Is abortion morally wrong? A point of view.

[InterestedAtheist]

...and have their narrative unravel? Perish the thought.

Just what I was thinking. I was about to say, if they did that, they run the risk of confronting too much reality.
I like the way the blogger Slacktivist (an evangelical, but a progressive one) put it:
This is what abortion politics is for...

And that’s what white evangelicals did in the late 1970s and into the 1980s. They didn’t change their minds about the Civil Rights movement, but they enthusiastically changed the subject. They started talking about abortion.

This is what abortion politics is for. This is what it was designed to do. This is its function and its purpose. It is — above all — a weapon for reasserting a claim to the moral high ground, and for putting the moral upstarts of the Civil Rights movement back in their proper place as moral subordinates who should have no say in determining right and wrong unless they first consult the rightful arbiters of such things, i.e., us.

Those people, you see, are depraved baby-killers. But how does that change the utter failure of –?

Baby-killers.

But how do you justify defending brutality, inequality, segregation, oppressi–?

They kill babies.

 

[FireDragon76]

Just what I was thinking. I was about to say, if they did that, they run the risk of confronting too much reality.
I like the way the blogger Slacktivist (an evangelical, but a progressive one) put it:
This is what abortion politics is for...

And that’s what white evangelicals did in the late 1970s and into the 1980s. They didn’t change their minds about the Civil Rights movement, but they enthusiastically changed the subject. They started talking about abortion.

This is what abortion politics is for. This is what it was designed to do. This is its function and its purpose. It is — above all — a weapon for reasserting a claim to the moral high ground, and for putting the moral upstarts of the Civil Rights movement back in their proper place as moral subordinates who should have no say in determining right and wrong unless they first consult the rightful arbiters of such things, i.e., us.

That's a good insight, I've never encountered that kind of clarity before: I never thought of it as a power-grab, but that's exactly what it is. And it fits in with some of my other readings of the history of conservative Evangelicals in the US. I know of in the case of my own religious tradition, Lutheranism, that some leaders like Robert Preus were accused of weaponizing religious symbols to strike out at Christians who were advocating working for civil rights and openness to modernism as a necessary step for Christian social engagement.

So it's really an extension of the poisonous politics of the Religious Right that has been going on for some time.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That's a good insight, I've never encountered that kind of clarity before: I never thought of it as a power-grab, but that's exactly what it is. And it fits in with some of my other readings of the history of conservative Evangelicals in the US. I know of in the case of my own religious tradition, Lutheranism, that some leaders like Robert Preus were accused of weaponizing religious symbols to strike out at Christians who were advocating working for civil rights and openness to modernism as a necessary step for Christian social engagement.

So it's really an extension of the reactionary politics of the Religious Right in this country that has been going on for some time.

Slacktivist does a very good job of explaining it in a number of articles. Basically, the religious right needed a way of regaining the moralbhigh ground after they had spent decades fighting a racist fight for segregation , that they ultimately and humiliatingly lost. enter abortion!
If you look at evangelical writings from the 1970s you will see they are firmly pro choice, making quite sensible and rational arguments. then, a few years later you can see them switching sides completely, with absolutely no explanation or even acknowledgement.
You searched for geisler abortion - slacktivist

 

[FireDragon76]

Slacktivist does a very good job of explaining it in a number of articles. Basically, the religious right needed a way of regaining the moralbhigh ground after they had spent decades fighting a racist fight for segregation , that they ultimately and humiliatingly lost. enter abortion!
If you look at evangelical writings from the 1970s you will see they are firmly pro choice, making quite sensible and rational arguments. then, a few years later you can see them switching sides completely, with absolutely no explanation or even acknowledgement.
You searched for geisler abortion - slacktivist

Francis Schaeffer, who is now a progressive Orthodox Christian, talks about this as well. In his younger years, he was one of those evangelicals who advocated for a new front on the culture war, pressuring his father to make a documentary about abortion with C Everett Koop. I don't think it was conscious on his part, but the movement no doubt felt drawn to a new crusade after losing credibility in the 60's with the cultural changes that were happening.

 

[FireDragon76]

.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I've read Francis Schaeffer's book. It was very interesting, and I wish more religious people would think like him.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I know the issue is complex but what about atheist institutions offering hope and support. If you're a catholic there is a strong pro life ethic, and drop in to the church and there will be help, advice etc. Some abortion argumemnts go like this "Goodbye cruel world, before you even get here". So, a question is, is the cruelty of the world dependent on the system of reference and relation to society one has? I have been an hopeless atheist at one time, and when I stepped into church it was a revelation - beautiful architecture, hymns, moral teachings, artworks? So do atheists lack institutions of hope in their quest for "reality"? Is the idea of faith, hope and love a fraud?

 

[FireDragon76]

I know the issue is complex but what about atheist institutions offering hope and support. If you're a catholic there is a strong pro life ethic, and drop in to the church and there will be help, advice etc. Some abortion argumemnts go like this "Goodbye cruel world, before you even get here". So, a question is, is the cruelty of the world dependent on the system of reference and relation to society one has? I have been an hopeless atheist at one time, and when I stepped into church it was a revelation - beautiful architecture, hymns, moral teachings, artworks? So do atheists lack institutions of hope in their quest for "reality"?

My being pro-choice has simply nothing to do with devaluing life. And I suspect that is true with most people that identify as such, as well.

I was lead to understand atheism is simply the absence of belief in God, not an ideology. There are humanist organizations, typically dating back to the 19th century, that offer people a sense of community and shared values. Unitarians and Ethical Societies would be good examples of this.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Secondly given that moral issues are so complex, and there are literally trillions of dicrections one could take - morality may not be "computable" to a standard machine.

Computability - Wikipedia

So the fresh idea is, part of the function of consciousness is to make choices matter to the agent, and thus force a frame of reference from which to judge the consequences of ones actions and moral choices.

What machine cannot do, man can. For example thinking of death or seeing it is generally aesthetically unpleasant. Calculations don't see this, whereas feelings or emotions do. Its a dimension upon which rules for morality can accrete.

I'm not sure when feelings developed in evolutionary theory. Could they have been a condition of complex society, along with abstract thought and tool use etc.

IIRC brain scans show theists are more emotional, and atheists more logical, and studies also show more that atheists are generally slightly more "intelligent" (depending on the test I suppose) - so maybe its a matter of cognitive focus and cerebral energetics (regional blood flow, connectionality of dendtite architecture etc)

Atheists - the hypothesis is - see more incomputability and / or neutralise difficult topics, maybe. Whereas theists feel their way through moral issues as in their lifestyle they habitually amplify the functions of the emotional 'limbic system' and brain areas related to "theory of mind" or interpersonal perception seeing others as as "spiritual" co-conscious agents.


Not only this, but the language we use fine tunes our perceptual sensitivities (see linguistic relativity). To atheists we are often seen as "mere animals" whereas as to theists we are "god breathed souls, of infinite worth".

So atheists may have a "Robocop" idea of morals, whereas theists' systems of reference make them see "a living soul (hebrew: ruach) in a fleshy form".

 

[FireDragon76]

Secondly given that moral issues are so complex, and there are literally trillions of dicrections one could take - morality may not be "computable" to a standard machine.

Computability - Wikipedia

So the fresh idea is, part of the function of consciousness is to make choices matter to the agent, and thus force a frame of reference from which to judge the consequences of ones actions and moral choices.

What machine cannot do, man can. I mean, for example thinking of death is aesthetically unpleasant. Calculations don't see this.

Facts and values aren't necessarily related to one another, so it stands to reason a computer is going to have trouble being its own moral agent.

 

[SkyWriting]

Really it's an ungodly people who pass such laws, and that's not to say they don't go to church.

Who is in charge?

Ephesians 4:6, KJV: "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Ecclesiastes 8:2-5
2 Obey the king’s command, I say, because you took an oath before God. 3 Do not be in a hurry to leave the king’s presence. Do not stand up for a bad cause, for he will do whatever he pleases. 4 Since a king’s word is supreme, who can say to him, “What are you doing?”

5 Whoever obeys his command will come to no harm,
and the wise heart will know the proper time and procedure.