Christianity could be a higher order way of organizing lives

[boost]

Hey, things got a bit hairy in the most recent posts, but just wanted to point out that Banana is making some solid posts that contribute to the discussion beyond just opening doors that otherwise wouldn't have been. Banana, I hope you don't read this as patronizing, but I think it's worth pointing out, so I'm going to risk being patronizing.

I don't think the "murder has a meaning and you're misusing it" crowd is being pedantic. I think the most charitable concession that can be made here is what wuf suggested, murder is being used colloquially to mean unjustified killing regardless of legality. But even here, it's hard for me to wrap my head around someone thinking abortion is an unjustified killing and that they are ok with it. Being in support of unjustified killing must be a clear signal that the person(s) in question are less than psychologically well.

Banana, your "if a plant is alive, a fetus must also be, by the same criteria, alive." declaration is hard to find fault with, except for the fact that we now need to define what it is that is alive. Of course we find no issue, by and large, killing a plant, so why doesn't this transfer to a fetus? This leads to an interesting ontological discussion about what exactly constitutes a human.

You may say a human is a human at the moment of conception, and reasonably so, it's often the position of hardliners and appears to offer a much needed definitive boundary. But here's a thought experiment that may challenge that intuition. Say there are two fertile monkeys in a enclosure, one a male and one a female. Sooner or later there will be a baby monkey in the enclosure as well. Perhaps it's not a lock, but the odds are only ever so slightly worse than they would be had the female just been impregnated. Now, if we interfere, have we aborted a monkey?

[BananaStand]

Banana is making some solid posts

Fuck yeah I am. what else is new?

But even here, it's hard for me to wrap my head around someone thinking abortion is an unjustified killing and that they are ok with it. Being in support of unjustified killing must be a clear signal that the person(s) in question are less than psychologically well.

Are you referring to me here? even if not, I'm not sure where the term "unjustified" came from. The killing is justified. A person justifies it by saying "I'm gonna kill this baby because if I don't it will de-rail my life plans, forever attach me to some awful man, doom me to a lifetime of financial hardship, or some combination of those three" That's the justification. Some people think that's inadequate. But they should mind their own fucking business.

Banana, your "if a plant is alive, a fetus must also be, by the same criteria, alive." declaration is hard to find fault with, except for the fact that we now need to define what it is that is alive. Of course we find no issue, by and large, killing a plant, so why doesn't this transfer to a fetus? This leads to an interesting ontological discussion about what exactly constitutes a human.

Why?? None of this is relevant. Even if we accept the extreme evangelical position that life begins at the instant of conception, and a single cell constitutes a human being the moment the sperm breaches the egg.....I still say it's fine to kill that human being. If you define it as "murder", accurately or otherwise, it doesn't change my opinion. Don't want the baby??? Kill it, see if I blink.

Abortion isn't a question of murder/non-murder. It's not a question of when life begins. It's not a question of what constitutes a human being. Those questions don't matter because the larger issue is bodily autonomy. A person could be dying right in front of you and the only thing that would save them is your kidney. you totally have the right to say "no, go ahead die fuck-face, you can't use my kidney".

Why can't a woman say the same thing about her womb?

You may say a human is a human at the moment of conception, and reasonably so, it's often the position of hardliners and appears to offer a much needed definitive boundary.

They're wrong

the only "definitive boundary" I might get behind is one that says "you can't get an abortion after X weeks". And I'll leave it to the medical community to reach a consensus on what X is. But basically, there comes a point where it becomes increasingly likely that a fetus removed from the womb could survive on it's own. Partial birth abortion is a gruesome. And by allowing the practice, I see massive potential for living breathing human beings to be murdered, outside of the womb. Rather than deal with the dicey-ness of trying to implement government regulations over late-term abortions, it seems more practical for the government to simply say "Make up your mind before X weeks, thank you".

[boost]

Banana, I think I generally (if not completley.. it's kinda hard to tell) agree with you with regards to policy here. But I disagree that all these things don't matter. I am glad to have you with me on this, and I don't begrudge you for coming to the conclusions you have, however you have-- but just because you have come to these conclusions does not make them self evident. All of this does matter-- maybe not to you personally, but nonetheless, it does.

[BananaStand]

All of this does matter-- maybe not to you personally, but nonetheless, it does.

No, it really doesn't. By "all of this" I assume you mean the murder/non-murder question. It doesn't matter because it's not a factor that affects policy. People who think it's murder are merely expressing an opinion. It's no more meaningful than me saying "ninja turtles are cool"

Abortion policy, at least presently, hinges on the question of bodily autonomy. Does the baby have a right to use a woman's uterus without the woman's permission? Bodily autonomy is something codified into law. The notion that life begins at conception is not. Debates over the former influence policy. Debates over the latter are just arguments of clashing opinions. One matters. One doesn't.

I feel like we're gonna down a rabbit-hole of "what's the definition of 'matters'?" I really don't wanna do that. I just hope it's obvious that discussions surrounding the implementing of laws "matter". Discussions about which Batman was best, who shot JR, or how to bend the definition of words don't.