Can We have a Civil Discussion about Abortion?

[TSherbs]

Although it is a different topic, I believe that it is possible, for some, to have a civil discussion from opposite points of view about all manner of moral positions in both secular and religious issues, even the most mortal ones. I read the Catholic encyclical on the morality of war, for example, and found it sincere, respectful, and civil. I disagreed with several aspects of it, but I considered it a civil piece of discourse on a challenging ethical topic that contains polar positions that don't always get expressed in civil tones.

I do agree. I see several factors that complicate the discussion. Human sexuality, out of wedlock sex, teenage sex are the result of the sexual revolution, advances in birth control, and a more secular mindset. While extramarital sex is now accepted, even adultery, and many sexual partners, when a pregnancy occurs, it is like everyone is caught off guard. Without the marriage contract, both male and female roles are ignored or put out of mind.

Homosexuality among males is rarely discussed, but since we are discussing privacy and bodily control it's worth mentioning. I remember a lecture in the mid 1980's where promiscuity descriptions were defined. For heterosexual males greater than 25 sexual partners defined promiscuity. Among homosexual males greater than 500. I have not reviewed any recent numbers. Things may have changed, but the recent Monkey Pox outbreak among homosexuals is understandable. Is having many sexual partners a matter of control over one's body? Is it a matter of choice?

While the arguments are pro-female in the sense that she should have control over her body, she at the same time cannot say she had no control in having sex, rape and incest excluded of course. The male cannot plead guiltless and also his right to offspring is not even a consideration in these discussions. What he wants doesn't matter.

The physical and emotional effects of abortion are rarely discussed. What happens after an abortion? There is no way a woman or man can ever forget going through an abortion. There will be many "what if" moments, and guilt over the motivation to end the life of the child because of inconvenience, money, or other factors.

What is not helpful is the usual drivel heard from religious folk and the reason is they are no longer considered a moral center. They have lost their moral center and it is partly because of what @tsherbs shared about their confusion of what constitutes the gospel. This allows the secular mentality to flourish so that the whole conversation becomes about female privacy and control over her body. Plan Parenthood will not discuss post abortion effects or encourage keeping the child options.

Anyway, my position is the true gospel message, as @tsherb's link explained, is followed/accepted will provide a community and a moral center for many of human complexities. This is why I say that the church has lost its place and may never recover. Not until it removes the beam in its own eye can it expect to remove the speck in the eyes of its fellow human beings.

“Repent (change your mind) and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins _ (Peter said to those who had crucified Jesus), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And the fruit of that spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Notice it is fruit, not fruits. With these people become more civil. These are to be experienced in ones life. With these in place in a community a more empathetic (because they know they are not without sin) and later compassionate approach to abortion will take place. For me this is how Jesus was able to say, neither do I condemn you, go, sin no more. And what is sin if not missing Godly intent for humanity.

I have come to believe that the traditional Christian sense of "sin" is limited and errant. It is one of my major complaints against traditional Christian messaging and interpretation of these ideas. But then again, any definition of "sin" that relies on the idea of an external "God" above, beyond, or in any way separate from a human person will not resonate with me any longer. Sin, for me, is a condition of the spirit, not an action. "Harm" isn't *sin.* Harm is harm (and not a good thing!). But it isn't "sin."

[kazoolaw]

Kaz, I wonder if you would explain the tonal intent of the billboard post you made above?

Could you please elaborate, as I'd rather respond to your question, not what I think your question might mean.

[kazoolaw]

I have come to believe that the traditional Christian sense of "sin" is limited and errant. It is one of my major complaints against traditional Christian messaging and interpretation of these ideas. But then again, any definition of "sin" that relies on the idea of an external "God" above, beyond, or in any way separate from a human person will not resonate with me any longer. Sin, for me, is a condition of the spirit, not an action. "Harm" isn't *sin.* Harm is harm (and not a good thing!). But it isn't "sin."

Does understanding, as you do, that Christian doctrine is that Jesus is both God and man create a resonance with you?

[TSherbs]

Kaz, I wonder if you would explain the tonal intent of the billboard post you made above?

Could you please elaborate, as I'd rather respond to your question, not what I think your question might mean.

I meant, what tone did you mean to convey with your billboard post above? I was asking you to answer the question that I answered about my post that you quoted. You called it "glib." So I am asking you what tone you were trying to use with your post above.

[TSherbs]

I have come to believe that the traditional Christian sense of "sin" is limited and errant. It is one of my major complaints against traditional Christian messaging and interpretation of these ideas. But then again, any definition of "sin" that relies on the idea of an external "God" above, beyond, or in any way separate from a human person will not resonate with me any longer. Sin, for me, is a condition of the spirit, not an action. "Harm" isn't *sin.* Harm is harm (and not a good thing!). But it isn't "sin."

Does understanding, as you do, that Christian doctrine is that Jesus is both God and man create a resonance with you?

I'm not sure how you mean this. Are you as much "both God and man" as much as Jesus is/was? Is an athiest or Buddhist today as much "both God and man" as Jesus is/was? Or is Jesus a special case?

[Chuck Naill]

Although it is a different topic, I believe that it is possible, for some, to have a civil discussion from opposite points of view about all manner of moral positions in both secular and religious issues, even the most mortal ones. I read the Catholic encyclical on the morality of war, for example, and found it sincere, respectful, and civil. I disagreed with several aspects of it, but I considered it a civil piece of discourse on a challenging ethical topic that contains polar positions that don't always get expressed in civil tones.

I do agree. I see several factors that complicate the discussion. Human sexuality, out of wedlock sex, teenage sex are the result of the sexual revolution, advances in birth control, and a more secular mindset. While extramarital sex is now accepted, even adultery, and many sexual partners, when a pregnancy occurs, it is like everyone is caught off guard. Without the marriage contract, both male and female roles are ignored or put out of mind.

Homosexuality among males is rarely discussed, but since we are discussing privacy and bodily control it's worth mentioning. I remember a lecture in the mid 1980's where promiscuity descriptions were defined. For heterosexual males greater than 25 sexual partners defined promiscuity. Among homosexual males greater than 500. I have not reviewed any recent numbers. Things may have changed, but the recent Monkey Pox outbreak among homosexuals is understandable. Is having many sexual partners a matter of control over one's body? Is it a matter of choice?

While the arguments are pro-female in the sense that she should have control over her body, she at the same time cannot say she had no control in having sex, rape and incest excluded of course. The male cannot plead guiltless and also his right to offspring is not even a consideration in these discussions. What he wants doesn't matter.

The physical and emotional effects of abortion are rarely discussed. What happens after an abortion? There is no way a woman or man can ever forget going through an abortion. There will be many "what if" moments, and guilt over the motivation to end the life of the child because of inconvenience, money, or other factors.

What is not helpful is the usual drivel heard from religious folk and the reason is they are no longer considered a moral center. They have lost their moral center and it is partly because of what @tsherbs shared about their confusion of what constitutes the gospel. This allows the secular mentality to flourish so that the whole conversation becomes about female privacy and control over her body. Plan Parenthood will not discuss post abortion effects or encourage keeping the child options.

Anyway, my position is the true gospel message, as @tsherb's link explained, is followed/accepted will provide a community and a moral center for many of human complexities. This is why I say that the church has lost its place and may never recover. Not until it removes the beam in its own eye can it expect to remove the speck in the eyes of its fellow human beings.

“Repent (change your mind) and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins _ (Peter said to those who had crucified Jesus), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And the fruit of that spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Notice it is fruit, not fruits. With these people become more civil. These are to be experienced in ones life. With these in place in a community a more empathetic (because they know they are not without sin) and later compassionate approach to abortion will take place. For me this is how Jesus was able to say, neither do I condemn you, go, sin no more. And what is sin if not missing Godly intent for humanity.

I have come to believe that the traditional Christian sense of "sin" is limited and errant. It is one of my major complaints against traditional Christian messaging and interpretation of these ideas. But then again, any definition of "sin" that relies on the idea of an external "God" above, beyond, or in any way separate from a human person will not resonate with me any longer. Sin, for me, is a condition of the spirit, not an action. "Harm" isn't *sin.* Harm is harm (and not a good thing!). But it isn't "sin."

I am reading several leading voices of orthodox Christianity thought from the 19th and 20th centuries. What catches my attention is how diverse there opinions were and those opinions evolved or changed.

I think my experience has been if you belong to a group you must start out one way and stay that way. The thinkers didn’t do why should I?

[Chuck Naill]

@tsherbs, I am reading what C.S. Lewis thought about sin. He was influenced by Dante. Since we are discussing abortion and the nature of choice, I found this interesting.

"Lewis’s most powerful depiction of sin is The Great Divorce. It is tale rather than a work of realistic fiction, and it recounts a “dream” the narrator has about hell, heaven, and the nature of choice. The narrator sees a variety of sinners who have died unredeemed journeying from the Grey Town (a representation of hell) to the outskirts of heaven. These “Ghosts” are talked to by Solid People from heaven, and it seems that they are being given the opportunity to repent and to remain in heaven. But most of them cannot even recognize their sinfulness much less repent of it. What the narrator’s dream shows him is a reenactment of choices that had been made long ago—the choice of self and sin that is so deep and so defining that the gracious pleading of the Solid People cannot penetrate the bondage and blindness—at least in the case of most of them.

https://www.cslewis.com/spiritual-si...20sexual%20sin.

When abortion is illegal, there is no choice, you must keep the child, but if legal, the decision resides with one person which makes the result either life or death of a human being. It is illegal for me to shoot and kill someone, but if in a war, my killing is legal. I am not at fault (have not sinned) for killing an enemy of the US if i am under military operations. Anyway, this discussion has caused me to consider "choice".

[TSherbs]

Thanks, Chuck. For example, I do not think that "sin" is something that one can be "redeemed" of by an external agency (the traditional concept of "God"). There is no "grace" that is an action by any agent outside of the self. No trinity in the traditional sense, no God, no miracles (especially not in the traditional sense). We heal ourselves with the help of family and community or we do not heal at all. Prayers, confession, repentance do nothing (there is no externasl agency to actually communicate with) EXCEPT how they unlock the healing powers already within our consciousness and need for belonging and love (love for self, love for/from community).

[Chuck Naill]

I respect your opinion, Ted. I have never found healing to come from inside myself. I have benefited from authors and friends/teachers often, but I accept that it is my decision to listen and act.

[TSherbs]

Same to you, Chuck. We need to accept real transformation and growth and peace wherever we can find it.

[Chuck Naill]

True, Ted!

[kazoolaw]

Kaz, I wonder if you would explain the tonal intent of the billboard post you made above?

Could you please elaborate, as I'd rather respond to your question, not what I think your question might mean.

I meant, what tone did you mean to convey with your billboard post above? I was asking you to answer the question that I answered about my post that you quoted. You called it "glib." So I am asking you what tone you were trying to use with your post above.

As I understand your question, I had no "tonal intent." Advocating killing is advocating killing.

[TSherbs]

okay

What about my other question(s)?

[Chuck Naill]

Kaz, I wonder if you would explain the tonal intent of the billboard post you made above?

Could you please elaborate, as I'd rather respond to your question, not what I think your question might mean.

I meant, what tone did you mean to convey with your billboard post above? I was asking you to answer the question that I answered about my post that you quoted. You called it "glib." So I am asking you what tone you were trying to use with your post above.

As I understand your question, I had no "tonal intent." Advocating killing is advocating killing.

And being unmerciful is being unmerciful. You who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Chuck Naill]

Who is a modern day, alive, theologian thinker in America?? I cannot think of one.

[kazoolaw]

Kaz, I wonder if you would explain the tonal intent of the billboard post you made above?

Could you please elaborate, as I'd rather respond to your question, not what I think your question might mean.

I meant, what tone did you mean to convey with your billboard post above? I was asking you to answer the question that I answered about my post that you quoted. You called it "glib." So I am asking you what tone you were trying to use with your post above.

As I understand your question, I had no "tonal intent." Advocating killing is advocating killing.

And being unmerciful is being unmerciful. You who is without sin cast the first stone.

Are you talking about killing babies? If so, I agree.
Advocating killing, again unmerciful.
Saying advocating abortion is advocating killing is truthful.

[kazoolaw]

What about my other question(s)?

First, 443.

[TSherbs]

?? What does this mean?

[Chuck Naill]

Kaz, I wonder if you would explain the tonal intent of the billboard post you made above?

Could you please elaborate, as I'd rather respond to your question, not what I think your question might mean.

I meant, what tone did you mean to convey with your billboard post above? I was asking you to answer the question that I answered about my post that you quoted. You called it "glib." So I am asking you what tone you were trying to use with your post above.

As I understand your question, I had no "tonal intent." Advocating killing is advocating killing.

And being unmerciful is being unmerciful. You who is without sin cast the first stone.

Are you talking about killing babies? If so, I agree.
Advocating killing, again unmerciful.
Saying advocating abortion is advocating killing is truthful.

You don't appear to be able to discuss the complexities present in these discussions. Yes, ending human life is a part of the discussion, but not the whole.

Ted has been civil and asked you questions. As usual, your replies are not forthcoming. It makes trying to have a discussion unfruitful. Do you really want to discuss the issue, or do you have another motivation? Do you think you are influencing anyone to have the child? Does that matter? How would you respond if it was your pregnant daughter? Would it be, you are a murderer if you end the life? This is where mercy, empathy, and then compassion show their face.

Having an abortion is complex. Showing pictures of aborted babies doesn't address the root cause. Just as the Civil Rights movement became a moral movement, encouraging others to question their perceptions about in-utero development and the child's humanity is a moral decision. Not addressing these perceptions and just screaming "murderer" helps no one.

[TSherbs]

I have come to believe that the traditional Christian sense of "sin" is limited and errant. It is one of my major complaints against traditional Christian messaging and interpretation of these ideas. But then again, any definition of "sin" that relies on the idea of an external "God" above, beyond, or in any way separate from a human person will not resonate with me any longer. Sin, for me, is a condition of the spirit, not an action. "Harm" isn't *sin.* Harm is harm (and not a good thing!). But it isn't "sin."

Does understanding, as you do, that Christian doctrine is that Jesus is both God and man create a resonance with you?

I'm not sure how you mean this. Are you as much "both God and man" as much as Jesus is/was? Is an athiest or Buddhist today as much "both God and man" as Jesus is/was? Or is Jesus a special case?

Here is where I replied to post #443, if that is what you meant.