I had an exchange with John Wing over abortion in the Bible. Here is how it went:

This is where I recommended my article regarding the issue.

https://spirited-tech.com/2022/06/08/abortion-in-the-bible/

To which he responded:

John Wing:

An honest look, eh? Perhaps to make it even more believable, you could call it an honest honest look. Or a really, REALLY honest look.

TheSire:

So, to be clear, you don’t really have a response and can only peddle bad arguments about texts you haven’t read. But yeah I’ll pass your advice to the marketing team about thumbnails.

John Wing:

I’m against abortion. Never had one or paid for one. But the government having control over women’s bodies? I’m more against that. And the government using the Bible as a template is against why the nation was founded. Have a nice day. Be sure and hate the right people.

So, to be clear, using the Bible to subjugate an entire gender, making an argument with it that women of today don’t deserve bodily autonomy? That is disgusting enough to make me wish I could vomit on you sometime. Let me know.

TheSire:

John, a biological male, has never had an abortion to the surprise of us all. As for being against abortion, this is supposed to be a kind sentiment to the Pro-life proponent. But this never is given the deeper and more obvious moral disagreements that undergird each worldview. For John, he probably means he wouldn’t recommend or prefer it. That moral judgments are reducible to that of preference—his subjective internal feelings about the matter. While I have time, I’m not interested in what are the feelings of grown men over the internet.

To a Pro-life proponent’s ears, this is saying one is indifferent to the unnecessary extermination of human life. It makes humans’ lives matter of convenience or monetary assets. Children in some way or another is a burden to their parents and for this, he finds it easier to discard humans.

Of course, John probably has enthymemes that assume a view of morality, personhood, etc in order to evade such charges. He may choose some point in which personhood actualizes, a violinist argument, etc. Or maybe he doesn’t think human lives matter until the government places protections or societal forces cause a prevailing view. That convenience is a sufficient condition for an abortion.

John hasn’t given much a view to critiquing. To the issue of government control, John merely assumes what he hasn’t shown. That infants in the womb are not morally relevant individuals. This is the idea in question when discussing Pro-life vs Pro-Abortion issues. We may also wonder whether this amount of control is justified by the government. I think we all grant the government some control over issues of property disputes. Such as whether a mother owns the life of her children. I would just say she never owns the life of her children. Of course, John may not think infants in the womb are persons, but he will have to demonstrate that. Furthermore, many think the government just does control our bodies (men and women), whether it be limiting the food and activities we are allowed to do or think the state should enforce vaccines. The father of children often has to pay for children because the state believes he has some obligation to a child. This was even a joke from Dave Chappelle in one of his specials:

I think the obvious issue is that we shouldn’t merely shudder at the rhetorical quips of “control over women’s bodies”. Suppose a mother came to term with a child, after a month, she was over the experience and left the baby in the woods (this happens all over the world for different reasons). Did this mother have an obligation to bring her baby to an adoption agency? John Wing probably is fine for making women do things with their bodies or you can abandon your child to die without neglect charges.

Notice that John has abandoned his original stance (because it is indefensible). Will he recant his support of that idea? Or will he just ignore the fact he was wrong?

I’m okay with Biblical principles being the law of the land because they are true. The separation of church and state isn’t violated by letting your moral convictions inform one’s thoughts of governance. I haven’t posited a state church. Suppose the Bible is true, that babies are persons from conception. Should we care more about the distinction of church and state or the murder of millions of infants?

What is your alternative per se? What is a person? Are humans responsible for their actions? If so, why? Consciousness may be a good place to start but some deny we are conscious or possibly doubt such:

We may mock the biblical idea, but suppose reality is a story. Without the author’s perspective or a divine eye-view, why suppose we truly understand what persons are and their place in the world?

I won’t continue on, but the bodily autonomy just assumes a view of humans and their role in the story of the world that I don’t agree with, and plenty of arguments against it:

https://spirited-tech.com/2019/05/25/the-pro-life-catalogue/

I’m open to a dialogue whether written or spoken with Mr. Wing.