How do pro-abortion Christians reconcile their views with pro-life scripture?

Constantine the Sinner said:

A life of poverty is better than being put to death. If the mother would rather not have the kid than raise him poverty, then she can put him up for adoption. If an infant is put up for adoption, he has a very good chance of getting long-term parents soon (whereas children put up for adoption later are not in such demand).

Click to expand...

Does this hold true if we look at the numbers? If every pregnancy that ended in abortion today ended in a child put up for adoption instead, would they all get long term parents "soon"? Or would it be mean a return to the orphanages of the 19th century?

Further "being put to death" is generally considered abhorent because we have a sense of self, and can fear death. Embryos don't have this. Or, rather, if you believe they DO have that, that's a valid belief, but if you want others to share it, you need to support it with evidence.

Armoured said:

Hence my point about solipsism. However, most people are prepared to accept these signs as sufficient evidence for personhood. My point stands. If you want to change peoples' minds, you need to put up a convincing and coherent argument that a foetus is a person.

Click to expand...

My argument is that if humans can't show these signs, they can be made unpersons. There is a very, very mentally disabled person at my parish who can't talk and just sort of grunts and laughs sporadically and inappropriately. He receives Communion. If we say, "Not all humans are persons," how do account for any effort to deny someone like him personhood? Or infants? Peter Singer, the philosopher, already supports legalizing infanticide by using the logic that infants are not persons according to your criteria.

Armoured said:

Hence my point about solipsism. However, most people are prepared to accept these signs as sufficient evidence for personhood. My point stands. If you want to change peoples' minds, you need to put up a convincing and coherent argument that a foetus is a person.

Click to expand...

Have you noticed the use of "loaded language"? They will not refer to the embryo or foetus as anything other than a "baby". They call abortion (most first trimester abortions are medical) as being killed or the "baby put to death". They don't know how to argue their position on anything other than a devious emotional level and have not been able to argue on a rational level. The same applies to every other argument by the far right...they cannot conceive of being able to change minds and hearts without an appeal to emotion...which usually is the wrong way to go about things when debating/arguing with people who do not fall for the emotional appeal.

Armoured said:

Does this hold true if we look at the numbers? If every pregnancy that ended in abortion today ended in a child put up for adoption instead, would they all get long term parents "soon"? Or would it be mean a return to the orphanages of the 19th century?

Click to expand...

The number that gets thrown around is something like a million abortions a year. Now...my question is how many of those were due to awful things like gross fetal abnormality? Oh wait...those poor things have to be carried to term too...so, call it a million a year for the last 43 years...43 million people. How many of those would be adopted? There are kids in foster care now waiting for adoptive parents...it's not a workable solution.

Oh...nevermind...I was thinking rationally. I forgot that was outlawed in this discussion.

Constantine the Sinner said:

My argument is that if humans can't show these signs, they can be made unpersons. There is a very, very mentally disabled person at my parish who can't talk and just sort of grunts and laughs sporadically and inappropriately. He receives Communion. If we say, "Not all humans are persons," how do account for any effort to deny someone like him personhood? Or infants? Peter Singer, the philosopher, already supports legalizing infanticide by using the logic that infants are not persons according to your criteria.

Click to expand...

You're not helping your argument here. This line will only further serve to convince people that abortion is OK. If you want people to think of foetuses as people, you need to be able to explain WHY, not engage in slippery slope fallacies.

RedPonyDriver said:

"put to death"...gimme a break. An embryo doesn't have a nervous system. Putting up a child for adoption is not the "easy answer". Its not like adoptive parents can go to the local baby lot, pick one out, test drive it and take it home. Adoption is EXPENSIVE...even for domestic adoptions. The fees can be insane. Not many people have that kind of cash. You live in a dream world. Wake up and face reality...ok?

Click to expand...

Adoption is expensive, but even so there is not a shortage of parents for infants need adoption. It's older children who tend to have to face the foster system.

RedPonyDriver said:

Have you noticed the use of "loaded language"? They will not refer to the embryo or foetus as anything other than a "baby". They call abortion (most first trimester abortions are medical) as being killed or the "baby put to death". They don't know how to argue their position on anything other than a devious emotional level and have not been able to argue on a rational level. The same applies to every other argument by the far right...they cannot conceive of being able to change minds and hearts without an appeal to emotion...which usually is the wrong way to go about things when debating/arguing with people who do not fall for the emotional appeal.

Click to expand...

Yes, and this is why I always call people on calling abortion "murder". It may seem like a point of semantics, but my actual point is to get people to realise that if they want to convince anyone, they need more than an appeal to emotion argument.

Constantine the Sinner said:

Adoption is expensive, but even so there is not a shortage of parents for infants need adoption. It's older children who tend to have to face the foster system.

Click to expand...

Seriously, you run the figures, based on your preferred stats for abortion. If abortion was abandoned en mass, which would we run out of first? prospective adoptive parents or unwanted children? Ever read any Dickens?

Armoured said:

Does this hold true if we look at the numbers? If every pregnancy that ended in abortion today ended in a child put up for adoption instead, would they all get long term parents "soon"? Or would it be mean a return to the orphanages of the 19th century?

Further "being put to death" is generally considered abhorent because we have a sense of self, and can fear death. Embryos don't have this. Or, rather, if you believe they DO have that, that's a valid belief, but if you want others to share it, you need to support it with evidence.

Click to expand...

It might lead to more orphanages, it might not. Why do you presume such orphanages would be like those of the 19th Century?

Being put to death is considered abhorrent because it's terminating a human life. Killing someone who is unconscious isn't left abhorrent than killing someone who is conscious.

Information on adoption costs
https://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/the_costs_of_adopting

it ain't cheap

Armoured said:

You're not helping your argument here. This line will only further serve to convince people that abortion is OK. If you want people to think of foetuses as people, you need to be able to explain WHY, not engage in slippery slope fallacies.

Click to expand...

Slippery slope is not inherently a fallacy. It can be, but it's not innately.

RedPonyDriver said:

Information on adoption costs
https://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/the_costs_of_adopting

it ain't cheap

Click to expand...

I know, but that doesn't change the fact that there is still no shortage of parents willing to adopt infants, despite the costs.

Armoured said:

Seriously, you run the figures, based on your preferred stats for abortion. If abortion was abandoned en mass, which would we run out of first? prospective adoptive parents or unwanted children? Ever read any Dickens?

Click to expand...

If I applied Dickens to today, I'd think the workday was 12 to 16 hours.

Constantine the Sinner said:

It might lead to more orphanages, it might not. Why do you presume such orphanages would be like those of the 19th Century?

Click to expand...

History. If the 19th Century is too remote fo you, look at Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism. We KNOW that large scale institutionalisation ends in horror.

Being put to death is considered abhorrent because it's terminating a human life.

Click to expand...

And what's so special about "merely" human life, if it's not because of it's consciousness? Again, I remind you your response needs to appeal to people who don't share your beliefs about the point of ensoulment

Killing someone who is unconscious isn't left abhorrent than killing someone who is conscious.

Click to expand...

I disagree, because an unconscious person with previously established consciousness, has an ongoing sense of self, as well as interpersonal relationships.

Constantine the Sinner said:

It might lead to more orphanages, it might not. Why do you presume such orphanages would be like those of the 19th Century?

Being put to death is considered abhorrent because it's terminating a human life. Killing someone who is unconscious isn't left abhorrent than killing someone who is conscious.

Click to expand...

Loaded language again.
"Killing" denotes some awareness of life. An embryo with no organized nervous system, no self-awareness, no real, functioning brain is not a "person".

Also...warehousing people...whether they be children or the elderly is NOT a good thing. There is no way to provide a healthy environment for those children in that situation.

Let's look at reality, OK? There are no thousands or millions of potential adoptive parents for every "unwanted" child. The costs of adoption can be prohibitive for many. The easy way to cut the abortion rate even lower is factual sex-ed and access to contraception. If I remember right, in Colorado, kids were given factual sex-ed. The teen pregnancy rate dropped 40+% in just one year. But...MOST abortions are procured by middle class WHITE women...most of whom claim to be Christians. So...all your "pro-life" propaganda is demonstrably false and easy to verify by researching the facts.

And...as I said before this is a religious issue, not a secular issue and therefore not something that should be legislated against.

Constantine the Sinner said:

If I applied Dickens to today, I'd think the workday was 12 to 16 hours.

Click to expand...

That's nice, but you're not addressing my point. How many prospective adoptive parents of sufficient good character and means are there? How many abortions are there? Which number is higher?

Armoured said:

History. If the 19th Century is too remote fo you, look at Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism. We KNOW that large scale institutionalisation ends in horror.And what's so special about "merely" human life, if it's not because of it's consciousness? Again, I remind you your response needs to appeal to people who don't share your beliefs about the point of ensoulmentI disagree, because an unconscious person with previously established consciousness, has an ongoing sense of self, as well as interpersonal relationships.

Click to expand...

The Eastern Block has rampant abortion, and did back in the USSR's time. Russia and Romania have the highest abortion rates in the world.

Facts and Statistics. In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
Facts and Statistics - Congressional Coalition on Adoption
www.ccainstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category...id...

None of these children have permanent families.
Sure, people want to adopt...healthy white infants.

RedPonyDriver said:

Loaded language again.
"Killing" denotes some awareness of life. An embryo with no organized nervous system, no self-awareness, no real, functioning brain is not a "person".

Also...warehousing people...whether they be children or the elderly is NOT a good thing. There is no way to provide a healthy environment for those children in that situation.

Let's look at reality, OK? There are no thousands or millions of potential adoptive parents for every "unwanted" child. The costs of adoption can be prohibitive for many. The easy way to cut the abortion rate even lower is factual sex-ed and access to contraception. If I remember right, in Colorado, kids were given factual sex-ed. The teen pregnancy rate dropped 40+% in just one year. But...MOST abortions are procured by middle class WHITE women...most of whom claim to be Christians. So...all your "pro-life" propaganda is demonstrably false and easy to verify by researching the facts.

And...as I said before this is a religious issue, not a secular issue and therefore not something that should be legislated against.

Click to expand...

Where does this logic stop? If Christians become the only demographic that protests atrocities a hundred years from now, then should we say their voices don't count because they don't adhere to the sentiments of the Zeitgeist?

Constantine the Sinner said:

The Eastern Block has rampant abortion, and did back in the USSR's time. Russia and Romania have the highest abortion rates in the world.

Click to expand...

Have you seen the orphanages there? They are horrifying. [Staff edit]