• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump to expand Hobby Lobby to "moral convictions"

riscdeac said:
Go figure. Karlllllllll lol
Click to expand...

It's perfectly logical. They talked about educating people and making contraceptives available versus Republicans killing sex education with the exception teaching "abstinence" and taking away contraceptives. Which way do you think will work?
 
riscdeac said:
It has been a hot political issue in the past also.

What's with Christians around here? Is everybody an atheist? Jewish? Muslim?
Click to expand...

I'm a Christian. I'm against abortion but understand that there are circumstances in which that may be the best option of a series of bad options available. I also don't believe that the government should pass laws based around religion. The founding fathers figured out almost 250 years ago that that's a terrible idea.

As a Christian, I'm embarrassed when people trot out the bible to justify their own bigotry. It's very easy to point to parts of the bible, specifically regarding homosexuality, and say, "See! God says gays are bad!". But the bible, particularly the old testament, is filled with antiquated practices. Abraham had a wife and concubine. Slavery was commonplace and accepted. There were very specific rules about what you could eat and how it should be prepared and when and how to properly enter and act in a place of worship. None of these things are okay today. So when people quote Leviticus as to why it's okay to not tolerate gays, I ask them if they've read the rest of Leviticus and if they follow all the rules laid out in the Leviticus. If you haven't read Leviticus, the entire chapter is basically a series of rules and rituals that the Israelites were supposed to follow and obey and what the punishments were if certain rules were broken. It's kind of dry and really hard to read in a modern world because there's a lot of focus on animal preparation and stuff which isn't really applicable anymore.

I'm a programmer and not very articulate but that's where I stand on things.
 
So as long as a person is not conscious it's OK to off 'em? I'm sure not. So it's that they have achieved consciousness at some point and are now or are expected to regain consciousness in the future? And what is consciousness and how do we know it's not possessed in some real sense by other animals? Pretty shaky argument IMO.

No, I think we value human life above other life mainly because it's human. And human life indeed begins at conception.

Nonetheless, these are complex considerations. Certainly a mother has far more developed sentience, self understanding, etc. compared to a fetus...or a newborn baby. And some of how we often value life is related to its potential to become, progress, thrive etc. So we might be far more eager to save or sustain the life of a babbling baby than a babbling 88 year old with dementia. Perhaps in the latter case we might have insight into that person's own preferences or wishes, but in the former we typically assume it's the right thing to care for and sustain the babbler.

Anyhow, arguments to avoid abortion are not merely religious. There are "pro-life" humanists and atheists who make a variety of "pro-life" arguments.

Having said all that, prescription medications and surgical procedures certainly are rightly considered to be "healthcare", whether they are covered by insurance or not. And if we're arguing about what "should" be covered or "should be" optional to cover we're necessarily into an ethical or moral arena though not exclusively so. All without the need for religious or theological considerations.

I think it's easier to allow for religious institutions to, with full disclosure before hiring, the freedom to use theological considerations to influence their employee benefits. Less so non-religious employers.
 
ConnorEl said:
So as long as a person is not conscious it's OK to off 'em? I'm sure not. So it's that they have achieved consciousness at some point and are now or are expected to regain consciousness in the future? And what is consciousness and how do we know it's not possessed in some real sense by other animals? Pretty shaky argument IMO.

No, I think we value human life above other life mainly because it's human. And human life indeed begins at conception.
Click to expand...

You got it. Life, at least life worth protecting, begins once a being becomes conscious (or at least has the present ability to become conscious) and ends when a being loses consciousness with no expectation that it will regain consciousness.

Consciousness is certainly possessed in one form or another by other animals. This is the reason it's a crime to abuse certain animals. Consciousness is simply the ability to have a felt experience. A dog experiences life whereas a dogwood tree does not.

Self awareness is the prerequisite for personhood. This is what we value in humanity, it's the only way we are able to value anything at all. It is the essential element to human existence and places us in a different category of living beings than other animals. I won't rule out the possibility that other mammals (such as certain apes) have self awareness but I'm positive a fetus does not.

I'm willing to listen to arguments as to why human life scientifically incapable of consciousness is worth protecting but I will summarily dismiss any argument that assigns such life personhood.
 
RChildress107 said:
Fair enough. Not to quibble but I believe life begins at conception too. I just view that life as akin to plant life or lower forms of unconscious animal life until the fetus is born.

There is a reason humans assign a different moral status to themselves than other animals. And a reason we assign a different moral status to certain mammals than say fish.

That moral status is connected to consciousness or self awareness. Not life, not a heartbeat, not movement, not a response to stimuli, but consciousness. I see know reason to assign a moral status to a fetus on an entirely different basis, though I'd be interested to hear arguments for why we should.
Click to expand...

Is there consciousness before birth? An interesting question.
 
sailordeac said:
Is there consciousness before birth? An interesting question.
Click to expand...

All evidence points to No. The brain structure to support consciousness is present somewhere around 28 weeks I think but it takes the rush of chemicals to the brain and sufficient oxygen to induce consciousness.

While I personally would set birth as the standard, I'm fine limiting abortions after 28 weeks to appease those that are concerned the fetus will experience pain during the procedure. I'm not willing to appease people with beliefs contrary to science though.
 
Sure, if you so define personhood as you do then have at them fetuses.

Otoh, the argument runs that an embryo or fetus represent the earliest stages of human life...the life of a human (being?!). At its most vulnerable and therefore most in need of protection and sustaining. And that in the ordinary course, most will become "persons" by even your definition soon enough.

Personhood can and has been variously defined in diverse times and places. And always to the detriment of those denied the moniker. And to the advantage that of those making exclusive definitions.
 
If you define the beginning of life at any point other than the moment of conception, then you are running the risk of defining life to suit your convenience.

We don't always appreciate that St. Thomas Aquinas often sought compromise solutions to vexing intellectual problems. His thoughts on abortion are a case in point. He believed that soul enters the body 40 days after conception and that was the beginning of life.
 
ConnorEl said:
Sure, if you so define personhood as you do then have at them fetuses.

Otoh, the argument runs that an embryo or fetus represent the earliest stages of human life...the life of a human (being?!). At its most vulnerable and therefore most in need of protection and sustaining. And that in the ordinary course, most will become "persons" by even your definition soon enough.

Personhood can and has been variously defined in diverse times and places. And always to the detriment of those denied the moniker. And to the advantage that of those making exclusive definitions.
Click to expand...

If you want to make an argument that a fetus should be protected from conception due to potential personhood that's fine. That's a coherent argument. Or if you believe that all life is sacred and worth protecting, including plants and animals that's fine too.

But I have yet to hear a coherent definition of "person" that isn't tied to consciousness or self awareness. If you think you have feel free to share and defend it.
 
How early can you start a life insurance policy for someone?
 
sailordeac said:
If you define the beginning of life at any point other than the moment of conception, then you are running the risk of defining life to suit your convenience.

We don't always appreciate that St. Thomas Aquinas often sought compromise solutions to vexing intellectual problems. His thoughts on abortion are a case in point. He believed that soul enters the body 40 days after conception and that was the beginning of life.
Click to expand...

I mentioned Aquinas' views earlier and think they are instructive on how misguided many Christian views and arguments on the subject are. Even Aquinas, without the benefit of modern science, was able to identify that personhood and the "soul" were inextricably intertwined AND that the "soul" was not present at conception. Aquinas, and Aristotle before him, identified enaoulment with "quickening" or movement in the womb that could be felt by the mother, which we now know happens around 16-18 weeks, not 40 days.

So if Christians want to oppose abortion prior to "ensoulment" (almost every conception of the soul involves some sort of consciousness) they should do so (and in fact for a long time did) rely on justifications other than personhood.
 
I am not arguing for any particular definition of personhood. Or consciousness. I will say that any such definitions tend to be more philosophical or legal than scientific. And typically involve significant portions that are arbitrary and subjective.

I am arguing that it's reasonable to consider that human life begins at conception. And that there are reasonable non-theological arguments that have been made that such life warrants protection. That's all.
 
The argument about Abortion is a tough one and really not described clearly in the Bible. Just for an honest debate on what is said in the Bible, here are some of the information that is Pro-Choice:


Life is described at first breath in many parts of the Bible (Genesis 2:7, Psalms 33:6, Ezekiel 37: 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, Job 34: 14-15, Isaiah 42:5)

Age of Vitality (earliest when a baby can live outside of host) is around 22-24 weeks. You could argue that life prior to Age of Vitality life is not possible and therefore Abortion should be permissible per the Bible. There are also mentions of Abortion in the Bible and that every woman that has cheated and is with child should have an Abortion, by a Priest. (Numbers 5:11-31). I would also argue that unborn children do not acquire original sin (Deuteronomy 1:39, Romans 5:12-13) and it is better for them to never enter life and rather be given eternal salvation.

In Exodus 21:22, it says that a living being is more important than a fetus: if a man causes a woman to miscarry, he should be fined — but if he kills the woman, he will be put to death.

I will throw this in here because this absolutely insane and horribly abused book of the Bible (Leviticus) is used against same sex couples, so clearly you must agree that babies have no value to God until that they are one month old (Leviticus 27).
 
ConnorEl said:
I am not arguing for any particular definition of personhood. Or consciousness. I will say that any such definitions tend to be more philosophical or legal than scientific. And typically involve significant portions that are arbitrary and subjective.

I am arguing that it's reasonable to consider that human life begins at conception. And that there are reasonable non-theological arguments that have been made that such life warrants protection. That's all.
Click to expand...

Fair enough on the second paragraph though I'd quibble on the "non-theological" part.

As to the first paragraph, while the definition of personhood is certainly a philosophical/legal question, any rational answer involves, at a minimum, some attachment to consciousness. While the nature of consciousness and self awareness is also a philosophical question, it must, at least in our physical world, have some connection to the brain. There science has been very helpful in identifying the minimum brain structure nexessary for consciousness.
 
RChildress107 said:
Fair enough on the second paragraph though I'd quibble on the "non-theological" part.

As to the first paragraph, while the definition of personhood is certainly a philosophical/legal question, any rational answer involves, at a minimum, some attachment to consciousness. While the nature of consciousness and self awareness is also a philosophical question, it must, at least in our physical world, have some connection to the brain. There science has been very helpful in identifying the minimum brain structure nexessary for consciousness.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with this. If the CNS doesn't begin forming until week 5 or 6 then how can their be any sort of consciousness?
 
Last edited:
RChildress107 said:
Fair enough on the second paragraph though I'd quibble on the "non-theological" part.

As to the first paragraph, while the definition of personhood is certainly a philosophical/legal question, any rational answer involves, at a minimum, some attachment to consciousness. While the nature of consciousness and self awareness is also a philosophical question, it must, at least in our physical world, have some connection to the brain. There science has been very helpful in identifying the minimum brain structure nexessary for consciousness.
Click to expand...

?

You think theology is necessary to value human life? Or for morality generally?

And I haven't dismissed scientific contributions towards understanding consciousness. Just irrelevant to the points I'm making.
 
Last edited:
warak said:
The argument about Abortion is a tough one and really not described clearly in the Bible. Just for an honest debate on what is said in the Bible, here are some of the information that is Pro-Choice:


Life is described at first breath in many parts of the Bible (Genesis 2:7, Psalms 33:6, Ezekiel 37: 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, Job 34: 14-15, Isaiah 42:5)

Age of Vitality (earliest when a baby can live outside of host) is around 22-24 weeks. You could argue that life prior to Age of Vitality life is not possible and therefore Abortion should be permissible per the Bible. There are also mentions of Abortion in the Bible and that every woman that has cheated and is with child should have an Abortion, by a Priest. (Numbers 5:11-31). I would also argue that unborn children do not acquire original sin (Deuteronomy 1:39, Romans 5:12-13) and it is better for them to never enter life and rather be given eternal salvation.

In Exodus 21:22, it says that a living being is more important than a fetus: if a man causes a woman to miscarry, he should be fined — but if he kills the woman, he will be put to death.

I will throw this in here because this absolutely insane and horribly abused book of the Bible (Leviticus) is used against same sex couples, so clearly you must agree that babies have no value to God until that they are one month old (Leviticus 27).
Click to expand...

Just curious, is there anyone on this thread invoking the Bible in favor of their argument?
 
sailordeac said:
Just curious, is there anyone on this thread invoking the Bible in favor of their argument?
Click to expand...

If you don't think that your "moral convictions" are not based on the Religion that you parents conscripted upon you (in most cases), then you are just making a point that you have no counterpoint in the argument. Also, if you are so obtuse that you cannot see that the Republicans are making legislation based on religion, Christianity mostly as noted throughout this thread, then you are not really paying attention. I don't think that is the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top