[AdmiralRalwood]

Well, no one thinks murder, rape, assault or extortion are wrong primarily because of their detrimental impacts to societal safety. They're deemed wrong (primarily) because of how they directly hurt/harm a person, and even you'd consider them (or most of them anyway) to be wrong because of that even if they magically had no societal effects.

If the majority of people thought that murder was wrong primarily because of how it directly harmed someone, the death penalty wouldn't be legal.

[Luis Dias]

You're implying it has to do with our emotions but I fail to see how that contradicts what he said and meant

[AdmiralRalwood]

You're implying it has to do with our emotions but I fail to see how that contradicts what he said and meant

Quite the opposite; zookeeper seemed to be saying it was an emotional reaction to someone being harmed; I'm pointing out that we consider murder to be detrimental to societal safety and (in large enough numbers to keep it legal, at least) do not consider the state executing someone to be similarly detrimental. If it was about harming people, then surely executing someone harms them as well.

As for this part:

even you'd consider them (or most of them anyway) to be wrong because of that even if they magically had no societal effects.

The only way I can think of for a murder to have "no societal effects" is for nobody to know that it happened at all, in which case nobody has an opportunity to apply moral reasoning to it in the first place.

[jr2]

I think people debating abortion tend to get the issue at stake confused.

The issue isn't "is a female allowed to choose to not have a child".

The issue is "at what point does an unborn child become a human being, as this gives it unalienable rights of its own, including the right to life".

Correct?

[General Battuta]

If that were correct anti-abortion activists would be pushing birth control and sex ed. A lot of it is about controlling women.

[jr2]

Well, as much as they / I might think that is the case, as long as abortion (which we believe is murder) is on the table as a viable alternative, I would think that would be the lesser of two evils (free contraceptives).

At least, (this is speaking from our opinion) if you are going to do something wrong, then keep it to your own decision and consequences, and don't involve an innocent bystander.  Right?

I also understand the counterpoint: this (free contraceptives) might encourage risky behavior, as there wouldn't be consequences.  Well, the ones that do, do anyways, and the ones that don't, don't anyways, despite the availability of pretty cheap and / or free contraceptives.

So, that would seem to be a clear-cut choice as far as preventing abortions go (which, if it is indeed the ending of an innocent human life, we would all agree would be unacceptable, right?

[Mongoose]

I think a lot of the people from that particular position would argue that "lesser of two evils" isn't a valid moral argument as the result is still an evil, particularly when there is an alternate option that is definitely not evil.  (An ineffective option for most participants, but still.)

[jr2]

Err.  One option taken by someone who has no moral qualms with contraception, extra-marital sex, or abortion is definitely better than the other.  extramarital sex and/or Murder ≠ extramarital sex and/or contraception, I'm sorry.

Argument "all sin is sin and evil"

Argument "true, however, there is another party involved at this point and that's who we're talking about"

Besides.  All have sinned.  Correct?  Yes.  All sinners.  So.... in the case of the wretched sinner, if all sins are equal, no difference.  Why the fuss then?  Oh, that's right, the innocent unborn child... oh, wait.

TL;DR: If you're (they're/we're) going to argue 'there is no lesser evil', well, at least pick the evil that does not create and involve a second victim besides the sinner. (No I'm not saying 'sinner' in a derogatory sense; "all have sinned" means all, and all therefore are morally equivalent before God.  Accepting forgiveness for crimes does not make one better than one who hasn't accepted forgiveness (yet) - it is a free gift to all who accept it.  I don't see why Christians so often forget this and act like they are better than anyone else.)

[Black Wolf]

I'm confused... what exactly is the sin here? The "risky behaviour" that sex ed and provision of safe contraception would provide?

Is it ****ing? Because ****ing isn't risky, it isn't inherently bad. Actually, it's inherently pretty great. And, although I don't have the numbers in front of me, I'd be willing to bet that standard heterosexual* sex, by properly educated consensual partners using a properly applied condom in the age of modern antibiotics is considerably less risky than, say, driving tired or with a BAC of 0.015. And yet, strangely, you don't see Christians protesting those behaviours.

Why? Because Battuta had it right. The abortion "debate", publicly wrapped up though it might be in concern for unborn children, and however much it might actually be about that for a lot of people is, at its core, about power and puritanical anti sexualism, especially for women.

Well, no one thinks murder, rape, assault or extortion are wrong primarily because of their detrimental impacts to societal safety. They're deemed wrong (primarily) because of how they directly hurt/harm a person, and even you'd consider them (or most of them anyway) to be wrong because of that even if they magically had no societal effects.

If the majority of people thought that murder was wrong primarily because of how it directly harmed someone, the death penalty wouldn't be legal.

Speak for yourself. In most of the world, certainly in almost all of the first world, it isn't legal. Just because America does it, doesn't make it moral or right, not does out really impact on the discussion here.


*Not intending this to be a slight on homosexual practices, but some of those practices can be riskier from an STI perspective than straight up P in the Vjee, and I didn't want to let the issue get hung up on that.

[Phantom Hoover]

I think Ralwood is skipping over the principle underlying eye-for-an-eye morality, that if you hurt someone undeserving then hurting you in equal measure becomes morally acceptable. This doesn't particularly involve any justification in terms of 'the good of society'.

[Mongoose]

TL;DR: If you're (they're/we're) going to argue 'there is no lesser evil', well, at least pick the evil that does not create and involve a second victim besides the sinner. (No I'm not saying 'sinner' in a derogatory sense; "all have sinned" means all, and all therefore are morally equivalent before God.  Accepting forgiveness for crimes does not make one better than one who hasn't accepted forgiveness (yet) - it is a free gift to all who accept it.  I don't see why Christians so often forget this and act like they are better than anyone else.)

You're kind of missing the point here: according to that particular worldview, there's a third option that implies no evil whatsoever, thus negating the necessity of picking between any evils, i.e. if you don't have sex, then you don't need to concern yourself with requiring contraception or abortion.  As I've already noted, that particular viewpoint has been proven ineffective, at least in the case of educating teenagers, but it is certainly still an option.

I'm confused... what exactly is the sin here? The "risky behaviour" that sex ed and provision of safe contraception would provide?

Is it ****ing? Because ****ing isn't risky, it isn't inherently bad. Actually, it's inherently pretty great. And, although I don't have the numbers in front of me, I'd be willing to bet that standard heterosexual* sex, by properly educated consensual partners using a properly applied condom in the age of modern antibiotics is considerably less risky than, say, driving tired or with a BAC of 0.015. And yet, strangely, you don't see Christians protesting those behaviours.

Why? Because Battuta had it right. The abortion "debate", publicly wrapped up though it might be in concern for unborn children, and however much it might actually be about that for a lot of people is, at its core, about power and puritanical anti sexualism, especially for women.

Now you're just creating something of a false equivalency here.  I don't know of any reasonable individuals that advocate driving while drunk or fatigued, and certainly not any organized groups promoting such.  (In fact there's a very prominent organization in the US known as M.A.D.D.,  Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of its members are Christians.)  As I noted above, that side's viewpoint isn't that one should perform an activity in a risky manner, but instead that one should not perform the activity in the first place.   "Just keep it in your pants, or at the very least out of someone else's pants."

And while there are no doubt some elements of the abortion debate that carry anti-woman undertones, I think you run the real risk of creating a strawman by suggesting that it's the fundamental force behind the entire movement.

[karajorma]

He's not wrong about it being anti-sex though. Scratch almost any anti-abortion debate and you'll hear someone say that it's the couple's fault for having sex. This is despite the fact that married couples have sex, unplanned pregnancies, and abortions all the time.

[Mongoose]

Well yeah, there's no denying that.  However I think the main target is that frequently almost-assumed progression of "sex -> unplanned pregnancy -> abortion," when there are valid alternatives at each step.

[karajorma]

Well yeah, there's no denying that.  However I think the main target is that frequently almost-assumed progression of "sex -> unplanned pregnancy -> abortion," when there are valid alternatives at each step.

It's the main target because it's an easy target. The simple fact is that anti-abortionists, because of their abhorrence of pre-marital sex and sexual education are causing abortions not just amongst those people they can label as 'sinners' for having sex, but also amongst married couples. But they don't like to mention that side of the argument cause they can't complain at married people for having sex since they've been promising that as the reward for waiting until marriage.

[General Battuta]

And we know that for better or worse teaching people not to have sex doesn't work in scale.

[Luis Dias]

Ralwood, thanks I think I got your idea now.

I think a lot of the people from that particular position would argue that "lesser of two evils" isn't a valid moral argument as the result is still an evil, particularly when there is an alternate option that is definitely not evil.  (An ineffective option for most participants, but still.)

Yeah, this brings to my mind that Christopher Hitchens' quote AIDS is bad as a disease very bad, but not quite as bad as condoms are bad or not as immoral in the same way, which is the end result of a puritan perfectionist moral construct, where every "BAD THING" is as sinful as the next, and because they are all leveled in the same manner, the guidance about how better to deal with all those different things is absolutely lost. Of course that having safe sex is preferable to having unsafe sex, even if you think that sex is sinful, but since you have crossed the line into sinfulness already, what's the point of having these differences of "sinfulness" other than indulging in sin and tacitly approving it? Already you are in hell, so you might as well be a murderer at this point.

This is terrible, because it then prevents any moral guidance other than "be perfectly christian and everything will be ok". Once you "cross the line", you're in hell. The only guidance left you have is zero pragmatic in nature, what you are left to do is to confess this to a preacher. Yeah, that'll solve your problems.

And this, I argue, is the basic source of this entire thread and the wider "controversy". The mere discussion of what to do with baby aborted organs is already detestable in itself, gruesome and despicable because the whole issue is already born in sin. The fact that we have these atheist minded freaks talking about aborted baby organs as if they are talking about car parts is the disgusting aspect, the big "scandal" that they hoped to make people horrified and outraged about.

Unless of course, you end up talking to rational reasonable people, who immediately recognize the nuance and the evident pragmatic necessities of life and will actually empathize with the people involved, who are apparently merely interested in advancing medical research so they can potentially save more lives. (and aren't these people despicable? These heartless people, incapable of understanding they are speaking of baby parts! - and so it never ends)

[karajorma]

This is what I was on about in my earlier posts but from a different angle. It's not just a case of all sins being equal and therefore it doesn't matter which sin you commit. But that no sin, even murder, is bad enough to make it worth making it easier to commit other sins.

Remember that the same people who believe abortion is murder are usually against better sex education on the belief that it may cause people to have more sex. That belief isn't even one founded on fact (good sex ed usually reduces the amount of pre-marital sex amongst teenagers), but it is still enough to allow people to act like they consider abortion to be repugnant and yet block steps that would lead to a reduced number of them.

[Bobboau]

I think there has been a major demographic shift on this forum.

[Turambar]

I think there has been a major demographic shift on this forum.

Which way?  I can't stand these pro-life asstards who can't appreciate that we're going to run out of room on this planet.

[Bobboau]

left/progressive used to be there was about a 50/50 mix, now it seems more like 3:1.
not making any value judgments on that, just noticing.