The abortion debate and the ninth commandment

[Reformed Covenanter]

The pro-choice crowd do not always come out and say that they advocate abortion in order to destroy the concept of human beings having inalienable natural rights, to promote the depopulation agenda, and encourage promiscuity without consequences. Instead, they often claim to be doing so in order to protect a woman's right to choose, ensure that they have access to healthcare, stop poor women from being burdened with unwanted children, and shield vulnerable women from the effects of rape and incest. Most of us on the pro-life side take such assertions with a pinch of salt. Are we breaking the ninth commandment if we do not take their claims about their motives at face value? Should we ignore the circumstantial evidence (and sometimes direct evidence) which suggests that their motives are not so benevolent as they would have us believe?

 

[Grant]

Yeah the whole “my body, my choice” crowd has been mighty silent in the age of COVID Vaccine & mask mandates.

 

[VictorBravo]

I do take the claims at face value. I don’t know of any so-called pro-choice people who consciously seek to kill children. But the mindset remains a delusion.

The challenge is to question why a woman’s autonomy is more important than an innocent life.

Interestingly, I have run across many non-Christian millennials who see abortion in that light: innocent child outweighs birth mother convenience, essentially.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Yeah the whole “my body, my choice” crowd has been mighty silent in the age of COVID Vaccine & mask mandates.

I've noticed that too. I think we should correct them when they say “my body, my choice,” and say, "Don't you mean to say, "my eternity, my choice?'"

 

[A.Joseph]

The pro-choice crowd do not always come out and say that they advocate abortion in order to destroy the concept of human beings having inalienable natural rights, to promote the depopulation agenda, and encourage promiscuity without consequences. Instead, they often claim to be doing so in order to protect a woman's right to choose, ensure that they have access to healthcare, stop poor women from being burdened with unwanted children, and shield vulnerable women from the effects of rape and incest. Most of us on the pro-life side take such assertions with a pinch of salt. Are we breaking the ninth commandment if we do not take their claims about their motives at face value? Should we ignore the circumstantial evidence (and sometimes direct evidence) which suggests that their motives are not so benevolent as they would have us believe?

no. and ignorance is no excuse. they won’t listen anyway. Margaret Sanger is easy to look up….

 

[Miss Marple]

I agree in principle that we have a great deal of bodily autonomy. It is our responsibility largely, thus it is largely our right.

Problem is when we deal with pregnant women, we have two bodies we are dealing with. Two people. That is why the argument "My body, my choice," fails. It is "My body and someone else's body, my choice" and that is wrong.

 

[83r17h]

Most of us on the pro-life side take such assertions with a pinch of salt. Are we breaking the ninth commandment if we do not take their claims about their motives at face value? Should we ignore the circumstantial evidence (and sometimes direct evidence) which suggests that their motives are not so benevolent as they would have us believe?

I think that it depends on initial hearing vs. extended discourse. I remember having a discussion with a coworker about abortion about 2 years ago. He asserted as his rule of ethics, that liberty was supreme, except when it caused harm to another. He also fully supported abortion. In his case, he argued that the courts are not the proper authority for determining whether or not the infant is a person, and therefore cannot decide for the mother whether or not her act of abortion is harmful. (Yes, this is a really really bad argument)

After a full year of discussion back and forth, I am confident of two things:
1) My coworker has a serious amount of cognitive dissonance going on.
2) My coworker hates the concept of an authority that determines ethics.

Now, this is a guy who is an officer in the USAF. He went through the same commissioning as me. He's a very smart dude, and competent in his field. All that said, I would not want him on my team, because he admits that he can't say what right and wrong are - and that he is the source of his own ethics.

I think if I had started with such an attitude upon hearing him say "I think abortion is fine," then it would have been a violation of the ninth. I think that since I've had extended discussions with him, and explicitly direct evidence of both cognitive dissonance, and conscious rejection of ethics, I am not violating the ninth in evaluating his motives under a negative light.

Here's another topic with the same guy: homosexuality. He is fully in support of homosexuality, and against us patronizing religious nuts who care so much about other people's private lives (or something like that...). Upon questioning about ethics again, he will tell you what ethical guidance he admires - Stoicism. Specifically, he likes the idea that it is ethical to deny one's desires. Upon questioning about homosexuality, he says it is unethical to deny one's desires. In reality: his sister is a homosexual.

Again: an initial assumption would be a violation of the ninth. A reflection validated by gathered evidence, I don't think is a violation. But in this case, I can evaluate clearly that he holds explicitly contradictory premises, and maintains such a contradiction because of a personal commitment, which makes him change his claimed ethical principle in one area. This means that I can't trust his integrity, and again, do not want him on my team.

But the reason I don't think I've violated the ninth in either case, is because I spent a year in discussion with him, trying to ask questions so as to get the most accurate and charitable judgment of his beliefs possible.