You may not be defending it, but plenty in our society do, with increasingly strident voices.
Christians don't commodify it, they call it out for the objective moral evil that it is. They call it out because it itself is an expression of the commodification of human life in explicitly materialistic, atheistic, terms. "There is no God, all is relative, do as you like, this may or may not be a person from conception, etc...".
I paid for a murder. One that is easy to dismiss because the victim could not speak at the time. If the baby's mother and I hadn't done what we did, the baby had all that it needed to gestate to term, be born, and then to grow up and be a human with all of the potential and dignity that any of the rest of us have. I love to drink coffee - my child could be having a cup right now with me while laughing and conversing, but they aren't.
All of that potential was destroyed for $300 one afternoon at a Planned Parenthood. It's evil, it's murder, and it needs to be called such. We who are guilty of it don't have to wear it like an anchor around our necks with downcast eyes and heavy hearts, but we damned sure can call it what it is, and do what we can to rid the world of it.
I don’t know a single atheist who believes abortion is ok because “all is relative”. I also don’t know a single atheist who is uncertain whether a fertilized egg qualifies as a person or not. They're certain It doesn't.
If you had never used contraception then you might be having coffee with 10 additional children. Some may be laughing and some may be depressed and one might have died later from some genetic disorder. And you most likely would have lost 30 between conception and 6 weeks. These are discussions of probability. Having unprotected sex is x% likely to result in a birth. A fertilized egg is x% likely to result in a birth. Where "objective morality" comes in is when someone believes Gods hand is involved. Christians don't believe a man and women have a baby by entirely natural processes. They believe God blesses them with a baby. Conception is biology + God. At some point in the process God assigns a soul.
In discussions of law, Gods hand should not be a consideration.
I do think there are important debates to be had revolving around the point when a fetus becomes a separate, feeling, thinking, or conscious entity with separate rights. And I will admit that is a very tough timeframe to pin down.
I agree with some of what you say, and completely disagree with other parts. I don't want God's hand to not be considered - I want it, and think that it's impossible to conceive of our inherent worth and dignity without it, and think that the bedrock of Western notions around human worth and human rights is God. We can disagree on that, totally OK, but I'll make it plain where I stand and what I support. Thanks.
Yes our disagreement is totally ok, but if you want to petition the government to force me to live by your interpretation of Gods will then its no longer totally ok.
I either want to live in a completely different society than you, or I want absolute and strictly enforced tolerance of completely divergent worldviews. The choice, to me, is totally binary. You get no more of a say over me and mine, about absolutely anything, than I might about you and yours. Sound fair?
"You get no more of a say over me and mine, about absolutely anything, than I might about you and yours."
How is this compatible with your desire to have Gods hand considered when deciding on laws that guide our entire society? If justification for a law rests on Gods will, that would be giving you a say "over me and mine"
For example, if a Christian wanted abortion banned from conception because it was against Gods will.
It's the acknowledgment of pluralism, which was my point. I would strongly prefer to live in a society with the guardrails of Christian morality (the United States of the late 19th Century is a good example, at least in the North) but if I can't, then the only pluralism that is acceptable is one in which freedom of conscience is absolute. That, or Balkanization in the style of Austro-Hungarian Empire, in which a disparate and motley band of interests are loosely bound in a political confederation where no one party has any say over any other.
I want the morality of the United States before the 1960's restored. I do not want what passes for a culture in the current US; it is a failure and needs to be replaced by something better, and I think that something can be found in the Christian religion.
You can call it a murder, and keep tithing. My word for that is sucker. That’s the commodification I’m speaking of. You listen to me, you don’t owe anybody a damn thing.
You may not be defending it, but plenty in our society do, with increasingly strident voices.
Christians don't commodify it, they call it out for the objective moral evil that it is. They call it out because it itself is an expression of the commodification of human life in explicitly materialistic, atheistic, terms. "There is no God, all is relative, do as you like, this may or may not be a person from conception, etc...".
I paid for a murder. One that is easy to dismiss because the victim could not speak at the time. If the baby's mother and I hadn't done what we did, the baby had all that it needed to gestate to term, be born, and then to grow up and be a human with all of the potential and dignity that any of the rest of us have. I love to drink coffee - my child could be having a cup right now with me while laughing and conversing, but they aren't.
All of that potential was destroyed for $300 one afternoon at a Planned Parenthood. It's evil, it's murder, and it needs to be called such. We who are guilty of it don't have to wear it like an anchor around our necks with downcast eyes and heavy hearts, but we damned sure can call it what it is, and do what we can to rid the world of it.
I don’t know a single atheist who believes abortion is ok because “all is relative”. I also don’t know a single atheist who is uncertain whether a fertilized egg qualifies as a person or not. They're certain It doesn't.
If you had never used contraception then you might be having coffee with 10 additional children. Some may be laughing and some may be depressed and one might have died later from some genetic disorder. And you most likely would have lost 30 between conception and 6 weeks. These are discussions of probability. Having unprotected sex is x% likely to result in a birth. A fertilized egg is x% likely to result in a birth. Where "objective morality" comes in is when someone believes Gods hand is involved. Christians don't believe a man and women have a baby by entirely natural processes. They believe God blesses them with a baby. Conception is biology + God. At some point in the process God assigns a soul.
In discussions of law, Gods hand should not be a consideration.
I do think there are important debates to be had revolving around the point when a fetus becomes a separate, feeling, thinking, or conscious entity with separate rights. And I will admit that is a very tough timeframe to pin down.
I agree with some of what you say, and completely disagree with other parts. I don't want God's hand to not be considered - I want it, and think that it's impossible to conceive of our inherent worth and dignity without it, and think that the bedrock of Western notions around human worth and human rights is God. We can disagree on that, totally OK, but I'll make it plain where I stand and what I support. Thanks.
Yes our disagreement is totally ok, but if you want to petition the government to force me to live by your interpretation of Gods will then its no longer totally ok.
I either want to live in a completely different society than you, or I want absolute and strictly enforced tolerance of completely divergent worldviews. The choice, to me, is totally binary. You get no more of a say over me and mine, about absolutely anything, than I might about you and yours. Sound fair?
"You get no more of a say over me and mine, about absolutely anything, than I might about you and yours."
How is this compatible with your desire to have Gods hand considered when deciding on laws that guide our entire society? If justification for a law rests on Gods will, that would be giving you a say "over me and mine"
For example, if a Christian wanted abortion banned from conception because it was against Gods will.
It's the acknowledgment of pluralism, which was my point. I would strongly prefer to live in a society with the guardrails of Christian morality (the United States of the late 19th Century is a good example, at least in the North) but if I can't, then the only pluralism that is acceptable is one in which freedom of conscience is absolute. That, or Balkanization in the style of Austro-Hungarian Empire, in which a disparate and motley band of interests are loosely bound in a political confederation where no one party has any say over any other.
I want the morality of the United States before the 1960's restored. I do not want what passes for a culture in the current US; it is a failure and needs to be replaced by something better, and I think that something can be found in the Christian religion.
You can call it a murder, and keep tithing. My word for that is sucker. That’s the commodification I’m speaking of. You listen to me, you don’t owe anybody a damn thing.
I don't think you know what you think you know. Thanks for a good dialogue.