This is a serious question. When we think of ancient people, such as the Carthaginians, who performed ritual child sacrifice, they were doing so in order to secure for themselves personal and/or communal prosperity. People at that time may have given their children to various fertility gods and goddesses in order to ensure a good harvest or other similar benefits.
My question is aren't we basically doing the same thing with abortion in the West today? We perform in utero child sacrifice in order to gain financial and/or career benefits. We also do it in order to gain societal benefits by eliminating what many people see as babies that would grow up in poverty. And then we have people such as the ones mentioned in the video below who openly acknowledge that abortion is child sacrifice. We would all agree that the infanticide slaughter of ancient societies such as Carthage is savagery, but what makes current western society any different?
The distinction between an independent person and a dependent collection of cells that hypothetically could become a person one day is important because the comparison bakgat was trying to draw requires that they be the same when they are not. That distinction is how one can be pro-choice while not also pro-murder.
Also, pagan blood rituals? Really?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
This is a serious question. When we think of ancient people, such as the Carthaginians, who performed ritual child sacrifice, they were doing so in order to secure for themselves personal and/or communal prosperity. People at that time may have given their children to various fertility gods and goddesses in order to ensure a good harvest or other similar benefits.
A big reason modern people diss sacrifice is because they don't believe it actually does anything, or at least not nearly outweighing the effect of a lost human life. There would probably be some utilitarian arguments for it if it was accepted that it could prevent starvation of a tribe for a whole harvest cycle.
There's also a big jump between child and fetus killing in many people's mind, some thinkers like Peter Singer argue against that perception, but its far from a mainstream position and you can't expect people to easily accept that connection, and that topic can easily be its own debate thread.
Also it is way more sensible in ages and places where children are raised to be a useful but semi-expendable resource, not merely an object of love.
We perform in utero child sacrifice in order to gain financial and/or career benefits.
By we do you mean to say you are an abortion doctor?
Or are you suggesting that living in a country that gives people the right to do "A" and disagreeing with the right for people to do "A" means that you are guilty of performing "A"
We also do it in order to gain societal benefits by eliminating what many people see as babies that would grow up in poverty.
Why the we. Are you so desperate to have christian guilt that you have decided to make yourself guilty of all abortions?
I am pro choice and I hate abortion. These are not mutually exclusive. I am not guilty for any abortion.
Lets try this with another subject so that you can divorce your emotions from the subject. I am pro-free speech. I hate nazis rallys in skokie. I hate the westboro baptist church. I am not guilty for their sins and I am pro freedom of speech. The very freedom that allows them to do what I hate. How is this possible.
I also hate war and my tax dollars go to war. Am I now guilty for every dead innocent child in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and ... ?
And then we have people such as the ones mentioned in the video below who openly acknowledge that abortion is child sacrifice.
Are you suggesting that if someone says "if A then B" it must be true that A leads to B?
The bible says "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property"
Is this a true statement by virtue of the fact that an ancient society believed it to be true?
but what makes current western society any different?
You can literal think of no difference between murdering a human and aborting a potential human. Not one difference at all.
A man in Texas killed a day laborer that was rapping his young daughter. In your mind there must be no difference between him and Ted Bundy. I mean both men had something to do with murder and rape. So lets just stop there and call them equals.
Is there any empirical evidence to link child sacrifice and prosperity?
Interestingly enough, I would think people in favor of abortion would claim there is a link between a society's willingness to allow abortion and that society's prosperity. While the use of "child sacrifice" is clearly a loaded term, I am sure many would argue that the removal of unwanted children(in utero) is--in fact--materially beneficial to a society. Is it bad for a society to try and be as prosperous as it can be?
Why don't we phrase the argument that way instead?
I guess the issue is that even if it's materially beneficial to remove unwanted in utero children, it would be "bad" if this was somehow fueling an "evil deity?"
First, I would look for a linkage between removing said children and material prosperity. Then, I guess, I would look for evidence the benefit was coming from a divine source... I guess?
Would it have to be an evil deity for the act to be "bad," or could there be other reasons for its positive or negative morality?
Crossquoted from the last thread because I'm pretty sure they'll get merged.
I'm not sure why they'd get merged. The two topics have something to do with abortion, but beyond that I don't see why they would be merged into one thread.
Also you seem to be discriminating on the basis of age regarding who gets counted as a person and who does not. A fetus is a person at an early stage of development.
Sacrifice doesn't necessarily have to be religious in nature or even to a deity. Sacrifice is simply killing a human life in order to gain anything. In the case of America we kill babies in the womb because we want sexual liberation along with personal and communal prosperity. That is the same reason why civilizations of the past participated in ritual child sacrifice. Inside the womb and outside the womb seems like an arbitrary dichotomy for two things that are otherwise equivalent.
A big reason modern people diss sacrifice is because they don't believe it actually does anything, or at least not nearly outweighing the effect of a lost human life.
So the morality of human sacrifice hinges on the question of its effectiveness? Is that what you are saying?
Also it is way more sensible in ages and places where children are raised to be a useful but semi-expendable resource, not merely an object of love.
How many people in these types of situations want to kill themselves? I don't doubt that life can be hard and difficult, but you don't see people jumping off of bridges in droves in these types of societies. Most of them would rather live.
Also you seem to be discriminating on the basis of age regarding who gets counted as a person and who does not. A fetus is a person at an early stage of development.
It's also dependant on the body of (and therefore permission of) another person for it's continued existence, which was more my point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Inside the womb and outside the womb seems like an arbitrary dichotomy for two things that are otherwise equivalent.
Why is it more or less arbitrary than other definitions? Are eggs and sperm only "human life" when combined, and at the second they do? Remembering that ~60% of federalized eggs don't even implant, does THAT count as murder?
Almost any answer you give will seem pretty arbitrary.
But, I'm still more interested in how you're defining it as "bad" if it helps prosperity. If God created the universe, then why would he make an evil act overall beneficial to those performing it? If it's some other non-God entity that's granting this prosperity, then that raises other interesting theological questions.
On the assumption that only divine entities can grant prosperity, of course.
It's also dependant on the body of (and therefore permission of) another person for it's continued existence, which was more my point.
So dependence and/or independence is the criteria for whether or not killing is justifiable? That seems a little backwards don't you think? I would think that we have the greatest duty to defend and stand up for the weakest people in our society rather than turn the other way while someone else exterminates them.
If a man falls over and is having a heart attack while you are on your way to work and no one is around but you and you walk away because you choose the right to have control over your body is that justifiable? At that point he is dependent on your body doing certain things if he is going to live. The argument you are making simply does not hold up when we divorce abortion from the issue.
If you walked away and let the man die you'd be on trial and looking at jail time. At least in that case you only killed the man by omission, which is unlike what happens in the case of an abortion.
Remembering that ~60% of federalized eggs don't even implant, does THAT count as murder?
Well, that would just sound like a miscarriage - unless you're saying that the parents-to-be did something to intentionally prevent implantation?*
Also, I DO feel that the genetic uniqueness standard is, at least, a LITTLE less subjective than the vast array of standards proposed by pro-choice advocates.
If you walked away and let the man die you'd be on trial and looking at jail time. At least in that case you only killed the man by omission, which is unlike what happens in the case of an abortion.
Actually, no, not at all. If you walked away nothing would happen. If you tried to help him, but he died, you might be facing a lawsuit if he has litigious family members.
EDIT: Before someone claims that I'm ignorant, I am aware that some forms of contraception do prevent implantation. Don't try that snarky BS with me. All that would need to happen in this hypothetical abortion-is-murder scenario is that some contraceptives would be banned.
Well, that would just sound like a miscarriage - unless you're saying that the parents-to-be did something to intentionally prevent implantation?
Ok so you call it a "miscarriage". A miscarriage would essentially be the unintended/accidental death of the fetus, right? Now, we do expect parents to protect their children from "accidents"; failure to do so is charged as parental negligence. So it kind of follows that parents are obligated to take measures to protect their fetus from miscarriages. What measures are we going to require people to take to guard against these miscarriages?
The argument you are making simply does not hold up when we divorce abortion from the issue.
At what point in the procedure of helping someone survive a heart attack do I get implanted with a parasite?
As I've obviously not explained one or more points, the definition of dependent I use for fetuses means "incapable of living if removed from flesh" rather than "an individual who may die if aid is not provided". If it's part of a person's body, they have control over it. If it's an individual, social morals become relevant.
I don't get to use you to grow Xenomorphs, you don't get to force people to keep pregnancies.
@Ladyluck: doesn't Texas have some creepy law involving miscarriages?
Ok so you call it a "miscarriage". A miscarriage would essentially be the unintended/accidental death of the fetus, right? Now, we do expect parents to protect their children from "accidents"; failure to do so is charged as parental negligence. So it kind of follows that parents are obligated to take measures to protect their fetus from miscarriages. What measures are we going to require people to take to guard against these miscarriages?
Are you suggesting that controlling implantation is that trivial? Would you, for example, hold parents responsible if a satellite dropped onto their child at the park? You're playing semantics here and you've got no real argument. Please, enlighten me as to what medically verified measures you can take to ensure that implantation occurs, and how it would even be possible to determine if an implantation failed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
My question is aren't we basically doing the same thing with abortion in the West today? We perform in utero child sacrifice in order to gain financial and/or career benefits. We also do it in order to gain societal benefits by eliminating what many people see as babies that would grow up in poverty. And then we have people such as the ones mentioned in the video below who openly acknowledge that abortion is child sacrifice. We would all agree that the infanticide slaughter of ancient societies such as Carthage is savagery, but what makes current western society any different?
Also, pagan blood rituals? Really?
Art is life itself.
A big reason modern people diss sacrifice is because they don't believe it actually does anything, or at least not nearly outweighing the effect of a lost human life. There would probably be some utilitarian arguments for it if it was accepted that it could prevent starvation of a tribe for a whole harvest cycle.
There's also a big jump between child and fetus killing in many people's mind, some thinkers like Peter Singer argue against that perception, but its far from a mainstream position and you can't expect people to easily accept that connection, and that topic can easily be its own debate thread.
Also it is way more sensible in ages and places where children are raised to be a useful but semi-expendable resource, not merely an object of love.
If you had to type this sentence then you should already know that this is not a serious question to most people.
Define basically the same. Show me the how the equal sign fits in between "sacrificing a human" and "aborting a potential human"
By we do you mean to say you are an abortion doctor?
Or are you suggesting that living in a country that gives people the right to do "A" and disagreeing with the right for people to do "A" means that you are guilty of performing "A"
Why the we. Are you so desperate to have christian guilt that you have decided to make yourself guilty of all abortions?
I am pro choice and I hate abortion. These are not mutually exclusive. I am not guilty for any abortion.
Lets try this with another subject so that you can divorce your emotions from the subject. I am pro-free speech. I hate nazis rallys in skokie. I hate the westboro baptist church. I am not guilty for their sins and I am pro freedom of speech. The very freedom that allows them to do what I hate. How is this possible.
I also hate war and my tax dollars go to war. Am I now guilty for every dead innocent child in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and ... ?
Are you suggesting that if someone says "if A then B" it must be true that A leads to B?
The bible says "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property"
Is this a true statement by virtue of the fact that an ancient society believed it to be true?
I did not agree to this. Can you prove that infanticide is savagery?
You can literal think of no difference between murdering a human and aborting a potential human. Not one difference at all.
A man in Texas killed a day laborer that was rapping his young daughter. In your mind there must be no difference between him and Ted Bundy. I mean both men had something to do with murder and rape. So lets just stop there and call them equals.
We might as well go "Is playing less magic to focus on our school work free time sacrifice" with the implication that this is some sort of scary thing
I don't know what Starhawk (snicker) thinks on the matter, but she doesn't speak for us.
Interestingly enough, I would think people in favor of abortion would claim there is a link between a society's willingness to allow abortion and that society's prosperity. While the use of "child sacrifice" is clearly a loaded term, I am sure many would argue that the removal of unwanted children(in utero) is--in fact--materially beneficial to a society. Is it bad for a society to try and be as prosperous as it can be?
Why don't we phrase the argument that way instead?
There is no debate here.
First, I would look for a linkage between removing said children and material prosperity. Then, I guess, I would look for evidence the benefit was coming from a divine source... I guess?
Would it have to be an evil deity for the act to be "bad," or could there be other reasons for its positive or negative morality?
I'm not sure why they'd get merged. The two topics have something to do with abortion, but beyond that I don't see why they would be merged into one thread.
Also you seem to be discriminating on the basis of age regarding who gets counted as a person and who does not. A fetus is a person at an early stage of development.
Sacrifice doesn't necessarily have to be religious in nature or even to a deity. Sacrifice is simply killing a human life in order to gain anything. In the case of America we kill babies in the womb because we want sexual liberation along with personal and communal prosperity. That is the same reason why civilizations of the past participated in ritual child sacrifice. Inside the womb and outside the womb seems like an arbitrary dichotomy for two things that are otherwise equivalent.
So the morality of human sacrifice hinges on the question of its effectiveness? Is that what you are saying?
How many people in these types of situations want to kill themselves? I don't doubt that life can be hard and difficult, but you don't see people jumping off of bridges in droves in these types of societies. Most of them would rather live.
Art is life itself.
Why is it more or less arbitrary than other definitions? Are eggs and sperm only "human life" when combined, and at the second they do? Remembering that ~60% of federalized eggs don't even implant, does THAT count as murder?
Almost any answer you give will seem pretty arbitrary.
But, I'm still more interested in how you're defining it as "bad" if it helps prosperity. If God created the universe, then why would he make an evil act overall beneficial to those performing it? If it's some other non-God entity that's granting this prosperity, then that raises other interesting theological questions.
On the assumption that only divine entities can grant prosperity, of course.
So dependence and/or independence is the criteria for whether or not killing is justifiable? That seems a little backwards don't you think? I would think that we have the greatest duty to defend and stand up for the weakest people in our society rather than turn the other way while someone else exterminates them.
If a man falls over and is having a heart attack while you are on your way to work and no one is around but you and you walk away because you choose the right to have control over your body is that justifiable? At that point he is dependent on your body doing certain things if he is going to live. The argument you are making simply does not hold up when we divorce abortion from the issue.
If you walked away and let the man die you'd be on trial and looking at jail time. At least in that case you only killed the man by omission, which is unlike what happens in the case of an abortion.
Well, that would just sound like a miscarriage - unless you're saying that the parents-to-be did something to intentionally prevent implantation?*
Also, I DO feel that the genetic uniqueness standard is, at least, a LITTLE less subjective than the vast array of standards proposed by pro-choice advocates.
Actually, no, not at all. If you walked away nothing would happen. If you tried to help him, but he died, you might be facing a lawsuit if he has litigious family members.
EDIT: Before someone claims that I'm ignorant, I am aware that some forms of contraception do prevent implantation. Don't try that snarky BS with me. All that would need to happen in this hypothetical abortion-is-murder scenario is that some contraceptives would be banned.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Ok so you call it a "miscarriage". A miscarriage would essentially be the unintended/accidental death of the fetus, right? Now, we do expect parents to protect their children from "accidents"; failure to do so is charged as parental negligence. So it kind of follows that parents are obligated to take measures to protect their fetus from miscarriages. What measures are we going to require people to take to guard against these miscarriages?
As I've obviously not explained one or more points, the definition of dependent I use for fetuses means "incapable of living if removed from flesh" rather than "an individual who may die if aid is not provided". If it's part of a person's body, they have control over it. If it's an individual, social morals become relevant.
I don't get to use you to grow Xenomorphs, you don't get to force people to keep pregnancies.
@Ladyluck: doesn't Texas have some creepy law involving miscarriages?
Art is life itself.
Are you suggesting that controlling implantation is that trivial? Would you, for example, hold parents responsible if a satellite dropped onto their child at the park? You're playing semantics here and you've got no real argument. Please, enlighten me as to what medically verified measures you can take to ensure that implantation occurs, and how it would even be possible to determine if an implantation failed.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.