How have your views on abortion changed over the years?

[RFayette]

I've always thought that the best anti-abortion arguments are coherent and fairly simple, but the moral intuitions that underlie them have always been inscrutable to me.

Aren't all moral intuitions necessarily either self-evident (if you share them) or inscrutable (if you don't)? That's all the problem with them.

Same.  I perfectly understand the logic behind pro-choice arguments, but I nonetheless find them abhorrent.  Our moral compass is what guides us on these types of issues moreso than anything else.

[RFayette]

I've always been ProLife and I Lways will be ProLife because all life is precious.

[RFayette]

I've always been ProLife and I Lways will be ProLife because all life is precious.

All except angry NH women?

Haha. Well, I definitely believe that unborn life is precious, but I also think people can forfeit their right to live in certain cases, as terrible as it may sound.

I agree with this too, but not because all life is not sacred, but rather that the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life by showing that taking another life (or doing something life-shattering like kidnapping or child rape) will be paid for by the ultimate price, thus honoring the life of the victim.  So by having such a high price for capital crimes, we show how much we honor the lives of citizens.

[RFayette]

I've always been ProLife and I Lways will be ProLife because all life is precious.

All except angry NH women?

Haha. Well, I definitely believe that unborn life is precious, but I also think people can forfeit their right to live in certain cases, as terrible as it may sound.

I agree with this too, but not because all life is not sacred, but rather that the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life by showing that taking another life (or doing something life-shattering like kidnapping or child rape) will be paid for by the ultimate price, thus honoring the life of the victim.  So by having such a high price for capital crimes, we show how much we honor the lives of citizens.

I'm sorry to say, but this just doesn't make any sense. You can't say that the right to life is an absolute and then say that losing it can be the "price" to "pay" for something (even taking another life). If you truly believe that life is sacred, then it must always be honored even when it's the life of a murderer or a child rapist. Any rationalization around that is sophistry.

For the record, yes, that's true of abortion too. I've made that point in another thread and I believe it.

The distinction is that the unborn child did nothing to deserve being killed, other than being an inconvenience to the mother.  That's why I strongly oppose abortion.  On the other hand, Genesis 9:6 is pretty clear to me, and the basic principle is that those who damaged another sacred life to such a degree, in order for society to truly recognize how bad that action was against another sacred life, that person's life must be taken. 

[RFayette]

I've always been ProLife and I Lways will be ProLife because all life is precious.

All except angry NH women?

Haha. Well, I definitely believe that unborn life is precious, but I also think people can forfeit their right to live in certain cases, as terrible as it may sound.

I agree with this too, but not because all life is not sacred, but rather that the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life by showing that taking another life (or doing something life-shattering like kidnapping or child rape) will be paid for by the ultimate price, thus honoring the life of the victim.  So by having such a high price for capital crimes, we show how much we honor the lives of citizens.

I'm sorry to say, but this just doesn't make any sense. You can't say that the right to life is an absolute and then say that losing it can be the "price" to "pay" for something (even taking another life). If you truly believe that life is sacred, then it must always be honored even when it's the life of a murderer or a child rapist. Any rationalization around that is sophistry.

For the record, yes, that's true of abortion too. I've made that point in another thread and I believe it.

The distinction is that the unborn child did nothing to deserve being killed, other than being an inconvenience to the mother.  That's why I strongly oppose abortion.  On the other hand, Genesis 9:6 is pretty clear to me, and the basic principle is that those who damaged another sacred life to such a degree, in order for society to truly recognize how bad that action was against another sacred life, that person's life must be taken.

If there are special circumstances, then this means that life in and of itself is not sacred. Those things just can't go together. You are saying that life is sacred conditionally on not doing certain things. You're free to believe that, and to justify it however you want, but you must acknowledge the implications. Either all life is sacred, or some lives can be taken. It can be one or the other.

I view this as a false dichotomy, though it seems we probably have different definitions of sacred.  I do indeed believe that the right to life is indeed conditional upon not committing the worst of offenses, but I view this as completely compatible with upholding the absolute sanctity of life because once one infringes upon another's right to life, then the two come into a clash, and how we resolve that clash does not reduce the inherent basic sanctity of life.

[RFayette]

I've always been ProLife and I Lways will be ProLife because all life is precious.

All except angry NH women?

Haha. Well, I definitely believe that unborn life is precious, but I also think people can forfeit their right to live in certain cases, as terrible as it may sound.

I agree with this too, but not because all life is not sacred, but rather that the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life by showing that taking another life (or doing something life-shattering like kidnapping or child rape) will be paid for by the ultimate price, thus honoring the life of the victim.  So by having such a high price for capital crimes, we show how much we honor the lives of citizens.

I'm sorry to say, but this just doesn't make any sense. You can't say that the right to life is an absolute and then say that losing it can be the "price" to "pay" for something (even taking another life). If you truly believe that life is sacred, then it must always be honored even when it's the life of a murderer or a child rapist. Any rationalization around that is sophistry.

For the record, yes, that's true of abortion too. I've made that point in another thread and I believe it.

The distinction is that the unborn child did nothing to deserve being killed, other than being an inconvenience to the mother.  That's why I strongly oppose abortion.  On the other hand, Genesis 9:6 is pretty clear to me, and the basic principle is that those who damaged another sacred life to such a degree, in order for society to truly recognize how bad that action was against another sacred life, that person's life must be taken.

If there are special circumstances, then this means that life in and of itself is not sacred. Those things just can't go together. You are saying that life is sacred conditionally on not doing certain things. You're free to believe that, and to justify it however you want, but you must acknowledge the implications. Either all life is sacred, or some lives can be taken. It can be one or the other.

I view this as a false dichotomy, though it seems we probably have different definitions of sacred.  I do indeed believe that the right to life is indeed conditional upon not committing the worst of offenses, but I view this as completely compatible with upholding the absolute sanctity of life because once one infringes upon another's right to life, then the two come into a clash, and how we resolve that clash does not reduce the inherent basic sanctity of life.

I just don't understand this argument. The "clash" you talk about is entirely artificial, a construct you make that does not follow from your premises in any way.

If person A kills person B, then yes, A's actions have infringed on B's right to life. But it's A's actions that have infringed upon it. You can't say that it's A's life, in and of itself that infringes on B's right to life. Whether A continues living or not has absolutely no impact on whether B's right to life was upheld or not. B's right to life has already been violated - it's too late to change that. The State certainly can and should impose a sanction against this violation, but nothing the State can do will change the fact that the violation has occurred. Killing A certainly doesn't. If you think killing A is warranted, what you are saying is that sanctioning violations of the right to life is actually more important that upholding this same right. Which, in turns, means that the right is not absolute, but can in fact be suspended in certain account.

OK, I guess I am a big believer that justice demands that a person who commits murder (in most cases) be put to death, thus showing how serious it is to take another person's life.  I will admit that for me, Genesis 9:6 settles the question (and reaffirmation throughout all the covenants in Exodus 21 and Romans 13), so different initial presuppositions do change how we approach the issue.  I certainly view the God of the Bible as viewing life as absolutely sacred but do not see that as precluding the ultimate cost for those horrific crimes.  If you disagree with that premise, which I understand but do not share your position, then I completely understand where you're coming from.

[RFayette]

Again, you are perfectly free to believe that, but you should be consistent and recognize that your belief in the sanctity of life is conditional rather than absolute. This is all I ask.

I'll agree to that, I suppose.  All I really wanted to do is that someone can uphold a consistent view respecting the sanctity of life while being both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, though I accept the term "conditional" as you phrase it.