Dr. Willy Parker on reproductive rights

[MournfulWatcher]

I will say this and try to stay out of the thread afterwards, because just reading this thread shows that it would be no use to even try and have a discussion about the morality of abortion. The op won't even engage in a discussion on whether it is moral or not because his "religion doesn't teach that morality is worked out in the abstract" and then goes on to condemn people for "enslaving" women.

I'll say this: when a man and a woman come together and the woman concieves, an entirely new human being is created in that moment. It has a unique genetic code, and a body that is growing and developing. Over just a few weeks (usually by the time the woman realizes she is pregnant) he or she will have a heartbeat. If allowed to live and grow, he or she will have arms, legs, eyes, ears, a nose, internal organs, etc. Eventually the fetus will be practicing breathing, he/she will yawn, and he/she will respond to the mother's voice, all inside the womb. And then the baby will be born and go on to live outside the womb.

If the mother chooses at any point to have that baby killed---even in the earliest stages-- that baby isn't coming back . It's gone. If she has the abortion because she isn't ready for a child, if she chooses to have another, it's not going to be the same baby. That first fetus was alive, unique, and human. That human will never have the chance to see the sun or experience the touch of his or her mother; the only touch he or she will ever experience are a needle injecting poison into their body, or cold metal clamps gripping their leg and ripping it from their body.

And that person isn't coming back, except at the ressurrection. But in this life, that person is gone, without even being given the chance to experience life outside the womb. Another baby at a later time can't replace that unique human that was intentionally killed due to the mother's, or father's, or families wishes.

If you don't find that to be tragic and horrific, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[FireDragon76]

Then actually demonstrate with a logically sound and supported argument why what I said is wrong.

It's not a matter of argument, it's a matter of lived experience of our confessional identity.

 

[Davidnic]

I think his point is that he's motivated by compassion, the same as Jesus. Even I can understand that.

The compassion that justifies killing is more of the Thanos compassion, not Jesus compassion. In essence, it is disordered compassion and can not be compared to Christs without it mocking Christ.

 

[Davidnic]

And as others have pointed out, this is not the compassion shown to the woman caught in adultery. That is, go and sin no more...not let's kill someone then use a strawman scientific argument to pretend they were not human. Which is what Dr. Parker does.

 

[FireDragon76]

I will say this and try to stay out of the thread afterwards, because just reading this thread shows that it would be no use to even try and have a discussion about the morality of abortion. The op won't even engage in a discussion on whether it is moral or not because his "religion doesn't teach that morality is worked out in the abstract" and then goes on to condemn people for "enslaving" women.

I'll say this: when a man and a woman come together and the woman concieves, an entirely new human being is created in that moment. It has a unique genetic code, and a body that is growing and developing. Over just a few weeks (usually by the time the woman realizes she is pregnant) he or she will have a heartbeat. If allowed to live and grow, he or she will have arms, legs, eyes, ears, a nose, internal organs, etc. Eventually the fetus will be practice breathing, he/she will yawn, and he/she will respond to the mother's voice, all inside the womb. And then the baby will be born and go on to live outside the womb.

If the mother chooses at any point to have that baby killed---even in the earliest stages-- that baby isn't coming back . It's gone. If she has the abortion because she isn't ready for a child, if she chooses to have another, it's not going to be the same baby. That first fetus was alive, unique, and human. That human will never have the chance to see the sun or experience the touch of his or her mother; the only touch he or she will ever experience are a needle injecting poison into their body, or cold metal clamps gripping their leg and ripping it from their body.

And that person isn't coming back, except at the ressurrection. But in this life, that person is gone, without even being given the chance to experience life outside the womb. Another baby at a later time can't replace that unique human that was intentionally killed due to the mother's, or father's, or families wishes.

If you don't find that to be tragic and horrific, then I don't know what to tell you.

Life is tragic and horrific. Lutherans are pessimistic in our understanding of this life. Nevertheless, we cannot justify ourselves by trying to rid the world of perceived evils or horrors. As Luther told Philip Melancthon once in a letter, in this life we must sin, therefore we should sin boldly, because true justice is found only in the next world. To do any less amounts to counting the precious blood of Christ a cheap thing. Luther preached a costly grace and that we should therefore live boldly, not afraid of our religious scruples, but actively going out into the world to serve our neighbor in our vocations, whatever they may be.

 

[Davidnic]

Even Dr. Parker admits fetuses are human but he denies them personhood so it is alright to kill them.

Truth revealed during debate on abortion

 

[FireDragon76]

The compassion that justifies killing is more of the Thanos compassion, not Jesus compassion. In essence, it is disordered compassion and can not be compared to Christs without it mocking Christ.

When you adopt every single one of those unwanted kids, and pay for the funerals of all the women that die from pregnancy, and all the misfortune wrought on their families, then maybe I could take that sort of rhetoric seriously.

Otherwise all I hear is a man from a male-dominated religious institution telling women how he thinks they must live.

Even Dr. Parker admits fetuses are human but he denies them personhood so it is alright to kill them.

Truth revealed during debate on abortion

He's not a philosopher and probably not the best debater. But that doesn't mean his actions are necessarily wrong. Ethics as I understand it, in this context, isn't about being right, it's about being authentically vulnerable and listening to those in need.

 

[Davidnic]

When you adopt every single one of those unwanted kids, and pay for the funerals of all the women that die from pregnancy, then maybe I could take that sort of rhetoric seriously.

Otherwise all I hear is a man from a male-dominated religious institution telling women how he thinks they must live.

Logical fallacies in that response: 5

Ad Hominem
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Fear
False Dilemma
Special Pleading

Refutation of the premise that the compassion expressed in killing 10,000 humans that the doctor admits are human, is fundamentally disordered compared to Christ's compassion: 0

 

[FireDragon76]

Logical fallacies in that response: 5

Ad Hominem
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Fear
False Dilemma
Special Pleading

Refutation of the premise that the compassion expressed in killing 10,000 humans that the doctor admits are human, is fundamentally disordered compared to Christ's compassion: 0

The Theology of the Cross knows nothing of your philosophy masquerading as a religion. God's logic is not analogous to human logic.

 

[Davidnic]

Otherwise all I hear is a man from a male-dominated religious institution telling women how he thinks they must live.



He's not a philosopher and probably not the best debater. But that doesn't mean his actions are necessarily wrong. Ethics as I understand it, in this context, isn't about being right, it's about being authentically vulnerable and listening to those in need.

Dr. Parker admits to 10,000 abortions of those he admits are human. So statistically he has told about 5,100 women that they will not live past the point where he, in Jesus' name and doing his work (according to his book) ended their human lives.

And if you get an option on abortion as a man, so do I. No special pleading fallacy.

 

[FireDragon76]

Dr. Parker admits to 10,000 abortions of those he admits are human. So statistically he has told about 5,100 women that they will not live past the point where he, in Jesus' name and doing his work (according to his book) ended their human lives.

And if you get an option on abortion as a man, so do I. No special pleading fallacy.

The difference is that I'm not trying to take away womens natural rights. I recognize it as their choice, not mine.

 

[Davidnic]

The Theology of the Cross knows nothing of your philosophy masquerading as a religion. God's logic is not analogous to human logic.

Logical fallacies here: 3

Appeal to ridicule
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque to my Christianity
Misdirected Appeal to Authority

 

[Davidnic]

The difference is that I'm not trying to take away womens natural rights. I recognize it as their choice, not mine.

Fallacy: Special Pleading

Right to an opinion in your context was based on my gender not my allowing someone a license to end (according to Dr. Parker) a human life.

 

[Davidnic]

Dr. Parker admits they are human but removes personhood. But he likely has killed 5,100 women. He claims compassion like Christ but he actually is totally in opposition to the Theology of the Cross, as well as misapplying the compassion to the woman caught in adultery.

Both his moral and scientific arguments have been refuted by many. His book is a mass of contradictions.

 

[Davidnic]

So Dr. Parker admits they are human lives. Just they have less worth as moral subjects. That argument has never worked historically and has led to genocide. It is a fundamentally and objectively false moral argument.

 

[Davidnic]

When you adopt every single one of those unwanted kids, and pay for the funerals of all the women that die from pregnancy, and all the misfortune wrought on their families, then maybe I could take that sort of rhetoric seriously.

Otherwise all I hear is a man from a male-dominated religious institution telling women how he thinks they must live.



He's not a philosopher and probably not the best debater. But that doesn't mean his actions are necessarily wrong. Ethics as I understand it, in this context, isn't about being right, it's about being authentically vulnerable and listening to those in need.

I read Dr. Parkers book. You should read Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice by Francis J. Beckwith. It came out about ten years before Dr. Parkers but it refutes all his points and many others.

In particular Chapter 6: The Nature of Humaness and Whether the Unborn is a Moral Subject.

Here Beckwith pretty much dismantles the argument of human but not a person.

 

[Davidnic]

When you adopt every single one of those unwanted kids, and pay for the funerals of all the women that die from pregnancy, and all the misfortune wrought on their families, then maybe I could take that sort of rhetoric seriously.

Otherwise all I hear is a man from a male-dominated religious institution telling women how he thinks they must live.

The flaw in that argument, aside from being a classic ad hominem, would be by that logic unless I'm going to marry a woman I cannot stop her husband from beating her. If I was alive during the civil war unless I was willing to hire every ex-slave I would have to say that the right to slavery was just. If I am not able to adopt an abused a child I have no right to say that abuse is wrong and actively seek to stop it.

That falls apart pretty quickly under examination.

 

[JacksBratt]

As usual, in threads about abortion.. you have the logic and biblical teaching of the simple fact that it is murder... told by solid bible believers.... argued by those trying to convince themselves that it is OK....

Well... spin, twist, skew, bend and break scripture all you want... If you are a Christian and are convinced that abortion is in any way in line with your view of scripture or someone else's teaching of scripture..... ... Then you surely are deceived.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

This is a comparison of two possible outcomes:

• A person involuntarily gave birth to a human.

or

• A person voluntarily killed a human.

When weighing the two options, the first is very much unlikely to be the greater evil.

I find it ironic that the Pericope adulterae was used as an analogy, when it was unarguably a story about Christ saving a person's life. Christ made no argument in favor of killing the woman to satisfy the emotional demands of her husband, which would be more comparable to killing a baby to satisfy the emotional demands of the mother. In this case, the abortion doctor is the man with the stone in his hands.

An easier slam dunk was never had.

 

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

The only way that I've seen people who call themselves Christians defend abortion is to do everything they can to completely ignore the value of the unborn child, and to address exclusively the woman. And even in doing that, they argue not from a Biblical perspective of surrender and submission to God, but from an American perspective of "rights".

It's the woman who is already a living, breathing human being, it is her body which will be undergoing massive changes for a nine-month period, whereas the fetus is not alive yet and feeds off the mother, so that is why the well-being and rights of the mother takes precedence over the fetus. It's not that hard to understand.