when suicide is specifically mentioned in the text.
#209
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Which would be morally preferable, preventing the death of orphans with violence or preserving the life of the terrorists with pacifism?
This is a false-choice.

First, there is an enormous amount of death and suffering on this planet which you and or I could conceivably prevent.

In your example, does the slaughter of "terrorists" SOLVE THE "PROBLEM" FOREVER ?

Or does it perhaps, MAKE IT WORSE ?
#210
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The most obvious method of deciphering the essential aspect is to look at the original text in the original language.
Exactly! So what is the meaning of the original text grammatically?
  • Those stumbling to slaughter others
  • Those stumbling to be slaughtered


 24:11 If x518 thou forbear 2820 z8799 to deliver 5337 z8685 [them that are] drawn 3947 z8803 unto death, 4194 and [those that are] ready 4131 z8801 to be slain; 2027