On Father’s Day Barack Obama delivered a stirring and inspiring speech about the importance of the father in the life of today’s children. While I appreciate and applaud the speech, many are pointing to other stances taken by Obama that they say do not square with his eloquent enjoinder to fathers.
Joshua Claybourn excerpts this from Obama’s speech:
Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today
that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and
honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are
teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are
examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many
fathers also are missing – missing from too many lives and too many
homes. . . And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.
He then raises an interesting point – "In light of the numerous recent moves toward homosexual marriages,
where does a lesbian couple with children fit into Obama’s worldview?"
Claybourn’s point is that for Obama if "every father" is critical to the foundation of a family and families are weaker when fathers are not present, how does that not then extend to lesbian couples? You can’t argue that on one hand fathers are integral to the success of a family, while on the other say that lesbian couples where there is no father present by definition are just as beneficial to the child.
The other quote that has been brought back to Obama’s attention is this:
We need fathers to recognize their responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.
Tony Perkins, President of FRC-Action, has put out a new ad which starts with the video of Sen. Obama saying those words. Perkins thanks Obama for his affirmation of fatherhood and then lowers the boom:
If, as you say, fatherhood begins at conception when does life begin?
How does Obama answer that question? It is like the other issue, stating the importance of "every father," it does not match with Obama’s voting record and past statements.
How can you say that men should recognize their responsibility, and by extension their fatherhood, begins at conception, but the life of the baby doesn’t begin until after birth? If abortion is acceptable and the "ending of a pregnancy" up until the moment the baby is born (even after if we count partial birth abortion) is a "right" to be protected, then men have no responsibility to anything until after a baby is born. Is that not the correct, logical extension of support for abortion?
There is no baby. There is no life. There is only a "fetus." What responsibility does anyone have to a "fetus?" The mother doesn’t have any. She can have it "withdrawn" basically any time she would like. The father has none. He doesn’t have a child because their is no life. You can’t make the argument that a "fetus" magically becomes a child when the mother wants it.
What if the dad never wants the child, as is sadly often the case? Does he not have the same right as the mother would? If she doesn’t want it, she can have it "removed." Can he not remove himself from the situation and assuage any guilt by saying, "It was never a child to me. I didn’t want it."
danielg has issued this challenge on numerous occasions and I’ll reissue it again. If life does not start at conception or even at the moment brain waves and/or a heartbeat begins, when does it scientifically start? It seems that those who so often scream the loudest for scientific proof in other areas, shy away from it the quickest when the discussion turns to the beginning of life.
It amazes me that those so enamored with hard, scientific facts in virtually every other area start to get vague and philosophical, even theological, when faced with this simple question – when does life begin?
"Seeker has issued this challenge on numerous occasions and I'll reissue it again."
We've already discussed this. I'll just cut and paste if you really are itching to know my opinion.
I tried to find it in recent discussions, but I couldn't. So, yeah, if you have answered it already, please paste away. I'll get back to this and everything else on Monday.
His problem, I think, is two fold.
First, these are complex issues that can't be addressed with one liners, one piece of legislation, or one idea.
Second, he is fighting the intellectual battle that every liberal has to fight – that of his ideas against the real world. It is a worthy saying "A neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality."
Liberal ideas are often mistaken, and don't work in the real world. So he can tout his unrealistic utopian ideas, but since many of us are wise enough to know that they don't work, and so is he, he is caught having to balance them with reality. Tough to do when you cling to wrong-headed ideas.
"Seeker has issued this challenge on numerous occasions and I'll reissue it again."
I answered this challenge but no reply from you yet Aaron.
Aaron?
Here's my question then Cin, why do you support the murder of a person? That's not hyperbole – that's straight from your response. You couched it in flowery terms of a difficult decision and personal rights, but that's what it comes down to.
You say that some point "around 28 weeks" a fetus becomes endowed (magically I guess) with the status of personhood. So let's say a pregnant woman wants to abort her baby that is 34 weeks old. Is that the murder of a person or just a difficult personal choice for the mother or both?
You bring up the issue of adulthood being at some unknown age, but we use 18 as a general guideline.
That is understandable since no radical change takes place in the physical or mental body of someone progressing from childhood to adulthood. Over time, yes, huge changes happen, but not one sudden change.
The more apt comparison is death. There's even a little wiggle room there with "brain dead" status and such, but on the whole we judge someone to be dead fairly obviously and completely scientific. We don't need deep discussions of philosophical states and lengthy treaties dealing with the issue.
I agree that we should teach our children good morals to avoid unwanted pregnancies and hopefully to prevent abortions. My insistence on this issue is not to imply that you enjoy the fact of abortions or that you don't view them as a difficult moral decision.
It is because you do view it as a difficult moral decision that I want to implore you to examine the situation more closely and dare I say it, more scientifically.
When we leave the idea for personhood up for debate, it usually ends with horrible consequences. Some say it begins at conception. Others say it begins at some point when they are toddlers. Who should we believe and why? Why should I believe your viewpoint that 28 weeks is the magic age?
Many people made similar arguments about slaves, ie 3/5 of a person. What Constitutional delegate John Rutledge of South Carolina said about slavery sounds eerily similar to the arguments of pro-choice people today. "Religion and humanity have nothing to do with the questions" of whether the Constitution should protect slavery – it was simply a question of property rights.
He was wrong and those who argue that is lawful and acceptable to kill an unborn child, even if they believe it to be a difficult moral decision, are wrong as well.
This is not to enter into the issues of the difficulties many women face with unwanted pregnancies or in the lack of responsibility many man show in supporting their children. Christians, who are often the strongest pro-life advocates, should also be the strongest advocate and helpmate of the women who are in difficult situations with a pregnancy. We have done a poor job in that respect.
"Here's my question then Cin, why do you support the murder of a person?"
Here's my question Aaron, why do you support child molestation? You haven't understood anything I said. It's like talking to a brick.
No, I understood what you said. I don't think you understood what you said. Here's why.
You said that an unborn baby becomes a person around 28 weeks, yet you still support a woman's right to abort (kill or murder) that person. Why is that?
"Why should I believe your viewpoint that 28 weeks is the magic age?"
You shouldn't because you misconstrued everything I've said. In point of fact, I was arguing the exact opposite. Damn it! I don't know. It could be 20 weeks. It could be 30. Who knows. It's not like it's some magical instant in time and BANG they are a person. No, my whole argument is that no one can tell exactly but you just glossed over that as if I'm saying Presto 28 weeks is the magic number. No, I said it's quite arbitrary. That's why I feel like I'm not actually having a conversation with you. Unless you can demonstrate that you can comprehend what I've said above and not twist it, I don't see the point in continuing. I tried to be very deliberate and articulate about my view but it still went totally over your head. GRRR!
Cin, not to be rude but you have an over inflated view of your intelligence if you think you went "over [my] head" with your response.
That's my whole point. If it is quite arbitrary, then who gets to decide. You say it is this age. I say another age. Some say after they become toddlers. Who should we go with? Why would we not go with the ones who say newborns are no different than preborn babies? If you want to throw your newborn in the trash can, go ahead. A minute ago, it was legal to kill them anyway.
The other point I was making was that you just for your personal opinion believe it to be around 28 weeks (for whatever reason), yet you also believe it is acceptable, though it is a difficult decision, for a woman to abort the unborn baby until birth. How do you personally reconcile those to positions. If an unborn baby is considered by you to be a person, why is it still acceptable by you for them to be aborted?
My argument is that the point should be scientifically established and it is ironic that people who champion science is so many other areas want to be suddenly philosophical when dealing with the beginning point of personhood.
When the life ends is death and the end of personhood. Correct? So why should the point when life begins not be the beginning of personhood? Or to seeker's stance, why should it not be when a heartbeat and brain waves begin? These are scientifically established markers that we can use. Why avoid those and open up the status of a life to a debate about personhood?
As I said earlier, our nation (and our world) does not have a good history of allowing the status of personhood to be negotiated – Jews, blacks, Native Americans, mentally handicapped, elderly, gays, women, Christians, unborn babies, etc. etc.
"I tried to be very deliberate and articulate about my view" as well, so I hope we can move forward with this. I honestly want to understand your reasoning because it seems so diametrically self opposed.
“You say it is this age. I say another age.”
No. This went over your head again. I DO NOT say it’s this age. What I said was I don’t know. 28 weeks is an estimate of personhood just as 18 years is just an estimate of adulthood. It could be 27 weeks. The moral significance of the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, increases as it develops just as the darkness increases on a white to black color gradient. There’s no way to pinpoint exactly when white turns to black on that gradient. There’s a lot of grey in between.
“Why would we not go with the ones who say newborns are no different than preborn babies?”
I already explained this to you…
“If you want to throw your newborn in the trash can, go ahead.”
Don’t be a fool! That is not my position. Stop misconstruing and twisting my words! I already said…
“…yet you also believe it is acceptable, though it is a difficult decision, for a woman to abort the unborn baby until birth.”
No. No. No. I DO NOT believe that. We don’t know exactly when it actually becomes a baby/person. There is no magical moment in time that it becomes a person anymore than there is a magical moment in time that an adolescent becomes an adult.
“My argument is that the point should be scientifically established…”
That’s silly. There is no way to scientifically establish when an adolescent becomes an adult. Adulthood is just a qualitative estimate of emotional and mental maturity. Personhood is the same. It’s a qualitative estimate of what a person is. I’m sorry to inform you that microscopic life is as low on the personhood scale as a newborn is on the adulthood scale. You can no more scientifically quantify a person at any point in time than you can scientifically quantify an adult at exactly 18 years old. It’s like asking science to determine how much you love someone. You can qualify it but not quantify it. At best, it’s an estimate…
Look at this picture Aaron. Tell me at what exact point does white turn into black?
"If your best guess is 28 weeks. My best guess is conception. Another's best guess is 2 years old. How do we determine between them?"
See, this is where you are being dense. Whether it's on purpose or if you're doing it unconsciously, you're prevaricating. I keep telling you, personhood is rather arbitrary but it's not some random guess. When I ask you the question "When does a child become an adult?" It's like you answering, using your own words, "If your best guess is 18 years. My best guess is at birth. Another's best guess is 65 years old. How do we determine between them?" Do you see now how nonsensical that response is? How impotent? How many times must I say the same thing over and over again? Why can't you understand my point? You don't have to agree with it but at least try to grasp it. Sigh. Aaron, I'm getting frustrated because, "what we've got here is failure to communicate." – Cool Hand Luke
Adulthood has qualities that we use as guidelines to determine when adulthood occurs. By the same token, personhood also has qualities that we use as guidelines to determine when personhood occurs. So, to argue that personhood occurs at conception is like arguing that adulthood occurs at birth. Untenable.
Cin, I guess I am just dense because you continually avoid my real questions and jump to other things were I seemingly misunderstand your positions.
I tried to get you to clarify it, but you refuse to do that instead relying on my supposed inability to understand your arguments. I'll remember that tactic next time, you disagree with me. ;)
So, to argue that personhood occurs at conception is like arguing that adulthood occurs at birth.
Here's where your comparison breaks down. Adulthood has some measure of scientific justification – brain development, etc. However there is no set point where everyone enters that stage, so we set the arbitrary age of 18. That is an accepted age by our culture and society.
For abortion, you refuse to use any scientific guidelines and you refuse to set some arbitrary age that would be established by our society.
That's the question I keep coming back to – where do we put it? You said 28 weeks earlier was your best guess, but then you refuse to be nailed down to that.
You can use absurd comparisons all you want, but that does nothing to explain your positions or communicate anything of value to me.
…personhood also has qualities that we use as guidelines to determine when personhood occurs.
Explain what those qualities are and then maybe we can get somewhere in this discussion.
See, that's where the problem lies. Different people use different qualities to define personhood. Where does that leave us? I would argue it leaves us at the position where we can change the definition to suit our current environment, which means we can redefine certain groups outside of the qualifications as we have done through out human existence.
For abortion, you refuse to use any scientific guidelines…
It's interesting how conservative Christians appeal to science when they see an advantage (eg, abortion) but ignore or ridicule it when it doesn't (eg, evolution, homosexuality). Double standard anyone?
…which means we can redefine certain groups outside of the qualifications as we have done through out human existence.
Including gays?
Louis, my whole point here has been that abortion advocates or those who would allow abortion as a right, have that double standard.
I have had scientific discussions of evolution here. Seeker has had scientific discussions of homosexuality here. I don't know of one time where the issue of abortion has been discussed scientifically, read all the comments in this thread and see for yourself.
Including gays?
Absolutely. I even mentioned gays along with numerous other groups who have been wrongly denied the status of personhood earlier in this comment thread.
Why, then, do you oppose the essential right to marriage for gays? It seems to me that "personhood" includes the right to marry the person of your choice. But your definition of marriage doesn't include gays. Or, perhaps, the right to serve in the armed forces, or to serve as ministers. Why is there a separate category marked "gay"?
Totally off topic for mine and Cin's debate, but here goes:
Personhood does not mean doing whatever you feel like doing. Someone who is blind may want to serve as a pilot, they can't. That doesn't make them less of a person. A pilot by definition has to see to fly. I may want to go into a women's restroom. Because I'm a man, I can't. I'm excluded from that.
I know both of those are particularly absurd comparisons, don't misunderstand the absurdity for my point – personhood is not a guarantee for everything that we may desire.
Marriage by definition is one man and one woman. That excludes all sorts of arrangements, but does not keep you or any other person from being in whatever relationship you would like. You are an independent person with freedom to associate as a an adult as you please, but individuals or groups of individuals are not free to dictate a structural change to the founding block of our society because they feel left out.
Marriage is a different substance. I'm not sure how much of a "right" it is. A person that grows old as a single person, cannot sue because his rights have been violated. Marriage was not a right granted to him by his status of being a person.
As far as ministers, in some cases gay people are ministers. My issue is that you shouldn't be a minister for a religion that disagrees with you. I disagree with Islam, I'm not an Islamic priest. Openly, practicing gay individuals disagree with a doctrine in traditional Christianity, they shouldn't be clergy in that system.
Notice, I did not say that gay people could not be Christian or even that a person who struggles with their sexual identity couldn't be clergy. Those who struggle with homosexuality should be treated like anyone else who struggle with issues that Christianity regard as sin. Churches and denominations should treat all who are open about their sin in the same way – loving to the individual, concerned about their healing and their spiritual growth, while gently removing them from their current leadership role should they have one.
Well said Aaron.
It is off topic in a way, but on topic on a way too. The right to live is inalienable, whereas the "right to have sex" is not inalienable. Sex is an act that is totally dependent on other people allowing you to do it with them. Meaning, obviously, sex is a privilege granted to us by other people.
Life should not be a privilege granted to us by other people, once it starts, but a right, according to our laws and common sense.
So it does sorta fit the topic, because this is what people are doing when they have abortions, especially late abortions or even just killing their babies when they give birth to them: Their privilege to have sex supersedes their baby's right to life…
People know there are many consequences to having sex. It is like driving. You get in a car, you are taking a chance of having a wreck. You have sex with the opposite sex, you are taking a chance at getting pregnant. You must legally have insurance to cover the other person in your car accident, or pay for it out of your pocket, or go to jail. Why should you not legally be held responsible for your pregnancy or the pregnancy you cause, even if by accident.
Since a pregnancy is the start of another human, that human should have just as many rights as other humans. Whether they were an accident or not.
—————————————————–
Sorry, I had to put my two cents in. You can just read it and move on. I am having puter problems, and won't be able to be fully involved in a good debate ;)
Aaron last post was awesome without mine, but I did want to add my little bit ;) Thanks
You guys are so smug: you've got yours, so who cares about those "others"? You make an excellent argument against your religion.
“Adulthood has some measure of scientific justification – brain development, etc.:
No, not brain development. What I said about adulthood is: “The age is simply an indicator of adulthood. In reality, adulthood is not a function of age but of emotional maturity… and how in the world can we measure that for each individual? We can’t. 18 is the age where one can sign up and die for their country, the age of consent. 18 is a rather arbitrary age though, don’t you think? In some countries its 16 and in others it’s 21.” There’s nothing quantitative about adulthood either. It’s qualitative and arbitrary though not completely random. You keep missing the point.
Here’s a question I have for you Aaron. What is the difference between the word “human” and the word “person?” Mind you, there are differences. That’s why we have different words for them.
You guys are so smug.
What did I say that was smug. You disagreed with me and my reasoning in defense of traditional marriage. That has nothing to do with smugness. As I wrote those word "smug" was not what I was feeling. It was pain and disappointment for you, actually. You will assume and assign whatever motivations that you desire, but I will assert that smugness is not one for me.
Cin, again you want to argue semantics and continue to say that I'm missing the point, while refusing to answer anything I say.
To continue with your illustration – our country has established 18 as the age for adulthood, at what age should our country establish personhood? We have to do it at some point. Right now it is birth, you've said that is too late. It must be some age, we can't pass laws based on someone's "feeling" about what personhood might be today.
That goes back to my earlier point. You say birth is too late to establish personhood, yet you seemingly agree with legislation which does just that. You also have yet to say you disagree with or would outlaw late-term abortions. Is that something we should do?
What is the difference between the word "human" and the word "person?" Mind you, there are differences. That's why we have different words for them.
I understand why you want to have a semantics debate. It allows things to stay in abstract and allows you to avoid committing to any real position.
For me this isn't about semantics. It's about unborn life being protected. But I'll answer your question with a question of my own – what's the difference between "right" and "correct?" We have different words so shouldn't they have distinct meanings. Obviously, they have essentially the same meanings because we have numerous verbal duplications. Two words with the virtually the same meaning is fairly common in the English language, as I'm sure you know.
In my understanding a person is what humans are. We have the status of personhood. A dead body is human, but it is not a person. A body part is "human," but not a person. You can describe something belonging to a person's body as human, but not as person.
You will assume and assign whatever motivations that you desire, but I will assert that smugness is not one for me.
I don't assume anything; I simply report how you come off. You may not like it, but that's how it is. You people come off as smug and self-righteous and callous and hypocritical. In addition, you are living proof that your religion is out of touch with reality and services the force I call the heterosexual dictatorship (actually it wasn't me: it was Gore Vidal). Since you are in the majority you think you get to define reality for everybody and you refuse to see things from anyone else's viewpoint because you feel you have a direct line to God's mind. You may wish to excuse yourself from bad intentions, but from where I stand you can't.
"A dead body is human, but it is not a person. A body part is "human," but not a person. You can describe something belonging to a person's body as human, but not as person."
Why? What sets these things apart? Dead bodies and body parts don't have a will of their own right? They are not sentient beings, right?
Why should we consider clumps of cells in a petri dish as the equivalent of full real people? I'll illustrate this point for you to prove that not even you think of blastocysts as persons though you hypocritically say you do.
A hospital is on fire. Inside one of the rooms there is a petri dish containing a blastocyst. In another room down the hall, there is a six year old girl. You have time to save only one of them. Which do you choose?
Can you honestly tell me you'd be torn by this decision? I think most sane people would choose the 6 year old girl every time, including you. But why? If you truly think of them both as people, by all rights we should have an agonizing decision on our hands. Should I save this person or that other person? But, this is really a no brainier. Only a scum bag would save the blastocysts in the petri dish and let the little girl scream in agony from the flames as he saves the precious "unborn baby" in the petri dish.
Since you are in the majority you think you get to define reality for everybody and you refuse to see things from anyone else's viewpoint because you feel you have a direct line to God's mind.
You know for a fact that is nothing but stereotypes talking. I have changed my mind here and I have weighed your opinion and others.
I don't feel I have a direct line to God anymore than others. God is open to anyone who will seek. He says if you seek you will find.
My opinion has nothing to do with the majority, in fact I am under the opinion that I will not be in the majority much longer. The point is turned around to you though. Simply because you are the minority, you do not get to ram your point of view on everyone else.
Cin, once again I will answer your hypothesis with one of my own.
If you were in a burning hospital and you were forced to choose between your family member or a convicted rapist, who would you save?
Does your saving your family member (I can only assume that you would choose them) mean that the convicted rapist is a non person? Does your saving one lessen the personhood of the other?
The situation could even be someone you know and love versus someone you have never met. Our choosing to save one does nothing to negate the personhood of the other.
As to my choice, of course I choose the six year old little girl. I have a six year old son of my own. I know all of the emotional ties that come with having a six year old. The parents of the "blastocyst" do not share as much connection yet with their child.
But that does raise a question – why do women (and men) mourn when they have a miscarriage? Why should it matter especially if it was early on? They do mourn – significantly. I know several friends who have went through miscarriages. They grieve for those lost children that they never had the opportunity to meet, even if they lost them very early.
The issue of petri dish blastocysts as you call them do raise some ethical and moral questions, but lets try not to cloud the issue of personhood of a baby developing in their mother's womb. We can move on to those later.
As I continue to answer your points and questions, I'm still waiting for you to answer mine. Legally when should we establish personhood or at least when should an unborn baby be legally protected against harm? If you say before birth, does that mean you will support legislation that outlaws late term abortions?
“If you were in a burning hospital and you were forced to choose between your family member or a convicted rapist, who would you save?”
Apples and Oranges.
Apple: I’d save the six year old because she is a person and the blastocyst in the petri dish is not. That’s why you’d save the six year old as well. Even if there were 10 blastocysts in the petri dish you’d save the six year old instead. Why? Because they aren’t real people yet. The six year old is. Are you seriously going to save the 10 blastocysts in the petri dish over the girl? I think only a scumbag would do so. Your emotional attachment rebuttal falls short now. 10 five day old strangers vs. 1 six year old stranger.
Orange: There is no question that the family member and the convicted rapist are both persons.
“But that does raise a question – why do women (and men) mourn when they have a miscarriage?”
They don’t if it’s a blastocyst. In fact, many take the morning after pill. They mourn when it’s late term. Remember what I said earlier?
“It gains moral significance as it develops, in my view. As the pregnancy progresses, it becomes more and more of an emotional and moral dilemma. I don’t really have many qualms about the “morning after pill” for example, as compared to an abortion at 20 weeks, which is very serious.”
Also, there are millions of women have miscarriages and they don’t even realize that the zygote never attached itself to the uterine wall and was expelled. And even if they did realize it, do they mourn for 2 cells? No, of course not.
“The issue of petri dish blastocysts as you call them do raise some ethical and moral questions, but lets try not to cloud the issue of personhood of a baby developing in their mother’s womb.”
I’m not clouding it because personhood at conception is YOUR stance. I’m with you regarding the issue of an actual baby developing in a mother’s womb…
“As the pregnancy progresses, it becomes more and more of an emotional and moral dilemma. I don’t really have many qualms about the “morning after pill” for example, as compared to an abortion at 20 weeks, which is very serious. So, what I am hoping you take away from this post is that though I might not want women to have late term abortions, I believe very strongly that’s it’s their choice alone, and not the government’s, to have one.”
“Legally when should we establish personhood or at least when should an unborn baby be legally protected against harm?”
If you asked me, “Legally when should we establish adulthood” and I’ve said this a million times to you, I’d say I don’t know. I can only make an informed but arbitrary guess. 16? 21? 18? I’d say 20 but if you feel 17 makes more sense, I’m okay with that too. Just as long as you don’t say something silly like adulthood occurs at birth.
Now I’ll answer the same way for personhood. I don’t know. I can only make an informed but arbitrary guess. 20 weeks? 25 weeks? 30 weeks? I’d say 28 weeks but if you feel 24 weeks makes more sense, I’m okay with that too. Just as long as you don’t say something silly like personhood occurs at conception.
“If you say before birth, does that mean you will support legislation that outlaws late term abortions?”
Yes. Late term being some time around 28 weeks? The exceptions would be if the mother’s life is in danger or something like an 11 year old being raped by a relative.
Now, you haven’t answered my questions. You said, “A dead body is human, but it is not a person. A body part is “human,” but not a person. You can describe something belonging to a person’s body as human, but not as person.”
Why? What sets these things apart? Dead bodies and body parts don’t have a will of their own right? They are not sentient beings, right?
Why should we consider clumps of cells in a petri dish as the equivalent of full real people like in my analogy of a six year old girls vs. a six cell microscopic blastocyst? People will choose the girl every single time because there is no dilemma here, she’s a person and the blastocyst is not. Why do you think they are both people?
Why? What sets these things apart?
They are not sentient and have no potential to become that way. A dead body is gone. A body part is merely a piece of a body that carries no moral weight.
Dead bodies and body parts don't have a will of their own right?
You do realize that a majority of evolutionary scientist and philosophers would argue the same thing for persons. They would argue against the concept of personhood all together. I can provide quotes if you'd like, but being as familiar as you are with their work I don't think I have to.
So at that point, why should we care about the blastocyst or the 6 year old since none of us have free will anyway?
Why do you think they are both people?
Because I've never seen any evidence that they both are not. All you have done is present people's common attitude toward one as compared to the other. You say my comparison is apples vs. oranges, but I think it is valid.
In the 1800's and even 1900's the common attitude was that black people were not persons or at least not whole persons. If you asked a white person in the 1800's to choose between a white person and a black person, they would argue that only a "scum bag" would choose the black person.
The perception of individuals, even of the majority, should not determine or have any bearing on who should be recognized as a person. I think Louis and others from different groups can share as to why that is not a smart idea.
…or something like an 11 year old being raped by a relative.
I do have a question with this. Why does the rape negate the personhood of the child? I'm not arguing against the heinousness of the crime. The prep should be prosecuted as severely as possible (death penalty anyone?), but how does that change your opinion over whether the unborn child is a person? If you believe a 28 week old is a person, how does the reason of conception change that opinion? Is it the unborn child's fault somehow?
And even if they did realize it, do they mourn for 2 cells? No, of course not.
Do you actually know women who have had miscarriages, even early ones? I don't think it is possible for you to make such a callous statement if you actually knew some. I can introduce to some if you'd like. They'll tell you that they mourn. Maybe in a different way than I would for my born children, but they mourn over the lost opportunity to meet and what could have been just like any lost loved one and lost relationship.
"Even if there were 10 blastocysts in the petri dish you'd save the six year old instead. Why? Because they aren't real people yet. The six year old is. Are you seriously going to save the 10 blastocysts in the petri dish over the girl? I think only a scumbag would do so."
Now, you tell me that you consider the 10 microscopic blastocysts in the petri dish as real people. Yet you'd still save the six year old girl instead and let the 10 blastocysts/people die. Why would you do that Aaron? Surely if you practice what you preach you'd save the petri dish with the 10 microscopic people and let the 6 year old girl scream in agony in the flames.
"Why does the rape negate the personhood of the child?"
Where did I say that it did? Don't misconstrue what I've said.
Why would you save the six year old instead off the 10 blastocysts in the petri dish? Stop being a hypocrite and practice what you preach. If you are true to your convictions, you'd save 10 microscopic people and let the poor 6 year old burn to death because the lives of 10 should take precedence over the life of one.
I'd save thee 6 year old over the petri dish "people" every time. Unlike you, I walk the walk, not just talk the talk. The blastocysts in the petri dish are not real people yet. The 6 year old girl is. It's a no-brainer.
Cin, I’ve tried to remain as calm and as rational in this debate as much as possible. It is odd that you are the one who is injecting language like “scum bag” and “scream in agony in flames.” Trying to emotionally charge the discussion.
Surely if you practice what you preach you’d save the petri dish with the 10 microscopic people and let the 6 year old girl scream in agony in the flames.
Surely you would save the 10 strangers not your own family member. Surely you would save the 10 rapist and not the six year old girl. Do you save two six year old girls or two six year old boys? What does any of that matter?
I have already dismantled this argument and you refuse to answer or respond to my answer. The reaction or perception of people, including you and me, should not be allowed to determine the personhood of someone else.
Again, ask any one who is a part of a people group that was recently denied personhood if they believe that. Ask the individuals who have survived abortion. Ask the children who were “snowflake babies.”
What you are arguing for is to hold the status for personhood up to a popular vote, that the person who would hypothetically be saved in a horrible scenario is the one who has the most value as a person. I don’t believe that.
Where did I say that it did? Don’t misconstrue what I’ve said.
You said that you would make an exception and allow a late term abortion for an 11 year old girl who was raped by a relative. You’ve also said that you believe late term abortions to be wrong because personhood starts sometime around there. So does the rape being the cause of the pregnancy negate the personhood of the late term unborn baby?
Why do you once again ignore all the other points? Could I fall back on the silly gamer language or shall we continue this debate like adults and address each of the points that the other one makes?
You never answered this question: Why would you save the six year old instead off the 10 blastocysts in the petri dish?
"I have already dismantled this argument"
You never understood my argument. For example, you just respond with irrelevant digressions. You ask, "Does the rape being the cause of the pregnancy negate the personhood of the late term unborn baby?" What? Huh? I never said that. Where do you come up with this stuff? I hate having to constantly think for you and explain every little detail instead of you filling it in for yourself.
No, rape being the cause of pregnancy does not negate personhood. How is that even possible? How does the mother's life being in danger negate personhood? It doesn't. In these cases it's the mother's choice to choose between her life and the baby's life.
I don't answer stuff like this because it's just completely irrelevant to the question I asked you at the beginning of the post. You agree with me that someone who saves the blastocysts in the Petri Dish is a scumbag. You'd save the girl yourself. Why?
"Scream in agony" is supposed to drive the point home to you that unlike the blastocysts in the petri dish, the six year old girl can feel herself getting burned to death but I guess that gets lost when you're talking to a brick.
Aaron, I'm getting really frustrated that you are not catching any of this. So, sorry for that. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you. What is it you don't get? You get the adulthood, personhood, color gradient, relationship right?
"Surely you would save the 10 rapist and not the six year old girl."
Apples and oranges. This is not a question of personhood like the nondescript six year old girl and the 10 blastocysts are. Your scenario is a question of character not personhood. Clearly the rapists and the girl are people. In the petri dish vs. girl scenario we are making a decision based on the personhood the cells in the petri dish vs. the life of a six year old girl. In the rapists vs. girl scenario, both are clearly people, it's not a question of personhood at all. It's a question of do I really want to save the lives of 10 rapists instead of a little girl? No personhood involved. If it was 10 nondescript people vs. 1 girl then save the 10 people. The two scenarios are apples and oranges. I already explained this to you, damn it. now, please answer the question I posed to you at the top of this post.
"Could I fall back on the silly gamer language or shall we continue this debate like adults and address each of the points that the other one makes?"
Start by answering my question. "PWNED" was my attempt at lightening the conversation. It's meant to be ridiculous but you took it seriously. Even Seeker took it as it was meant. You didn't. Stop being so sensitive… and in this discussion, thick headed! :)
Aaron wrote:
Simply because you are the minority, you do not get to ram your point of view on everyone else.
What astounds me is that my desire to be able to legitimately marry my life-partner – my soul mate – is somehow ramming my "point of view" down your throat. This is what I mean by your smugness and callousness. You've got yours: your little family, legal protections for your family, social support for your family -everything a marriage license enables you to enjoy. And yet when I seek the same thing – when I seek equal rights as an American citizen – somehow this is ramming my viewpoint down your throat!
Have you, at long last sir, no decency at all? What is the matter with you, anyway?
It's just amazing how religion can turn otherwise decent and intelligent people into *ssholes and bigots. It's time you religionists learn that you don't get to impose your religious superstitions on everybody.
In these cases it's the mother's choice to choose between her life and the baby's life.
Agreed when we are talking about life of the mother, but you just said the girl was raped not that she would die if she did not have the abortion.
You'd save the girl yourself. Why?
The same reason, I would allow for abortion in cases of the life of the mother – a choice between persons must be made.
I've tried to make this argument in different ways but it doesn't seem to be getting across. Simply choosing one over another does not negate or establish the personhood of one or the other. If I choose the petri dish, that wouldn't make the little girl any less of a person. Neither does choosing the little girl make the tiny, growing persons less.
I understand that you don't agree with me on that, but I'm not sure why you refuse to believe me or accept my answer to the question.
Cin, you've yet to answer my question about why we should allow for personhood to be determined by a popular vote (or choice in a burning fire)? Most white people in the early 1900's wouldn't have chose 10 black people over one white person. That doesn't make a case either way for the personhood of any of them.
I know you will argue that everyone involved in that situation is a person, whereas in your dilemma they are not. But you have set up circular reasoning.
Your situation is correct because you deem it to be so. Those in the petri dish cannot be people because you have already determined them not to be so. Any comparison I make is not going to be accepted by you because you have already established the lines of reality you will accept.
We can't debate the personhood of those in the petri dish because you've already established in your head that they are not persons, so you cast aside any reference to them being such. It's hard to argue or defend my position when you don't allow it to be a legitimate position.
Honestly, I don't think your position is correct or legitimate, but I accept it as your rational position so that we can have a fair discussion on the ideas. We can't move forward at all, if you won't make the same allowance.
Louis, my language though not exact was inspired by your rant toward my position on the issue.
I don't feel (never have felt) that the vast majority of gay people (including yourself) have any other desire in the marriage debate than to establish permanent relationships with those they love.
What I was trying to illustrate poorly was that while you say simply because I am in the majority I should not have the right to limit your freedoms, the same applies to you in the minority. You don't automatically have the right, simply because of your minority status, to change the definition of marriage for everyone else in our nation.
It has nothing to do with "I've got mine." I would hold the same position (have held the same position) whether I was single, married, childless, with children, etc. My particular station in life has not and will not determine what I believe to be right.
You also continue to lump everyone together so you can make broader, grander rants and injustice against anyone who disagrees with you or whom you think may disagree with you. I've told you before that I think gay couples (and other pairs of people) should be able to secure some type of legal protections and rights similar to those in marriage – visitation, wills, etc.
But I have also maintained that marriage itself should not be furthered weakened. As you have so aptly pointed out divorce has made a mockery and a mess of the institution and the vast majority of family advocates and Christians have done a poor job speaking out against and working against divorce. Having said that, the solution to that is not to further weaken the institution by changing yet another part of the definition.
No, it will not, as the hyperbole argument goes, do anything to my marriage personally. However, it will weaken the institution further so that it will be even more damaged and less likely to be a stable part of our society when my sons become old enough to become married, if not them, then my grandchildren. Just as divorce from the past has harmed marriage today, further redefinitions will do the same in the future.
None of this however, to get back to the point of the post, does anything to negate the personhood of gay people or the fact that in the Christian worldview you and everyone else are created in God's image and worthy of protecting and valuing from the moment of conception.
I don't think I was "ranting," but I'll limit my response to two brief points:
1. I don't think allowing gays to marry weakens the insitution at all. In fact, my contention is that it strengthens it. If marriage is being weakened, it is the result of several other factors.
2. I don't think there is a "definition" of marriage. There is a conventional view of marriage, but it has changed over the centuries. Please show me where this definition resides – objectively – and we can examine it together.
"Agreed when we are talking about life of the mother, but you just said the girl was raped not that she would die if she did not have the abortion."
She's 11 years old. A child who was raped by a family member. It's not her responsibility to have that child. Agreed? It's not ethical to force and 11 year old rape victim to have a baby. She has no obligation to bring that child to term as I have no obligation to save someone's life if I don't want to.
"You'd save the girl yourself. Why? The same reason, I would allow for abortion in cases of the life of the mother – a choice between persons must be made."
It makes no sense that you'd save the girl instead of the 10 "people" who live in the petri dish. Why? Explain why you'd 1 life over 10 other "lives."
"Most white people in the early 1900's wouldn't have chose 10 black people over one white person."
Racism is not the topic. You are not a racist Aaron. Popular vote is not the topic as I'm asking you what you would do, personally. You see, real people don't live in petri dishes. You know this. Real people think and feel, unlike the "people" who you think live in the petri dish. So, why do you choose to save the 6 year old girl instead of the 10 other "people." "People" in quotes. It makes no sense for you to choose the life of the nondescript girl over the lives of 10 other nondescript people unless you believe that the girl's life is more important. Why do you choose her? Why is her life more important than the other 10 in the petri dish?
Why Aaron?
Hi Louis:
1. I don't think allowing gays to marry weakens the insitution at all. In fact, my contention is that it strengthens it. If marriage is being weakened, it is the result of several other factors.
I agree completely. The fact is, my heterosexual marriage cannot be weakened by someone ELSE'S relationship.
2. I don't think there is a "definition" of marriage. There is a conventional view of marriage, but it has changed over the centuries. Please show me where this definition resides – objectively – and we can examine it together.
IMO it's WORDS that have definitions. When conservatives say that marriage is defined as a man with a woman, all they are really reporting is how THEY use the word. But that has nothing at all to do with whether or not two gay people ought to have the right to form a union that is analogous to heterosexual marriage.
This might be tangential to the question of what kind of marriage is legitimate, but I was wondering what you think of my opinion here: I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Government should limit itself to recognizing civil unions, allowing both gays and straights to register, leaving marriage as a private matter. If a person's church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage (or interracial marriage, or whatever) we can leave them to their bigotry.
your friend
Keith
keith,
Did you just say that gov should get out of the way of something??? WOW! Hell certainly has frozen over I am sure(No matter what Arch Bishop Gore states). :)
For this to happen, then the licensing process would have to be removed. By being licensed, you(anyone)are agreeing with the state that this is not a Right, but a privilege provided by the nanny.
Hi Ben:
Did you just say that gov should get out of the way of something??? WOW! Hell certainly has frozen over I am sure(No matter what Arch Bishop Gore states). :)
ha ha ha, very funny (grumble, grumble:-) There is a lot of stuff I think government ought to not involve itself in, of course, religion being one of them.
For this to happen, then the licensing process would have to be removed. By being licensed, you(anyone)are agreeing with the state that this is not a Right, but a privilege provided by the nanny.
What nanny?
your friend
Keith
"What nanny?" –>
Sure, homey, sure.
Yes, marriage is a civil contract anyway, with legal obligations and privileges. Whether to call it "civil union" or "marriage" or whatever is a matter of semantics and perception. If conservatives and religionists object to the word "marriage" then call it something else. Whatever the case, it should be be available to all, regardless of sex. To do otherwise violates the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
She has no obligation to bring that child to term as I have no obligation to save someone's life if I don't want to.
But that's not the question. The question is does she (or anyone else) have the right to end it.
You have said that late term unborn babies are persons and should be protected as such, so why does that change for the baby who happened to be conceived in a horrible manner? That unborn child did nothing (just as the mother did nothing) to deserve their fate?
That's condemning a person to die because their father is a scumbag pervert. Explain to me how that's fair. Why punish the unborn baby with the death penalty when you don't even believe their rapist father deserves that?
Why? Explain why you'd 1 life over 10 other "lives."
Cin, I realize you believe you have me over the barrel on this question, but I've already responded to it and answered it several different ways.
I've illustrated that in various different situations, you would choose the one over the 10. That does not negate the personhood of the 10, only the emotions and ideas of the rescuer.
I've demonstrated that it is dangerous to base the status of personhood on a hypothetical fire situation – unless you say that at several points in their existence Jews, gays, blacks, Native Americans, Christians and basically every possible minority around the world have only been "persons" when they would be rescued from the hypothetical fire.
But I understand why you want to press me on why I would save the 6 year old and not those in the dish. You believe intrinsically I don't really believe in the personhood of those in the petri dish and the hypothetical situation brings out my actual opinion.
I think that is a false presupposition for a number of reasons. First, much more than my thoughts on personhood are involved in my choosing to rescue someone. That decision is not based on any real logic, but pure emotion. As a father of a 6 year old, I would gravitate toward the small child regardless.
Then there are the unfortunate facts of the situation, not all of those in the petri dish will be allowed to live regardless of what I do. Many will be discarded, used for research, continuously frozen, etc.
Also, the parents of those in the petri dish while they would mourn the loss (if they knew of it and planned to have those children – and again if you say they don't I'd ask you to spend time around women who have lost children even early in pregnancy), they would not mourn like those who had raised the 6 year old and become completely emotionally attached and in love with their child.
But again, as I have continually stated, my decision, your decision or the decision of 100 people would not and could not determine who was a person.
If someone, for whatever emotionally reason, saved the petri dish, you would call them wretched, but their choice would not negate the personhood of the 6 year old. Neither would it establish the personhood of those in the dish.
My choice does not have the power to determine the personhood of someone else. Neither does yours.
I don't think allowing gays to marry weakens the insitution at all. In fact, my contention is that it strengthens it. If marriage is being weakened, it is the result of several other factors.
We agree that marriage is weakened by several other factors. I've never said anything different.
However we disagree that once again altering marriage to allow for cultural changes would do anything but weaken it. It is a shame that every study on the topic which comes out is biased one way or the other, so that there is not much to look at scientifically without accusations of the study being tainted.
But I do think if you look at those nations that have gay marriage also have very weak institutions of marriage characterized by high out of marriage birthrates, high divorce rates, high rates of cohabitation (which "divorce" at 2 to 3 times the rate), high rates of those never getting married and also a further expansion (or completely dissolution) of the definition of marriage.
But I do think if you look at those nations that have gay marriage also have very weak institutions of marriage…
Perhaps (does this include Canada and Massachusetts?), but you cannot legitimately conclude that legalization of gay marriage has anything to do with those problems you mention. There is no proof that gay marriage causes or contributes to heterosexual social problems. In other words, there is no cause and effect proven to be involved. In the U.S., the vast majority of states have no gay marriage (in fact, many of them outlaw it), and yet we also have all the social problems you mention (often in red, Bible-belt states). Blaming gays for such social dysfunction is unfair and without basis, and amounts to scapegoating. I can't see how our ardent desire to commit to another person and establish stable social bonds can do anything other than contribute to stabilizing marriage. From what I've observed, many gays value marriage far more than a whole lot of straights what with your levels of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, rates of adultery, etc.
I think your opposition can be traced directly back to your religion. In fact, though you don't say so, this "definition" you keep asserting lies only within revealed religion as it can't be found elsewhere as anything other than convention and tradition. Religious texts may control your life but not that of everyone else.
"The question is does she [the 11 year old Romanian girl incestuously raped and impregnated] (or anyone else) have the right to end it."
Yes. Absolutely.
"As a father of a 6 year old, I would gravitate toward the small child regardless."
Even though the 10 "babies" in the petri dish are ostensibly younger and smaller then the 6 year old girl? Why gravitate toward the one that looks more like your daughter in form, more like a person? What? Petri dish babies don't look as cute so you don't gravitate as much? It's because deep down in your heart, though you hypocritically (my opinion) don't admit it, you believe that the 6 year old is a person and the 10 "people" in the petri dish are NOT.
"Then there are the unfortunate facts of the situation, not all of those in the petri dish will be allowed to live regardless of what I do. Many will be discarded, used for research, continuously frozen, etc."
As with what you wrote about Jews, gays, blacks, Native Americans, Christians… irrelevant. In both cases, you personally don't question the personhood of minorities or petri dish denizens, correct? Assume all the 10 blastocysts in the petri dish will have a womb with a view. Do you let the girl die screaming and save the petri "people?"
"…and again if you say they don't I'd ask you to spend time around women who have lost children even early in pregnancy"
I have, but that's beside the point. We're talking about women who don't even realize that the zygote never attached itself to the uterine wall and was expelled naturally. Remember, the topic is personhood at conception not early in pregnancy. Petri dish people are not carried in the womb. Mothers mourn them as they would mourn the egg they lose during their period.
"But again, as I have continually stated, my decision, your decision or the decision of 100 people would not and could not determine who was a person."
Of course not, and no one said that's the case for it would be asinine, yes? Your decision in this situation though tells me what you really think. Well Aaron, that just goes to show that you believe that the lives of 10 nondescript "people" are not worth the life of 1 nondescript girl. That's the bottom line here and the best explanation you can concoct is that you gravitate more to the one that looks like a real person, who feels pain, who has a mind of her own, than the ones you need a microscope to see and have none of those things that you and I think of as the qualities of a person.
Regarding personhood of fetuses:
1. I think the pre-3-week fetus is hard to defend as a person, at least from an emotional point of view (since we all feel we have sufficient scientific measurements to include/exclude personhood).
I think that the argument that these are somehow lesser persons is largely an emotional argument, not a logical one.
I would choose to save a child over an adult, not because the adult is not a person, but because the child has more life to go.
I would choose a child or an adult over an embryo, not because the embryo is not a person, but because the child or adult is, for lack of a better word, more sentient and self aware.
But what about a 1 year old child and a 6 year old? Does your choice obviate the personhood of the other.
Cin, while I see that you are trying to poke a hole in Aaron's embryo-personhood theory, I don't think that approach is really that helpful.
That's why I defer to something simpler and already in wider acceptance for end of life personhood – that is, brainwaves and heartbeat. That's 4 weeks. That seems entirely logical to me.
2. I think that the myopic extremes in this issue, that of women's rights over ANY personhood or protection for the fetus, as well as the personhood of the zygote, both contribute to the failure of a meaningful resolution for abortion, and the end result is that we kill possibly 4000 persons a day while the extremists hold to their slippery slope extremes.
3. IF the fetus is a person after a certain point, to kill it would be criminal. Do we give the woman the 'freedom of the doubt' and let her make the decision? Why not let her kill her baby up to one year AFTER it's born? I think if you go with giving the woman the right to terminate before birth, your criteria should allow some time after birth as well. The fact that the baby is no longer tethered is, in my mind, not a strong enough difference to suddenly give it rights.
I think those who argue for personhood by viability outside of the womb (even though varies with technology) are being more ethically consistent than those who argue for abortion rights through birth, but refuse the right to infanticide one second after birth. That position appears nuanced, but in reality, I think it to be logically inconsistent, ethically ludicrous, and morally evil.
And those who say "I think it is morally wrong but will let the mother decide" are complicit in not saving the helpless child – I mean, you might as well say "I think slavery is wrong, as well as extermination of the jews, but I wouldn't want to make it illegal. Noooo, I'm too generous and broad minded for that." That is how bogus such statements sound.
4. If the fetus is a person after x weeks of gestation, no matter HOW it got created, be it incest, rape, or promiscuity, you can't kill a person and think you are somehow undoing the incest, rape, or promiscuity. That's a deception. The way to undo such is to:
a. provide for the child
b. forgive the offender
c. live with the consequences of your mistakes rather than killing to cover them.
CONCLUSION
If I could pass legislation to ban abortion after 4 weeks, and allow it afterwards ONLY in the case of protecting the mother's life or with extreme fetal problems (forget her 'mental health,' and forget rape and incest, they don't matter if the fetus has rights), I could live with that, as a Christian, and as an ethical person who values freedom.
…but you cannot legitimately conclude that legalization of gay marriage has anything to do with those problems you mention.
Perhaps it could be argued that it is merely a coincidence that marriage seems to be the weakest in nations that dilute the meaning of it. I think that is a weak argument.
However, I also think it is weak to state that the adoption of gay marriage is the causation of weak marriage. We have obviously seen that marriage can be weakened without any form of legalized gay partnership.
I do think, however, that it is entirely legitimate and correct to view the liberalization of marriage including the adoption of gay marriage as correlation to marriage weakening.
Religious texts may control your life but not that of everyone else.
I want to point out that you brought up faith and religious texts, not me. I do not (and have not) appeal to those because you do not recognize their authority. If have debated from a purely "secular" standpoint. I also want to point out that many oppose gay marriage who are not Christians or of any faith. Even some gay individuals oppose gay marriage.
Your decision in this situation though tells me what you really think.
You will then excuse me for not explaining properly my thoughts, if you hold to this conclusion.
I admit that I have not been quick with my responses. They have also not been as specific and as carefully crafted as I would like. In my defense, I offer that I recently started a midnight shift job working for UPS. I work there at nights and get up and take care of my two boys all day while my wife works. My only real time for blogging lies during their (hopefully) nap time, when I long for a nap myself.
I hope that soon enough I will be able to function better. I have to sense I start grad school in less than a month.
Anyway, enough of the excuses on to your points and your interpretation of my points.
To your quotation of Thomson's famous analogy, here's my question – do you, being plugged up to the violinist, have the right to reach across the bed and strangle him? That is the equivalent of abortion.
When removing yourself from the tube, you are more than likely leaving him to die because of his own sickness. Abortion does not work that way. It goes into the woman's body and kills the baby, then removes it from her baby. Refusing to save a life is not the same as killing someone (and I say someone because Thomson's argument is meant to circumvent the question of personhood).
A more apt analogy would be to remove the unborn baby from the body and allow it to die on it's own since it was removed from it's source of life. Are you willing to do that?
I will also note that Thomson in phrases and explaining her argument acknowledged the status of personhood for a child from the moment of conception. She was arguing that the mother's rights to live as she pleased trumped the right to life that the unborn baby had. Is that the case you are making?
Well Aaron, that just goes to show that you believe that the lives of 10 nondescript "people" are not worth the life of 1 nondescript girl.
Cin, here is where you seem to me to be, as you say, "thickheaded." I have already demonstrated that our choice of who to save does not determine who we feel is a person. You have acknowledged that in every situation except this one because you personally don't accept the personhood of those in the petri dish. That is the only difference.
It doesn't matter who I save or who I go after in the hypothetical situation. None of that speaks to who is or isn't a person or even to my personal understanding of who is a person. It simply says who I would go after in an emotionally charged, split second situation.
What if I saved the girl and then died trying to save those in the petri dish? You would call me a fool, but would that solidify to you my understanding.
You are trying to use my hypothetical response to one hypothetical situation to divine my entire perspective on personhood from the moment of conception. I don't see that as being valid.
Perhaps it could be argued that it is merely a coincidence that marriage seems to be the weakest in nations that dilute the meaning of it. I think that is a weak argument.
Hardly. Show me the evidence that legalizing gay marriage weakens or "dilutes" heterosexual marriage. As I've pointed out, large swathes of America reject gay marriage to the point of outlawing it in states' Constitutions, and yet we see the problems you outline above. It also depends what you mean by "weakening" marriage. I think it's a weak argument to blame gays for something other factors are involved in, particularly factors that are heterosexuals' responsibility.
However, I also think it is weak to state that the adoption of gay marriage is the causation of weak marriage. We have obviously seen that marriage can be weakened without any form of legalized gay partnership.
I do think, however, that it is entirely legitimate and correct to view the liberalization of marriage including the adoption of gay marriage as correlation to marriage weakening.
This is really weird. First, you admit that it's a weak argument to connect gay marriage with "weak marriage," and then you go on to conclude that it does! It may be that some forms of "marriage liberalization" damage the institution, but I fail to see how gay marriage does so. Of course, it's your definition of marriage that's being diluted and not marriage in general. That's what this all boils down to: christianists and their version of marriage. Needless to say, non-christianists don't have to have anything to do with your arbitrary definition.
If have debated from a purely "secular" standpoint.
Fine. Then please provide proof for your contentions about gay marriage, using only secular sources and methodology.
Even some gay individuals oppose gay marriage.
So what? Even some Jewish individuals joined the Nazi party.
Louis (I assume that comment is from you), I have told you my reasoning and evidence, but I will work to specifically respond to your questions and points.
As I've pointed out, large swathes of America reject gay marriage to the point of outlawing it in states' Constitutions, and yet we see the problems you outline above. It also depends what you mean by "weakening" marriage…
Our main source of information for the results of gay marriage are going to be internationally since we haven't had enough time to pull reliable information from locals closer to home.
By "weakening" I mean the devaluing of marriage within the society by observing the frequency of divorce, unmarried individuals, cohabitation, unwed births, etc. Those illustrate that a culture has decided that marriage is not an institution deserving of value because fewer people engage in it and more people involve themselves in substitutes for the institution.
This is really weird. First, you admit that it's a weak argument to connect gay marriage with "weak marriage," and then you go on to conclude that it does!
No, what I argued was that gay marriage was not THE cause of weakened marriage, but rather A factor in that process.
Then please provide proof for your contentions about gay marriage, using only secular sources and methodology.
As I said at the beginning of this tangent debate, the sources of dueling information will be attacked. For example, if I point to Stanley Kurtz' research you will argue that it is biased or unreliable because of the source.
I will add the same point to you. Please provide something more than just your thoughts or feeling. That's all that you have been using in this discussion – what you think and what you feel.
So what? Even some Jewish individuals joined the Nazi party.
Does that mean I win this debate?
I will say in response that it seems a bit extreme to analogizes a gay individual who is in opposition to gay marriage to Jews who were Nazis.
This is pointless.
I don’t think that approval of gay marriage affects the marriages of existing hetero marriages. But that’s not what we are saying.
The real problem is that it weakens *future* marriages because, by making it legal, we have to teach our children in public schools that hx is natural and ok. This dilutes marriage just like ok’ing promiscuity does, which is what is taught both implicitly and explicitly in many of today’s sex ed courses.
Is hx and it’s approval the *source* of the problem with hetero marriages? Absolutely not. It’s the symptom of a debased culture that has already gone past accepting hetero promiscuity to the point of accepting HOMOsexual behavior – from wicked to super wicked.
Approval of gay marriage, and the desire to do it, show a headlong commitment to that which is unnatural, unhealthy, and ungodly. As Romans 1 teaches, cultures that openly and unashamedly practice homosexuality are already so far gone that He “gives them over” to their lusts as punishment. This is why John MacArthur preached on “When God abandons a nation” at last year’s National Day of Prayer.
Like Sodom, homosexuality isn’t the sin that they are destroyed for, it’s merely one of the most salient sins of a culture that is steeped in every kind of sin. It’s merely an indicator that we have reached the bottom of the barrel of moral depravity. That, and killing our children (abortion).
The real cure here is not just to resist gay marriage (which we should), but to preach the gospel, the wickedness and sickness of sexual sin, esp. the truly sick perversions of love like homosexuality, rampant promiscuity, and even worse things to come if we continue accepting such debased self-identity.
As Romans 1 teaches…
Who cares what Romans 1 teaches? That's Christian superstition and irrelevant to a modern, secular culture. Your fascist sky-god and your bronze-age scrolls are meaningless to this discussion.
I'm not saying that it is authoritative because Romans 1 teaches it, per se. I'm saying that it is true based on human experience and reason, and Romans 1 merely outlines this truth well.
It’s “true” based on superstition, ignorance, and bigotry. There’s no possible way it can any truth based on reason or experience, except to the I.Q. deprived.