Morality of abortion

[The spartan]

I don't believe Podromos is saying that pagans necessarily support abortion: he's arguing that those who support legal abortions are necessarily pagan.

And you find that to be a reasonable argument? You really want to go down on the Good Ship 'Crazy' as well?

[Mayer]

I personally subscribe to the view that pagan is a christian swear word for non-abrahamic religions, mostly polytheists, therefore a mohammedan is more correctly termed a heretic.

Both Islam and Christendom agree that abortion is a sin, precisely because children are valuable and need protection. Religion in the purest sense is moral law.
If a society had no such morality and would kill children at whim, it would ignore the natural mother's instinct and destroy the most vulnerable and doom their future (both of the child and their kin).

[The spartan]

Both Islam and Christendom agree that abortion is a sin, precisely because children are valuable and need protection. Religion in the purest sense is moral law.
If a society had no such morality and would kill children at whim, it would ignore the natural mother's instinct and destroy the most vulnerable and doom their future (both of the child and their kin).

I have several secular moral systems that would beg to disagree. There is also the fact that "Religion", as those in the West typically understand it, is much different in other parts of the world. To categorize all those philosophies as "Pegan" is at best lazy. As I have said previously, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus all manage to not murder their children en mass without having the Abrahamic God telling them not to.

[Cope]

And you find that to be a reasonable argument? You really want to go down on the Good Ship 'Crazy' as well?

I do my best not to deal in absolutes. Therefore I cannot agree with his statements as they currently stand. Notwithstanding, I am yet to hear any defense of "casual" abortion which is reconcilable with Christ's teachings.

[Prodromos]

It's always amusing when pagans who grew up in a Christian culture assume Christian morality is universal. "Whaddaya mean not everyone believes every human being is infinitely valuable and made in God's image? You're just bigoted against Muslims and Hindus, pal." There's only one way to find out, I guess.

[95thrifleman]

It's always amusing when pagans who grew up in a Christian culture assume Christian morality is universal. "Whaddaya mean not everyone believes every human being is infinitely valuable and made in God's image? You're just bigoted against Muslims and Hindus, pal." There's only one way to find out, I guess.

Now you are just rambling. You are the one making universal statements, claiming anyone who is not christian is a pagan destined for vice and child killing.

[Prodromos]

claiming anyone who is not christian is a pagan

destined for vice and child killing.

When did I claim either of these things?

[Genghis Skahn]

Not really, unless you believe you alone hold the one true definition of paganism. Here's one that contradicts yours:

Again, I think you are accusing me of something which you yourself are guilty of, since you seem to reject any definition of paganism other than your own. Your entire supporting source is written in the past tense; the huge bulk of modern Christians do not classify any non-Christian as pagan anymore(especially not Muslims). It's outdated thinking, and you're in the absolute minority in your usage of the term in this day and age.

You think mainstream Islam accepts the Imago Dei and that all human life is infinitely valuable?

This question legitimately has nothing to do with the thread topic.

You're pagan. Do you oppose abortion?

No, I'm not pagan, especially not with respect to your usage of the term, and I'm of the same mind as Mayer when he suggests that it's a derogatory christian swear word against "muh unbelievers". Don't ever call me that again; it's insulting, since I know for a fact that you're using the term pagan in a disparaging manner in reference to me, and suggesting that I'm morally inferior and unenlightened in reference to a "true believer" such as yourself. It's an off-topic personal reference, by my estimation.

Besides that, it doesn't matter whether my answer to that question is yes or no, since that would be anecdotal evidence and useless for the sake of this argument. I asked for a citation regarding the claim that there's a correlation between paganism and support for abortion; you didn't provide one. We already know that that claim is false since you consider Muslims and Buddhists to be pagan. You made a claim; don't ask me to prove it for you with anecdotal evidence of my own.

So basically you don't have a point, you're just derailing the topic for no reason.

Calling out legitimately false statements such as "The correlation between paganism and support for abortion is unmistakable, and unsurprising"(given your archaic usage of the term) and classifying them as the BS that they actually are isn't derailing the thread in the slightest, so you can cut the crap right now. It's attacking the validity of your arguments; something which they are greatly lacking in. It's completely on topic; if you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't be spouting absolute nonsense that doesn't convince anyone of your viewpoints besides the most fanatic of choirs. For the past few pages, your arguments against abortion have seemed to boil down to "muh unbelievers", which is just lazy arguing.

If we're going to be making claims about topic derailing, then this post more readily qualifies for that distinction:

Not really, Islam has no understanding of the Imago Dei in the sense used here. Their opposition to abortion wouldn't be because they believe in the infinite worth of every individual. If I recall correctly under Islamic law the father has a right to kill his children, or at least receive an extremely reduced penalty for it, basically a slap on the wrist.

A serial killer could be personally opposed to his wife's getting an abortion, however, to say that this is no different from the Christian prohibition on abortion is absurd. Islam's "attitudes" towards abortion, homosexuality, marriage etc. don't come from a position of love for their fellow man. It's completely different from the Christian view.

All of the above is just you dodging the question in reference to the bunk claim that all pagans(which you foolishly classify Muslims as) support abortion. You keep talking about this Imago Dei crap, when it legitimately has nothing to do with the thread topic and does nothing to disprove the claim that Muslims, by and large, oppose abortion.

When did I claim either of these things?

Are you ing serious dude? You definitively claimed the first point quoted upthread: you made it abundantly clear that any non-Christian was a pagan in your eyes, including Muslims, who are NOT considered pagans by any reasonable yard stick or dictionary... Jesus, the absolute state of this awful argumentation.

Moreover:

Yes, I think paganism is false and a pathway to vice

So yes, also definitively claimed that pagans are essentially destined for vice, simply by not being Christians.

[Prodromos]

... Buddy I'm not responding to all that. It's just irrelevant (and blatantly false) assertions about my previous posts; there is no cogent point to address. If you want a pointless back-and-forth at least make it a one-liner thing, not six paragraphs per post. So what's your point that you want me to respond to? In one short paragraph, por favor.

[Aexodus]

Prodromos you’re totally wrong, it’s idiotic to think someone has to even be religious at all to be pro life

[Prodromos]

When did I say that?

[Cope]

Prodromos you’re totally wrong, it’s idiotic to think someone has to even be religious at all to be pro life

I don't think he made that claim. His basic proposition is that no true follower of Christ could support abortion (with very limited exceptions). The logical extension of this is that proponents of so-called "abortion on demand" are exclusively non-Christian - or "pagan" to use his term. That isn't synonymous with arguing that people outside of Christendom are necessarily pro-choice.

In reality the argument he's making here is very straightforward and uncontroversial: the traditional framework of Christian morality prevents its adherents from supporting abortion (again, with very limited exceptions). Pro-choice advocates, therefore, cannot be beholden to said traditional framework.

[The spartan]

In reality the argument he's making here is very straightforward and uncontroversial: the traditional framework of Christian morality prevents its adherents from supporting abortion (again, with very limited exceptions). Pro-choice advocates, therefore, cannot be beholden to said traditional framework.

Maybe in specific regions of the US, but there are plenty of Christians who accept the right to abortion. This sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy by people who don't get to decide who is a Christian and who is not.

[basics]

Maybe in specific regions of the US, but there are plenty of Christians who accept the right to abortion. This sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy by people who don't get to decide who is a Christian and who is not.

The spartan,

Jesus Christ laid down what a Christian is when He explained to a religious leader that a man must be born again of the Spirit of God if he is to enter heaven. To get there one must believe that Jesus Christ died for their sin when He gave Himself up to death on the cross. Declaring that is the point that repentance and conviction take place in the being of that person leaving the Holy spirit to enter that person's nature, changing it forever. The fruit of that is that anyone born again of the Spirit of God cannot condone the wanton killing of babies in the womb. That doesn't mean that anyone who has aborted when an unbeliever or unconverted cannot be saved the moral principal being that it is a sin to kill. The blood of Christ overcomes any of that. That is the Christian position and has been that all the way back to Adam and Eve.

[Prodromos]

Actually it isn't even clear that the No True Scotsman fallacy is an actual fallacy. It was given to us by the atheist philosopher Antony Flew, who also gave us the bogus "lack of belief" redefinition of atheism, which later on he retracted of course but unfortunately the damage is done.

No True Scotsman is when someone shifts their claim in order to avoid evidence refuting it. It's an informal or material fallacy, which means whether it's fallacious or not depends on the argument's content rather than its form, so it isn't always fallacious.

For example, if I say that "no bachelor is married", and you retort by pointing out that your friend is married and a bachelor, then it isn't fallacious for me to state that he isn't a true bachelor, since a bachelor just is someone who isn't married, so I'm not redefining the word "bachelor" in order to win the argument.

No True Scotsman also fails with respect to creeds, such as Christianity. A Christian is so-called because he adheres to the religion, Christianity. There are certain beliefs that are definitive of Christianity and thus essential to it, which a Christian must accept in order to count as a Christian. An obvious example would be: no Christian can be atheist. There's also other doctrines that are essential to the faith, such as that you shouldn't commit grave sins which forever separate you from God.

It's therefore perfectly justified to hold that atheism and abortion go against Christian teaching. When I say "Christianity" prohibits atheism or abortion, I am referring to the Christianity rooted in Christ and the Apostolic witness, mediated by reason and the tradition of the Church Fathers and so on. There's certainly room for differences of opinion, and sectarianism is a no-no, however, when it comes to the essentials of the faith, there can be no disagreement.

So if you say, "I am Christian and my religion perfectly allows atheism and abortion", there's only two possibilities: either you're mistaken about what Christian doctrine is, or you follow an entirely different religion which happens to be named Christianity, but teaches diametrically opposite doctrines. Unfortunately this is true of many liberal or "mainline" churches, who have strayed from orthodoxy in order to conform to the patterns of the world. Interestingly enough, these churches are the ones dying out; orthodox churches are actually growing in the West.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

When, however, they [the heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. ... It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, ~180 A.D.

[Cope]

Maybe in specific regions of the US, but there are plenty of Christians who accept the right to abortion. This sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy by people who don't get to decide who is a Christian and who is not.

The notion of "acceptance" that you've introduced here is a little complicated. Acceptance is not synonymous with advocacy: there is a compulsion for believers to adhere to Christ's teachings, not to resist secular legislation (ie. the state). "Then saith he [Christ] unto them, 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's'". (Matt. 22: 21).

It is certainly true that no man or movement has a monopoly on the Christian identity and yet the concept of "identity" is by its very nature reciprocal. A central purpose of identity is communicative: that is, to simplify information into a label which can be rapidly imparted. For this process to be beneficial rather than counter productive, there must be a mutual understanding between separate parties of what specific identities imply.

Notwithstanding, men will always identify both themselves and others at their leisure. A self-characterization does not necessarily trump an external one and vice versa. That said, I was careful to write that pro-choice advocates cannot be beholden to the traditional moral framework(s) of Christianity, not that they couldn't be Christian.

[AqD]

Though, we do punish parents that don't live up to a certain standard.

What about parents who don't even want their children but only forced to have them due to abortion being banned? What's their punishment?

[PointOfViewGun]

What about parents who don't even want their children but only forced to have them due to abortion being banned? What's their punishment?

If they don't live up to a certain standard their child can be taken away. If not, why punish them?

[95thrifleman]

Unfortunately this is true of many liberal or "mainline" churches, who have strayed from orthodoxy in order to conform to the patterns of the world. Interestingly enough, these churches are the ones dying out; orthodox churches are actually growing in the West.

Well considering the orthodox christian doctrine of "Kill them all, God will know his own." and "Deus Vult." suits the growing right wing extreme, I am not srprised.

In the west we see a polarisation of political and social opinion, there is no middle ground anymore. Good, old fashioned christian doctrines of let the babies grow up so we can kill them in the name of God later is on a revival.

That's the problem isn't it? Cherry picking what is "traditional" in christian teaching and ignoring what you find inconveniant. We all know the right wing christians look at islam with jealous eyes, wishing they can follow the bible's teachings and throw their own "faggots" off of rooftops but for now they will stick to the "safe" doctrines like abortion and gay marriage.

Legislate that christian theocracy slowly, you'll get to burning witches, hanging gays and killing anyone who doesn't follow your doctrine later.......

[Cope]

Well considering the orthodox christian doctrine of "Kill them all, God will know his own." and "Deus Vult." suits the growing right wing extreme, I am not srprised.

Both of the quotes you provide are related to the Roman Catholic church of the Medieval era. Neither is an expression of Orthodox Christian doctrine - either where the term "orthodox" refers to the Greek Church or the concept of traditional Christian practice.

The first quote you provide is a fallacious interpretation of 2 Timothy 2: 19 which is attributed to a French abbot of the early 13th century. Paul's (the author of Timothy) actual words are "Nevertheless [that is, irrespective of heresay and false prophesising] the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."

"Deus Vult" was a phrase popularized by the First Crusade (instigated by the medieval papacy) in A.D. 1095. It's contemporary relevance is limited to academic discussions of the crusades and online memes.

In the west we see a polarisation of political and social opinion, there is no middle ground anymore. Good, old fashioned christian doctrines of let the babies grow up so we can kill them in the name of God later is on a revival.

Citation needed. Needless to say, if your interpretation of "old fashioned Christian doctrine" refers to medievalism (as is evidenced by the first part of your post) then it may be salient for me to highlight that the abortion debate didn't really feature in the theological discourse eight hundred years ago.

That's the problem isn't it? Cherry picking what is "traditional" in christian teaching and ignoring what you find inconveniant. We all know the right wing christians look at islam with jealous eyes, wishing they can follow the bible's teachings and throw their own "faggots" off of rooftops but for now they will stick to the "safe" doctrines like abortion and gay marriage.

Ethical "cherry picking" is not an exclusively Christian phenomenon: it exists (and has always existed) across all religions, ideologies and moral philosophies. Though as Paul says "The Lord knoweth them that are his".

Legislate that christian theocracy slowly, you'll get to burning witches, hanging gays and killing anyone who doesn't follow your doctrine later.......

I think this is a stonewall example of a slippery slope fallacy.