The Pitters' Place

It's been a while since I read any bible passages.

Depends on interpretation. Basically an angel visited Mary and told her what would happen. Then Mary said that she was ok with it. Then it happened. So she clearly consented, but on the other the hand the angel's message was phrase as "this is what will happen", not "is it ok with you if this happens?"

Yes but he abused his authority. He was her god, the ultimate authority.

Gendo wrote:Depends on interpretation. Basically an angel visited Mary and told her what would happen. Then Mary said that she was ok with it. Then it happened. So she clearly consented, but on the other the hand the angel's message was phrase as "this is what will happen", not "is it ok with you if this happens?"

So she clearly did not consent.

She was below the age of consent.

Gendo wrote:Depends on interpretation. Basically an angel visited Mary and told her what would happen. Then Mary said that she was ok with it. Then it happened. So she clearly consented, but on the other the hand the angel's message was phrase as "this is what will happen", not "is it ok with you if this happens?"

Yeah...I do remember it more as a "this is what will happen" rather than "is it cool if this happens?" I do somehow feel that Mary was willing(or was chosen because she was willing)...but the bible doesn't really stress that point...I think.

CashRules wrote:She was below the age of consent.

God be like:

"that's what I like 'bout these high school girls...I live outside of time so my age is immeasurable, and they stay the same age. alright alright alright."

Derived Absurdity wrote:

Gendo wrote:Depends on interpretation. Basically an angel visited Mary and told her what would happen. Then Mary said that she was ok with it. Then it happened. So she clearly consented, but on the other the hand the angel's message was phrase as "this is what will happen", not "is it ok with you if this happens?"

So she clearly did not consent.

"Then Mary said that she was ok with it. " Saying you are ok with something is consenting to it...

Now obviously there's the potential age issue, and the power dynamic issue, where you can argue that her consent was invalid because she didn't feel that she really had the option to reject an all-powerful being, but that's there no matter how God approached the subject.

Who cares? Everyone knows a woman isn't allowed to decide what to do with her own body.

...and because the water wasn't safe they quite often drank wine during the day. So she'd almost certainly had a drink when he asked her. So even if she said "yes" it still counts as rape.

The reason I even asked this question in the first place is because Christmas is around the corner and I'm wondering to what degree this tale informs/justifies a Christians anti-choice position(And the concept of virgin birth altogether...like Anakin's origin in Star Wars ). I mean...it's basically the most important story in the bible. Christian kids are taught this story from birth and even reenact it(I once played Joseph in school/church play...the reviews were spectacular )...and I don't recall ministers, priests, Sunday school teachers, or parents really stressing Mary's willingness. It really sounds like she didn't have much of a choice...but we're taught her choice isn't important because of God's will...the child is more important than her choice. There's a female friend of ours that's Christian, one of the nicest/sweetest/thoughtful people I know...yet she's anti-choice. I once got into a bizarre argument with her about it a few years ago. And I walked away confused as to how someone so sweet and thoughtful could be so ignorant and callous about the issue of body autonomy(and it's intersection with class/race/power).

CashRules wrote:She was below the age of consent.

She'd probably had a beer, too.

I question whether you can ever truly consent when the power differential is that big. Like 'Hey, I know I am so powerful and fond of being obeyed that I created the trees and the birds and the fish and also, in fact, you, and I actually literally smite people who don't do the things I tell them but can you do me a favour? Bearing in mind that I am the direct source of all truth and authority and goodness and by acting in opposition to me, you act in opposition to all truth and authority and goodness? And also I once wiped out almost all life on this planet because I felt like it so, you know, it's a nice Nazareth you have here, shame if anything happened to it? I will leave my proposition with you, Mary. CALL ME. Although you do not, in fact, need to call me because I am omnipotent and omniscient and I can basically read your mind and also I may have predetermined your actions depending on whether or not human beings actually have free will. Sorry'.

Gendo wrote:

Derived Absurdity wrote:

Gendo wrote:Depends on interpretation. Basically an angel visited Mary and told her what would happen. Then Mary said that she was ok with it. Then it happened. So she clearly consented, but on the other the hand the angel's message was phrase as "this is what will happen", not "is it ok with you if this happens?"

So she clearly did not consent.

"Then Mary said that she was ok with it. " Saying you are ok with something is consenting to it...

Now obviously there's the potential age issue, and the power dynamic issue, where you can argue that her consent was invalid because she didn't feel that she really had the option to reject an all-powerful being, but that's there no matter how God approached the subject.

Disagree with the part in bold, which you've kinda covered. Consent under duress is not consent. Hell, saying 'Okay' is not necessarily a true expression of consent, and I say this as someone who said 'Okay' to coming in to work tomorrow even though it is a day off and I am not in any way actually okay with it

So, the most important human being to ever be born, the messiah, the very foundation of the Christian religion, was birthed by a woman who's consent was basically irrelevant. That really says a lot. And I'm disturbed by the fact that I've never thought of it that way before.

I rejected the concept of Christianity in part because God as advertised in the Bible really doesn't give a fuck about what anybody wants. Consent means fuck all to this dude. He created us so he can fuck with us and judge us, when in fact what he's passing judgement on are his own failures as an all powerful, all knowing perfect creator, which is itself a paradox, because how could such a being fail? Why would such a being judge its own creations? Meh, now I'm rambling and I sound like Chx or worov or something, so I'll stop.

I also played Joseph in a church Christmas pageant.

I played Linus in a church Christmas show, a good friend was Charlie Brown. We even toured the area going from church to church for the whole month leading up to Christmas. I should have been a star!

BruceSmith78 wrote:I also played Joseph in a church Christmas pageant.

Now that's a good topic and one I have already discussed with friends this week! What was everyone in their school nativity? (Assuming your school had a nativity and is not one of those schools which is going to Hell). I was in nativities at my school (C of E school), Sunday school (Methodist chapel), and youth group (not explicitly a Christian youth group but we did have to say a prayer every week).

I was always either the angel Gabriel or a shepherd. The Gabriel thing I get because I was tall and took life very seriously, hence I could bring a great 7 year old gravity to my role. I have no idea what it is about me that consistently said 'shepherd'. I was very typecast. I was Mary *once* in my life, when I was four or five. And once at youth group, I was Herod's adviser, which was amazing because Herod was played by my dad in full cackling, moustache twirling pantomime style.

Please behold me, as Mary, holding a plastic child almost as big as I am:

I think I liked playing Joseph just because I didn't have a lot of lines.

Cassius Clay wrote:I think I liked playing Joseph just because I didn't have a lot of lines.

Just like the real Joseph.

And I walked away confused as to how someone so sweet and thoughtful could be so ignorant and callous about the issue of body autonomy(and it's intersection with class/race/power).

I have a friend who's very liberal on everything except abortion - she can't help but view it as a parent saying "I do not want this child", and that hits too close to home for her because her family disowned her when she came out to them. I don't want to argue with her on it because some stuff is too personal.

For the record, I'm still strongly pro-life. At least by most definitions. I don't try to push to have abortion illegal, but mostly because I don't think that that's nearly the best way to reduce the abortion rate. And also because I don't see how it can even work that a woman be forced by law to stay pregnant against her will. But while I acknowledge that women who get abortions are facing a tough decision, and are not intentionally doing so, I do believe that it is morally equivalent to infanticide.

I fully support both abortion and infanticide. Whatcha say to that?

Man created tacos. That in itself is more powerful than anything God ever created.

My school had sings, no plays. I hated singing. We did sing some Christian music.

@Gendo - does the timing affect your views? I'm inclined to agree with you when it's later term abortions and something is clearly killed, but when it's done early, e.g. when the foetus is a clump of unthinking, unfeeling cells that are not any more cognitively aware than the sperm and egg cells they're comprised of, I can't quite see it as murder of any sort; insects are more conscious than that, and most people have no ethical qualms about swatting flies. From a Christian standpoint in particular, the idea of life beginning at conception is a fairly modern one, particularly since humanity's understanding of how reproduction works wasn't great when the bible was written.

The only problem with abortions is they're aren't enough of them. Every time I see a pregnant woman I tell her the location of the nearest abortion clinic.

adding to previous post - the operative word is 'choice'; one can be both pro-life and pro-choice, which I am to some degree. I'd rather people not get abortions, but even if I were adamantly against it, I just as strongly believe that it's ultimately their call to make, not mine.

The main problem with the conventional pro-life position is that it's often paired with the implicit or explicit misogynist claim that women (especially pregnant ones) are too emotional/irrational/stupid to be able to make proper moral decisions, and that rational, righteous men thus have to step in and lay down concrete laws to prevent women from wantonly killing babies when they're too hormonal to think straight. It would otherwise be hard to explain; if men consider abortion to be a clear moral wrong, surely they can trust that women are just as capable of understanding that, and that if they still choose to abort regardless, there is likely a good reason why.

Anakin McFly wrote:@Gendo - does the timing affect your views?

It does not. And not for religious reasons. I was pro-life long before I was a Christian, and I've always found any biblical arguments for the pro-life stance to be completely wrong. For me, it's a biological and logical thing. After conception occurs, the only changes that happen to the lifeform are gradual, ongoing, consistent changes. None of these changes individually is any more of a change than the process of going from a newborn to an adult. In other words, between conception and adulthood, all there are are gradual minor changes. There is no single moment that can be clearly pointed to at which the moral status of the life would change, other than the moment of conception (which is, biologically, when a new lifeform is created).

I believe that while life begins at conception, it's not the same as a person beginning to exist at conception, and it only becomes morally wrong to end that life when it becomes capable of consciousness - which is why for instance most people wouldn't consider it morally wrong to kill a plant, even though it is alive. There's the complication of identical twins (and other multiple births) who start off as a single embryo that only later splits into two, each with its own life that up to that moment had not existed. Arguably, those lives did not come into being at conception - splitting is random, and a future-twin embryo is identical to and could have just as easily remained that of a single person - but later. Further complicating it are cases when such split embryos then fuse together even later in the pregnancy, eventually creating just one individual with chimeric DNA (sometimes this happens with opposite sex twins, resulting in an intersex individual). I don't think that would mean that a death happened along the way, or that that person is actually two people. I see them more as the building blocks from which a person later emerges at the point of consciousness, rather than the actual person - who, if one adheres to conventional Christian thought, exists as a soul independent of the body. Likewise, we generally don't consider it death when a fertilised embryo fails to implant in the uterus - which happens often - even though it is physiologically (and morally?) identical to an embryo that successfully implants.

EDIT: it's similar to how I don't consider it murder to remove life support from a brain dead person - they're no longer capable of consciousness, despite a body that's technically alive.

If I recall correctly from my pregnancy the embryo becomes a fetus after 10 (to 12) weeks, that means all things are formed and present. For me that's the cut off stage.

I don't deny peoples right to have an abortion, personally though I think unless the mother's health or the baby is non viable (or has really low quality of life projection) I don't think it should be the way to go. I also think rape victims shouldn't have to carry to term if they don't want to, because I can imagine the emotional cost for them and anyone under 16 also.

Abortion is a touchy subject. I wonder about the kind of life an unwanted child would have, how many women would seek to end their pregnancies with dangerous methods if abortion was illegal (it's illegal still in haiti and the number of deaths and other consequences is beyond imagining).

anyways rambling now so will stop

Yeah, all that. I learnt that making abortion illegal actually causes significantly more death (and more abortions!), because unwanted pregnancies will still be unwanted, and women then resort to coat hangers and other dodgy methods that can end up killing them. I'm guessing those abortions are also much more likely to be late-term, when the foetus might already be conscious and can already feel pain.

Whereas in countries where abortion is legal and regulated, it's a lot safer, more efficient, and reduces harm all around. They also often correlate with better access to birth control that would prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and can also be beneficial from a pro-life stance - such as when abortion clinics provide consultation and resources or foster care services in cases where the mother actually wants to have the child, but cannot afford to, or is living in an abusive environment that she doesn't want her child to be subject to.

Gendo wrote:After conception occurs, the only changes that happen to the lifeform are gradual, ongoing, consistent changes. None of these changes individually is any more of a change than the process of going from a newborn to an adult. In other words, between conception and adulthood, all there are are gradual minor changes. There is no single moment that can be clearly pointed to at which the moral status of the life would change, other than the moment of conception (which is, biologically, when a new lifeform is created).

Actually there is: The moment when the living being gains personhood. Meaning: When he/she/it becomes self-aware, and has expectations for the future and a sense of time.
If I am not mistaken, for babies of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens this happens on average 18 months after birth.

I read this in a book by Peter Singer; and in my opinion he is right on this: It's personhood that gives a right to life.
So not only should abortion be legal, but also infanticide.

At least that's my opinion.

phe_de wrote:

Gendo wrote:After conception occurs, the only changes that happen to the lifeform are gradual, ongoing, consistent changes. None of these changes individually is any more of a change than the process of going from a newborn to an adult. In other words, between conception and adulthood, all there are are gradual minor changes. There is no single moment that can be clearly pointed to at which the moral status of the life would change, other than the moment of conception (which is, biologically, when a new lifeform is created).

Actually there is: The moment when the living being gains personhood. Meaning: When he/she/it becomes self-aware, and has expectations for the future and a sense of time.
If I am not mistaken, for babies of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens this happens on average 18 months after birth.

I read this in a book by Peter Singer; and in my opinion he is right on this: It's personhood that gives a right to life.
So not only should abortion be legal, but also infanticide.

At least that's my opinion.

Isn't that more of a philosophical/theological distinction than it is biological one?

Gendo wrote:Isn't that more of a philosophical/theological distinction than it is biological one?

I'm not sure.
I believe it's possible to find out if a person is self-aware, and has plans for the future; like with the mirror test.

It's a philosophical or ethical question whether the right to life comes from personhood; but the existence of personhood could be a scientific question.

phe_de wrote:

Gendo wrote:Isn't that more of a philosophical/theological distinction than it is biological one?

I'm not sure.
I believe it's possible to find out if a person is self-aware, and has plans for the future; like with the mirror test.

It's a philosophical or ethical question whether the right to life comes from personhood; but the existence of personhood could be a scientific question.

Perhaps. But while we can look at some ages and say they have self-awareness, and look at other ages and say they don't, I don't think there is or really can be one specific moment at which they go from one to the other. And even if they were, using that as your criteria could rule out giving personhood to those who are unconscious, or mentally challenged, or as you already pointed out, infants. So that seems like a bad criteria, though perhaps a good start.

While there may not be a definite indicator for personhood, science may find an indicator of some kind which always takes place before personhood. If that indicator is not showing yet, then no personhood is possible.

I'd say 24 weeks would be the cutoff for abortion in my opinion; at this point the required nerves and brain connections required for the fetus to feel pain are formed, and it is also the point at which a fetus can be viable outside the womb.

Presence of brain activity / the ability to experience existence feels like a better criteria for me than a sense of one's personhood - i.e. Is there anybody home, in that body? In the case of infants, the unconscious and mentally challenged, the answer is a definite yes, and killing them would be murder. But not so for braindead people and foetuses when they're a clump of cells incapable of thought - there has to be a victim that experiences the harm that makes something wrong.

Boomer wrote:I'd say 24 weeks would be the cutoff for abortion in my opinion; at this point the required nerves and brain connections required for the fetus to feel pain are formed, and it is also the point at which a fetus can be viable outside the womb.

The problem with that reasoning: This is also true for grown animals. In my opinion a grown pig has more personality than a newborn human.
Yet I am not a vegetarian. So if I was advocating a ban on abortion while enjoying my bacon burger for lunch, I'd be a hypocrite or a speciecist.

Which is why I am a "personist", so to speak. I believe that personhood matters. But I know that most of humanity does not agree with me; infanticide is illegal almost everywhere.

Oh yeah, I agree that it would apply to animals. But in the case of killing animals for food, there is at least some good that emerges from it: people get to eat, and are nourished. Whereas I'm definitely against hunting for sport, where I'm not convinced that the minor benefit of someone being entertained is worth taking that life. Likewise, even some late term abortions or infanticide (or, heck, murder of full grown humans) can be potentially justified in cases where their death results in a net benefit - like in the trolley problem where one is presented with the option of sacrificing a stranger to save a dozen. Likewise in a late-term abortion where, say, not aborting would kill both the mother and baby. Whereas in the case of something that is not capable of consciousness, I wouldn't consider there to be a similar need to justify killing it.

But it's a very utilitarian approach, and that has its own issues too.

phe_de wrote:

Boomer wrote:I'd say 24 weeks would be the cutoff for abortion in my opinion; at this point the required nerves and brain connections required for the fetus to feel pain are formed, and it is also the point at which a fetus can be viable outside the womb.

The problem with that reasoning: This is also true for grown animals. In my opinion a grown pig has more personality than a newborn human.
Yet I am not a vegetarian. So if I was advocating a ban on abortion while enjoying my bacon burger for lunch, I'd be a hypocrite or a speciecist.

Which is why I am a "personist", so to speak. I believe that personhood matters. But I know that most of humanity does not agree with me; infanticide is illegal almost everywhere.

Yeah, not much of a problem for me. There are so many premises that I don't accept in order to consider animal welfare when discussing abortion that it's really a non issue to me.

Boomer wrote:

Cassius Clay wrote:I think I liked playing Joseph just because I didn't have a lot of lines.

Just like the real Joseph.

Joseph was the first cuckold.

Playing Joseph at the age of 8 or 9 was the first time I remember feeling any kind of stage fright or social fear. I was a very confident kid. I spoke up all the time in class. I eagerly went to the board to show how to solve problems or speak in front of the class. And I believe I was excited to be in a school/church play.

But, the day came, and I'm ready to go on stage Christmas day in front of a huge fucking crowd of adults and I'm suddenly scared to death. And I just remember the immediate blissful relief when it was all over...thankful that I didn't have many lines.