This is the other part of my conversation with the abortionists. Here is the first part:
http://spirited-tech.com/2021/05/28/reproductive-slavery/
Virginia House:
The fact is that abortions were legal in the US (for white women) until the mid 19th century. For most of Christianity, the Church wasn’t against it. Jewish Law is and was not against it. In fact, there are She dies. If she goes into labor, you wait until it’s complete. And, pssst: abortion is legal in Israel, too.
Yes. And so do current Jews. Under Jewish law, until 40 days, it’s “mere water.” Until then, until it “touches air,” it’s part of the pregnant person. It receives full personhood at that point. If a pregnant person is sentenced to death, you don’t wait for her to give birth.
No, that’s YOUR idea of why it’s wrong. There are many reasons why it’s wrong that have nothing to do with religion. Which means you do not have to be Christian to Sheboygan morals or ethics.
Bc you have no logical responses. That happens. It’s ok. Go learn things and try again.
My Response:
“The fact is that abortions were legal in the US (for white women) until the mid 19th century. “
Supposing that is true, then I still don’t think it is relevant to the conversation as to whether abortion is to be permitted. Infanticide was legal through human history (Spartans, Stoics, Romans) and yet I would consider it wrong. Chattel slavery was practiced throughout human history. The reasons these aren’t arguments for abortion because they merely tell us what has occurred rather than what ought to have happened.
” For most of Christianity, the Church wasn’t against it.”
This seems contestable at best. I don’t grant you are familiar with Christianity in order to know what is a Christian Church. There seems to be good evidence that this is wrong:
https://christiansforsocialaction.org/resource/abortion-and-the-early-church/
“Jewish Law is and was not against it.”
This is something I challenged in an article I wrote:
http://spirited-tech.com/2020/05/20/is-abortion-biblical/
If you are referring to the Talmud, then all I have to say is that isn’t an authority in my view.
” If a pregnant person is sentenced to death, you don’t wait for her to give birth.”
That just not apparently true nor does it matter:
Secondly, there are cases where if you kill a woman that is pregnant you get charged with the crime twice. So, does that mean pro-life position is proven? The point is that if a pregnant woman commits a crime then she should be forced to come to terms with her child in order that the baby does not die for the crime of the mother. The point here is that she merely moves from descriptions of current affairs (law codes, past actions of various people) but they don’t derive normative conclusions. It just keeps running into what is known as the is-ought problem. Which I wouldn’t expect lazy internet pro-choice atheists to be familiar with.
“There are many reasons why it’s wrong that have nothing to do with religion.”
It would be nice if you can provide one that doesn’t merely beg the question in search of a justification. Secularism entails that nothing is wrong and humans aren’t responsible for their actions because they are merely acting according to the whims of the universe.
“Which means you do not have to be Christian to Sheboygan morals or ethics.”
Moral arguments aren’t meant to say that you can’t be an ethical person nor that you can’t discuss ethics, but the contention is that you can’t ground any of the ethical claims in anything that is a fact. This is a common contention in actual debates in ethics:
My argument is a bit stronger in what it is arguing for:
The Council 