this whole debate comes down to a definition of when a fertilised egg becomes a live human

Why? People dont usually abort things that are dead and if it’s not human then there’s no need for an abortion. I reject the false equivalency objection that somehow a human embryo is not “human” the same way I reject that a toddler is somehow less human than an adult.

This “live human” stipulation is a pilpul fabrication meant to inject moral ambiguity. This allows abortion to be morally justified as an acceptable practice at least up until some arbitrary stage of development (even though it’s clear that pregnancy, barring complication, means a baby is on the way.)

You will never get consensus on your “live human” criteria. That is by design.

I posit instead that the crux of this debate comes down to the sanctity of life and personal responsibility. Calling me cruel for “denying care” is odd considering I’m arguing to prevent the termination of healthy pregnancies conceived with full consent and knowledge of the man and woman involved. A pregnancy isn’t a “risk ending badly” it’s a blessing and a responsibility (for both woman AND man).

To break it down simply – babies come from sex. More specifically they come from the product of sucessful egg-sperm fertilization (e.g. the early stage embryo and fetuses that are aborted by the millions each year) This occurs in the womb which is naturally equipped for this process. It’s pretty clear what is going on.

Determining termination based on some level of cognizance is an arbitrary standard and frankly one that opens the door for other judgements that are only limited by imagination, rhetoric and charisma.

At what point does this evolve into screening fetuses, altering genomes and treating early human development like some science experiment. Aldous Huxley, a eugenicist, explores this future in his novel Brave New World.

“Stage-of-development” is a flawed argument because it presupposes that some qualifications must be met before an embryo or fetus reaches a status of personhoood when in reality the "clump of cells " has all the genetic instructions it requires to proceed through all stages of development at conception. Entertaining the idea that it somehow matters less because it is smaller, less developed, dependent on the mother etc is the pilpul I was talking about. If it wasn’t a human then an abortion wouldn’t be necessary because a dog, bird or fish embryo would die immediately.

It is not like contraception (e.g. a condom). A gamete on it’s own will never develop into a human under any circumstances.

There can also be devastating psychological fallout from not getting an abortion, which would be why many people believe it should be a choice that the people involved get to make about themselves, rather than forcing it on them.

We are talking about people (man and woman) who decide to have sex and don’t want to deal with the logical, predictable outcome. No one is forcing them to do anything. They have created this situation for themselves. It’s that simple. The rest is just mental gymnastics for them not taking responsibility for their actions.

The only intellectually and morally honest argument for abortion is “I don’t care”.

Abortion should be legal in all cases

Respectfully I disagree. If one grants that abortion should be legal for rape/incest/LOTM (~1%) then it comes down to the other 99% which is what both sides actually care about. At this point the conversation shifts to personal liberty, bodily autonomy, stage-of-development or, in the case of Roe v. Wade, privacy. While there is some clever pilpul regarding ethics and/or the “dilemma” an unexpected pregnancy creates, in the overwhelming majority of cases the abortion decision comes down to convenience. Convenience meaning the prevention of struggle. Having to alter ones life or career to acommodate the needs of a(nother) child. It’s no secret that sex causes pregnancy however many people feel they shouldnt have to deal with the consequences (women AND men). Human life is the most precious thing on earth which means it needs to be treated with the utmost care from conception to repose.

Abortion creates a culture of death. Assisted suicides would almost certainly not be a thing if abortion wasn’t normalized first. It’s no surprise that abortion traces its modern roots to the eugenics movement.

Furthermore something that is rarely discussed is the psychological fallout from abortion. It can be devastating for both women and men.

I’m not a programmer but I’ve been using linux for over 20 years. It’s crazy to me that someone who develops software for a living would not just run Windows but have never meaningfully ran linux. 🤔

I have a thinkpad that runs this. It’s a great little distro.

Hannah Montana Linux

Lol this is exactly where my mind went

It’s great! It only makes 4-6 servings of rice at a time but I prefer that because it means there’s less leftovers

Someone gifted me a Le Creuset rice cooker. I use it at least once but often twice a week. At $200+ it’s truly something I never would have bought myself.

“His” main critique is against evolutionary theology which is common amongst reformers and Christian critics. “God was seen this way. Then it changed and he was seen this way. OT God is angry. NT God is compassionate etc” This is not a new idea and has been held by the Orthodox church since it’s inception and has been codified for the last 1200-1300 years. The Orthodox view everything consistently through a Christological lens which is why their view of sotieriology etc is so different than what you will get from Protestants or even Roman Catholics.

Fr. Stephen De Youngs book is just a readily consumable encapsulation of ancient arguments, historical findings (such as the Rosetta stones) with his own analyses and contributions. Would you be better off reading the church fathers and primary sources yourself? Possibly but you’d also need to know ancient Greek and Hebrew.

Christians and academics love to argue and I’m not surprised to see that people are critical of the book. I don’t think there is any religious commentary that hasn’t received criticism.

At any rate I encourage you to look at Orthodox theology more generally. You will find a logical consistency and depth of analysis that the secular world usually says is lacking in the Christian worldview.

I recommend you read “Religion of the Apostles” by Stephen De Young. He explains the common misconceptions of the early Israelite beliefs. The “Gods” are lesser divine beings that were meant to protect the 70 tribes after the Tower of Babel fell. The deities rebelled against God and led the nations astray and were worshipped. The tribe of Israel worshipped the God of “Most high” which is the one true God above all divine beings. So they aren’t henotheistic because there is only one God. The term “Gods” was used because they were divine beings but they were created whereas God the Father is not. Everything proceeds from him.

A great podcast that explains evil and suffering is “Whole Counsel of God” with the same guy. In short, suffering is unavoidable because man falls from Eden after sinning and the consequence of sin is death. Making death the consequence is a mercy because man can become sanctified during his life and through death re-enter the kingdom of God. Consequently suffering draws people closer to God than anything else.

I’m not a theologian and wrote this on my phone but that’s my quick recap. The book is way more thorough of course.