Young Writers Society

@quitecontrary You're thus ignoring that large expanses of the Bible are open to interpretation, unless you wish to take it literally, which would have many issues that oppose proven science.

Alright, there is a lot to address, but I can tell one thing for sure; the brunt of your argument relies entirely on two things. So let's see how coherent a response I can muster while missing a full pint of blood and running on five hours of sleep.


The first category upon which your broader argument lies is what I'll refer to as the non-biblical arguments. Among these are the the assertions that sex isn't necessarily only performed to reproduce, but rather that you believe all acts of sex should be considered attempts to reproduce, that abstinence is the only 100% method of avoiding pregnancy, and the sociology report (which I only generously add to the non-biblical arguments, despite the heavy appeals to faith and tradition in the quote provided).

On the point of sex as an act performed solely to reproduce, I disagree entirely for two reasons. The first; the intended function of a thing does not require one to use that thing for only that function. This is true when considering normal tools - knives being used to pry rather than cut, forks being used to poke holes rather than stab and lift, guns being used for competitions rather than to end lives - and this should especially hold true of human beings. Unlike tools, we have consciousness. Do reduce us to the level of tools, with each part only serving the purpose intended, is quite frankly insulting. The second is quite simply the fact that people have sex without intending to get pregnant. It's a pleasurable act after all, and to some it holds just as deep a meaning as your article makes conceiving a child to be. A person can "give themselves completely with everything that they are, and accept their lover completely as a person" without that act creating a new person. To you, the ultimate expression of love may be producing a child with a lover to whom you are married. That is lovely, romantic, and I will not stop you from having that. But others do not think the same; they do not believe that they much reproduce in order to prove their love. To insist that they do is to move beyond your idea of giving your fullest self, and to insist that all people's whole self is their capability to reproduce, which is dehumanizing to many, including those who are infertile. So I reject the idea that sex must be performed with the intent to reproduce. We are not tools, we are not baby factories. We are sentient, we love and mourn and emote like no tool nor machine can, and we define our own worth; if you wish to define yours by what you produce, nobody is stopping you, but others will define their worth by what they are.

Second, and shorter, the assertion that abstinence is the only way. I would like to propose the following ideas; first, abstinence is not 100% effective because people make mistakes. Rather, it is a filter one can put in place that will not stop all things from passing through, but can be layered with other filters for greater efficiency. If we only use the abstinence filter, the vast majority of those who break through will risk a variety of things; unwanted pregnancy, STDs, abuse (sex ed should definitely include teaching about abuse), etc. To reduce those risks, why not add more filters? Sex ed to encourage safe sex, prevention of stds, learning about abuse so people know what to look for. The issue is that people keep thinking abstinence is the "ultimate contraceptive, 100% effective." And yeah, that's true; but abstinence only sex ed isn't 100% effective. A large number of individuals who slip through the filter will suffer grave confidences. You have to add more filters to catch those who would otherwise slip past.

Finally, the sociology report. I am extremely inclined to distrust these supposed sociology studies for two reasons; the fact that George Akerlof is an economist, that they felt the need to explicitly state "He is not a social conservative" in a standalone sentence, and the fact that when I looked into Akerlof's apparent study of how abortions are increasing, that it was done in the 1990s. That data is outdated. Attached is a graph from the Guttmacher Institute of the numbers of abortions that have occurred in the United States. It should be noted that a) this number is falling dramatically each year, and b) the number actually stabilizes rather than decreases more quickly under Republican presidents than Democrat presidents. Just an interesting sub point. Overall, despite claiming to not be socially conservative, Akerlof's work has produced - at least in the article you provided - rhetoric that is charged with traditionalist and socially conservative ideology.


Second group of arguments, the biblical arguments. I promise this will be shorter, because I have only one thing to say to all biblical arguments; we are NOT a theocracy. I will do nothing to infringe your rights to your religion, but when you choose to insist that others adhere to your religious scripture, you will find that people fight back against the idea, and they fight hard. Ultimately, you are free to live your life how you please, but I suggest you avoid trying to force others to live how you do, especially if the majority of your argument relies on biblical traditionalism. Again; we are not a theocracy, discussions about what is allowed in your holy book are discussions between you and members of your faith alone.

I understand where you're coming from, @sylrie, but just to make it clear I wasn't trying to reduce humans to the level of tools. This is kind of goes along with my statement at the end of my comment, where I said people were trying to separate love(specifically sexual love) from things like family. Here's the part of your argument where I think you go wrong:

Among these are the the assertions that sex isn't necessarily only performed to reproduce, but rather that you believe all acts of sex should be considered attempts to reproduce, that abstinence is the only 100% method of avoiding pregnancy, and the sociology report (which I only generously add to the non-biblical arguments, despite the heavy appeals to faith and tradition in the quote provided).

The premise you provide is that sex is "perfomed", which means you are including intention in the act. When I say act, I am specifically referring to an action minus the intention, which are two different things. Absolutely nothing is wrong with wanting to have sex because it is pleasurable. I included the analogy of friction and heat because that was the best way I could explain it: the action of creating friction produces heat, and when you are building a fire that is exactly what you want. Obviously it's different with life, because reproduction seems to have more of an end than just friction. But the pure action minus whatever human intention goes into it is reproduction. I'm making the distinction to prove to you that human intention makes your argument subjective. It's subjective to say that one person performs sex to have a baby and another person to enjoy it.
The objective truth is that the only product of sex(not including byproducts) is a baby. This isn't my opinion or theocratic belief, this is physiology: our reproductive organs have a use, they are the tools, and our intentions do not change what they are or what their purpose is. There can be no other product(except for maybe twins) and this is why having sex and then aborting the child is wrong. I'm not trying to put down people who have sex for pleasure or simply because they are genuinely moved in that direction; I'm saying that rubbing the two sticks together knowing you might get heat and then putting out the fire is wrong.

As for abstinence only, I absolutely understand that people make mistakes. Nobody's perfect, I'm not judging anybody for slipping up. I'm saying that if you don't have sex in the first place, you won't get a baby. And I can see you understand that too, but you're wrong if you think I'm proposing abstinence-only sex ed. I know it won't fully work in today's climate, and that it pretty much has never completely worked. But if you de-emphasize abstinence, then more people are going to have sex, more people are going to forget to wear contraceptives once or twice, and more people will think they are stuck between ruining their lives and abortion. You can't de-emphasize abstinence and expect that abortion rates will go down, especially when some people don't use contraceptives.

You mention adding filters, and I absolutely agree. But I don't think contraceptives are the way(although I wouldn't mind a better anatomy/physiology element added into sex ed, through preferably not in 6th grade). I really do think an emphasis on family would curb the amount of people having abortions.

As to your distrust of the sociological study, it is from 1996. That doesn't mean there wasn't a link between contraception and abortion at the time, and it doesn't mean there still isn't. You distrust of the article based on the sentence "He is not a social conservative" is subjective, and the sentence was intended for an audience of both conservatives and liberals. And your distrust of the study based on the fact that Akerlof is an economist is also unfounded. Economists are social scientists, and they study the consumer reaction to products such as abortion and contraception. This isn't about the study of anatomy or biology, this is the study of human reactions and the link between products. Knowledge of the link between contraceptive use and abortion isn't only beneficial for social conservatives arguing against the cause, it is also helpful for companies like Planned Parenthood to sell their products and gain revenue. In light of this data, Planned Parenthood would argue for a more comprehensive contraception education so that they can sell contraceptives, and then gain revenue from abortions when people don't use the contraceptives. It's economics, and this guy knows what he's talking about. As a subpoint, he isn't the only author of the study, there are two others(both economists), and this is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

As for the biblical arguments, I put those in there as an answer to StellaThomas's question:

The idea that "pro-life" campaigners are not out there campaigning to reduce the cost of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices is crazy.

And then @Vil: Catholics don't generally rely on personal interpretation of the bible. We have 2,000 years of Church Authority and philosopher saints to help us out with the harder parts. But if you still think this passage can be interpreted as God sanctioning abortion, I suggest you go to the Hebrew text and ask a Jewish Rabbi their interpretation. This article may help you with that, but I am absolutely sure this text is not sanctioning abortion.

Also I hope you're doing well @sylrie! I didn't mean to upset you ):

@quitecontrary

In reply, here is an article citing Jewish leaders using their Bible in support of abortion, and given that a vast majority of Jews support abortion and that many rabbis have written artices regarding their faiths and abortion, citing that in their Bible the standard is birth and not conception/pregnancy, abortion is okay in their book, thus taking away the merit of our argument.

@quitecontrary I'm not doing the best at the moment, but that's just because of four consecutive nights with no sleep ^^' to be honest its probably not the best for me to continue here until I get actual rest...I'm probably gonna end up less coherent than yesterday, judging by the fact that my fingers just aren't pressing the right keys atm (had to delete and retype the majority of what's written here).

The only point I'll make before I go is that yes; my arguments relied heavily on subjective reasoning (other than the graph of abortions going doin, and a brief jaunt into the history of that economist). Other than my judgment of the article - specifically that one red flag sentence - I feel as though much of the abortion debate is indeed subjective. For many it comes down to deeply held beliefs - whether philosophical or religious - which is middle grounds aren't as available in a debate such as this. I, for instance, believe the act of sex does not always and should not have to always lead to the birth of a child. To me - and likely, to many others - that idea feels like boiling down human nature to the singular purpose of baby-making, and that feels wrong. To you, however, this is not the case, and that's alright. But it will always be subjective, for we're both in the end attempting to describe something that goes beyond the act of sex and reproducing; we're trying to describe love, what that looks like, who it's shared amongst, how one can and should show it. You bring forward a definition of family; it does not match my own, and that's alright. Because ultimately you are you, and I am me; we have our beliefs, and we try our best to live by them.

Also, apologies if I came off upset ^^' again, mostly sleep addled (I probably have the recommended amount of sleep...over the span of like four nights >.>)

@sylrie I hope you feel better soon <3 Also thanks for debating with me, I thought you had a very interesting argument(although I think you are hiding behind subjectivity for now ). I'll briefly mention love:
I usually hear that the Greeks had five words for love: Agape, Philautia, Storge, Philia, and Eros(google disagrees on the number, but I think these are the main ones). Sexual love is only one of them; which means humans weren't meant to love each other in only one way. And Eros wasn't intended to represent only sexual love, it also represented the appreciation for internal and external beauty. I do not believe that humans are baby-making machines: our reproductive organs might be, but we have many layers and are so much more that simply our organs. I don't want to push you or make you do anything you don't want to; but if you take another look at my argument I hope you'll see that my statements aren't necessarily beliefs but facts. It's a bit philosophical, and you might call that subjective, but philosophy is a search for true knowledge and that is what I hope to convey.

@Vil

You sources say that a majority of Jewish Americans support abortion; not that the specific verse we were talking about is about abortion. The NIV translation of the bible uses the word "miscarry", which is where people usually see the abortion argument, but in the Dewey-Rheims translation they say "may thy womb swell and thy thigh rot", which suggests infertility instead of miscarriage. And the "bitter water" that is referred to is made like this: "and he shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and he shall cast a little earth of the pavement of the tabernacle into it". I find it highly unlikely that a bit of dirt will cause an abortion. Here's the Dewey-Rheims translation.

Many Jews cite those verses, though, so you're ignoring that. Additionally, I find Jewish texts to be more accurate and trustworthy due to their age and the fact that Jewish texts have been translated less than Christian texts; much has been lost and misinterpreted in translation. For example, if one were to look and read the Bible in its older forms, it would not warn against homosexuality, but rather pedophilia. The NASB version (widely regarded by most people as one of the, f not the most accurate version despite its errors and mistranslations that remain) does state that "[her] belly will swell and her thigh will crumble," that much is true-- however, this would result in the death of the child, which would be an abortion, thus showing that God condones it.

Furthermore, you've side-stepped the arguments that I have presented regarding Jewish belief entirely, although Jewish beliefs predates Catholicism by roughly 2,000 years, give or take a century or so. As Jewish doctrine dictates what Jews believe, and taking into account that 83-84% of all Jews support abortion, would that no in turn allow one to reason that based upon the Abrahamic texts that you and I refer to as the "Old Testament," God has, in the eyes of Jews and their leaders, condoned abortion? And, through such reasoning, would it be wrong to say that by ignoring the elder faith and what it teaches, as Christianity is but a branch of Judaism and its teachings, the Catholic Church would thus be ignoring the doctrines set forth by God?

Hello! I was part of this chat a while ago, and just recently came back. Just wondering, are you guys discussing/going to be discussing whether or not abortion is wrong/okay or anything like that?

@TeyaKnife, we discussed that previously and all agreed that it was too morally complicated to declare "Right" or "Wrong"-- even you agreed to that much, if memory serves correct.

@Vil Well I if I did, I disagree now. As I think most people can agree that theft is wrong, and murder is wrong. It's more a matter of convincing people that it is a human life, and holds as much value as any other human. I'm sure most people here do have ideas of what's right and wrong. They think muder is wrong, and I consider abortion murder. I did go about it wrong in the past because citing religious pieces or trying to bring religion into the matter, never works. Anyways, if you don't want to go about that again, I'll leave it at that. That's why I asked the question.

Yes, but you also made a purely religious argument, @TeyaKnife, and you can't convince an atheist (not that I am an atheist, just using that as an example) that abortion is wrong through religious arguments.

@Vil I'm sorry, but are you talking about what I just posted, or something else? My most recent post doesn't have anything religion (aside from stating the fact that bringing religion into debates is seldom helpful). I agree that I would be unable to convince an atheist person anything through religious arguments, but I already stated that, or at least that's what I was trying to get at.

@TeyaKnife I am referring to previous arguments you made, which were based largely (if not solely) on religion rather than any statistics, solid facts, or convincing statements. Given that I've been able to previously convince atheist conservatives to vote for Democrats, I would think that it's appropriate to consider that it would be possible to give sound, non-religious reasons for abortion to be considered amoral and unethical. Otherwise, you'd be talking to a brick wall-- unless you're acting as an evangelist as well, in which case telling someone they're wrong and trying to force them to accept your beliefs isn't the way to go about things.

@Vil If you noticed, I did say I went about it wrong, and that bringing religion into arguments never (although seldom or rarely is probably the better term) works. So I guess we're both saying the same thing.