Jim Wallis | Social Movements

[alanbounville]

This is a disgusting contortion of the truth! Faith is inconsequential in regard to social movements, because people of faith or no faith are always on both sides of a social movement! What you are saying here is bogus.

[keithshapiro]

This is the twisting of the truth to take the after effects of a true faith in God and turn it into the purpose for having God somewhere in the mix as to call your actions spiritual. Then he ties it into a political/social movement and doesn't really put God in the center. Moreover the absence of Jesus Christ in this diatribe as the center of purpose is the most telling of all. Let not many of you become teachers knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. (James 3:1)

Not cool Wallis.

[MrsPittyPatt]

I agree with you MrAboltionist!

[MrAbolitionist]

William Wilberforce looked at humans that were considered "non-persons", and demanded they be given equal rights (good!) Barack Obama looked at human beings that were considered "non-persons" and has denied them their right to live. The two are opposites.

[frellthat]

The thing about fetuses is, they don't care. They have no opinions. They lack any consciousness of self. To draw a moral consistency between them, and living, thinking human beings who are enslaved and suffering is extremely weak, grasping and is a sign that the person making the claim has lost his perspective.

[MrAbolitionist]

A newborn can't care either, but if someone killed them bc they believed they weren't human, that would still be wrong, I'm not saying that the suffering of slaves and the unborn are equal, I'm saying that the justification for mistreating them is. It's the argument that the certain humans are somehow non-human by some arbitrary standard.

[frellthat]

No, a newborn can't care, and doesn't possess any consciousness of self either, until about 16 months (if I recall my psychology classes correctly). But its parents can. Their injury is what really matters in that case.

Look, you are making a circular argument... claiming that the justification for slavery and abortion is the same, because both slaves and fetuses are human beings, and that they are both human beings because the justification is the same. It doesn't work.

[frellthat]

You may not like the fact that the law must create an arbitrary definition of what constitutes a human being, but it must do so nevertheless. And since it must be done, the challenge is to do it in a way that is coherent.

Any scientific definition of a human being I can think of would include the prerequisite of being in possession of sentience - something which fetuses, and brain-dead adults both lack.

[MrAbolitionist]

fetuses are the offspring of two human parents, organisms can only reproduce their own kind, it is therefore scientifically impossible for fetuses to be anything else but human beings, Your argument about a new born's death only being terrible bc of the parent's pain is invalid, There have been cases where parents are the ones who kill the newborn, yet they are still punished based on the violation of the new born's right to live not the parent's feelings............

[MrAbolitionist]

.............sentience is therefore not a requirement for humanity,

[frellthat]

Okay then, is an egg a chicken?

Just having 42 chromosomes in the right order does not make something a human being. There is a quality of sentience that sets humans apart from most other animals and it is generally acknowledged that when this is taken away, i.e. in the case of a brain-dead person, the organism has no legal rights.

A fetus is no more aware of its existence than a potted plant and cannot be considered a human being in any meaningful sense.

[frellthat]

Parents who kill their newborn infants are usually suffering from some mental illness, are drug addicts, members of a cult, etc. Or they are just severely distressed. Normal people do not behave that way. It's not an issue of the rights of the newborn.

[MrAbolitionist]

@frellthat for the record,humans have 46 not 42 chromosomes, no, the egg in itself is not a chicken, but the embryo growing in it is. that egg argument is a false comparison, I'm not saying that egg and sperm are human I'm saying that the unborn are, As for "the parents are freaks argument", that is rediculous, if the newborn has no rights since they are not sentient unless the parents want them to have rights as you have suggested than it shouldn't matter whether or not the parents...

[MrAbolitionist]

@frellthat

.........kill them, parents who do kill their children are not wrong because of the motive but bc of the action, their crime is not listed as drug abuse, it's listed as infanticide. yet the Newborns are not sentient, You state that the unborn are not human, I'm sorry, but can human beings reproduce anything else?

[frellthat]

The question is not whether humans can reproduce anything else. The question is at what stage of development can the offspring truly be considered a human being. A fertilized egg, obviously not. An embryo, obviously not. A fetus has some brain development, but no awareness, no capacity for suffering, and cannot be reasonably considered a human being like the enslaved human beings of the 19th century you were trying to compare them to.

[frellthat]

One of the reasons you anti-choice advocates have made zero progress over the past 37 years despite your tireless effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, despite multiple Republican presidencies, etc. is because you seem to have an aversion to having an honest debate on the issues. Instead of talking about fetuses, you talk about "unborn babies". You insist that there is no ethical difference between a fertilized egg and a living, breathing human child. As long as your arguments are framed....

[frellthat]

...in such a way, they will never be accepted enough to accomplish your goals.