Hacker News Reader

Well, you say abortion is an issue that feels like a Holocaust to you.

To me racism and xenophobia are the the things that fuelled the actual Holocaust. I tried to outline some of the racism inherent to Trump further up.

To be honest, I don't understand conservative Christians love for republicans. They preach social darwinism, often they preach fear of others. Is it all based on this notion that "The left also treats Christians with disdain"?

My view of Christianity (I come from a more Lutheran view...) is one of 'love thy neighbor' and charity towards the poor as the guiding principles. I consider myself a humanist, but understand that my flavor of Western humanism is essentially the non-secular continuation of Christian values -- which are inherently compatible with leftist values that are also very much based on compassion and empathy. This all seems to be incompatible with the hatefulness I see from republicans, especially somebody like Trump. To me, Trump is a selfish nihilist.

One of my favorite Presidents is Jimmy Carter, and his strong moral center based on religious beliefs is the main reason.

This is one of the things I don't understand about modern politics, morally conservative always seem to go towards extreme capitalism and morally progressives tend to go towards socialism. Personally I'm more middle of the road on socialism VS capitalism. But I tend to vote and align with parties on their moral stance. Even though Trump appears to have a crappy personal Moral standard his policies at least align more with the conservative end. I'd rather a hypocrite that legislates conservatively (Even though that's a really crappy thing to have as the best option).

But on the Christian view, there are actually themes in the Bible that talk about a "worker deserving his wage", and "if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat". So I don't know if Christianities version of "Love thy neighbor" is what non Christians think it is. The concept of Love in Christianity doesn't always map to what non Christians see as Love. For example discipline is seen as a form of love. Sometimes doing something that is unpleasant for an individual but helps them in the long run can be seen as love. But to be honest I don't think biblical concepts really align with the left or the right.

If I were convinced as you are that Trump wanted to introduce racist policies as president then I'd agree there is no way in good conscience to vote for him. I'm not yet convinced of that and as I'm not American did not bother researching enough to be fully convinced.

But then I don't know who I'd have voted for. I'm not a fan of Hillary and then there is the Libertarian and Green candidates, neither really align with my moral views either.

It would have been nice if there was a strong moral candidate, but I don't know that either were this election.

This is one of the things I don't understand about modern politics, morally conservative always seem to go towards extreme capitalism and morally progressives tend to go towards socialism.

A cynical and maybe excessively nasty answer is that people that just care about lower taxes have pandered to moral conservatives in order to get tax cutting representatives elected.

The more nuanced answer is probably that there has been a coalition for 30-40 years along those lines. I think over the next several elections, those alignments are going to shift in a big way. Trump doesn't come from the historic coalition, Sanders almost won as an outsider in the Democratic primary. The parties are not well aligned with the electorate.

The simple explanation is that the left won't touch socially conservative ideas, leaving the right free to pander to that base. Combine this with policies that look like tax cuts to the casual observer and you've got a winning formula, despite that fact that the socially conservative electorate isn't interested in libertarian capitalism at all.

Just look at how Trump changed his views on abortion to pander to the social conservatives, and as a consequence won huge evangelical support.

So the right has taken the attitude that they don't care about morals, they'll adopt any policy which allows them to win so they can go about pushing the agenda of liberal capitalism for the benefit of themselves. Sure, there are some genuine moralists on the right too - but none of those just won an election.

>here are actually themes in the Bible that talk about a "worker deserving his wage", and "if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat".

wow some fantastic turns of logic you are using.

Christian means Christ-like. did Christ preach social darwinism, or did he spend his time with prostitutes and lepers?

Did Christ preach having the poor fend for themselves, or did he feed the hungry?

Did Christ praise the wealthy, or does he say "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

You can of course interpret your religion as you see fit, but in my eyes, right wing politics is incompatible with being Christ-like.

There is a lot more to Christianity than being "Christ-like". The parent's point is there exists a healthy serving of many unChrist-like, by your definition, ideas in the Bible. And even then, there is much more to a religion than its holy texts or doctrine.

I'd leave it to the practitioners to exhibit what it means to be one of their followers, and it seems the American practitioners haven't noticed this incompatibility you're concerned about.

Those were actual quotes from the bible. I'm not sure how that's a u turn in logic?

Well, the entire first half of the Bible is before the birth of Christ, and when Christ arrived the religion began whats called the New Covenant with God, replacing the old covenant which bound followers to the old laws of the old testament.

something being "in the bible" is meaningless without its context. Theres quite a breadth on the capturing, keeping and treatment of slaves - would you argue that these verses are the same as Christs teachings?

>As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.

> You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.

>You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.

But hey, if you think being a Christian means following any phrase you happen to pick out of the Bible, go for it.

FYI: This reply is exactly one of the "smug styles" that the original article highlights:

> Christianity, as many hastened to point out, is about love. Christ commands us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. If the Bible took any position on the issue at all, it was that divorce, beloved by Davis, was a sin, and that she was a hypocrite masquerading among the faithful.

> How many of these critiques were issued by atheists?

> This, more than anything I can recall in recent American life, is an example of the smug style.

The irony to me about immigration violations is that a major factor in reducing them has been...NAFTA.

There is even currently a net migration of Mexicans back to Mexico.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-...

I'm not sure I count as part of the left, but as an atheist, I have no trouble understanding a fetus was as much a life as a new born as an honest and principled position. On the other hand, I'm not sure how you come to a political compromise with people that disagree with it (how do they reach out?).

> On the other hand, I'm not sure how you come to a political compromise with people that disagree with it (how do they reach out?).

I've often found myself with the same question. What's a satisfactory answer for "THIS IS MURDER!?" vs. "Eh, I don't think so, more like a nasty wart...". I understand both, but I just don't see place for a bridge other than telling one side to get over it.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.ht...

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."

I've never understood this argument. Why doesn't that apply to feeding and clothing a new born? If you give birth to a child and let them die in the cold that is seen as murder. Why does a parent have to provide for a child before they were born and not after.

Also many societies have concepts where people are required to care for others, parents and close relatives.

I just don't agree, I think if the violinist has only one chance at life and that one chance has been wasted because he was tethered to you without concent then he should have the right to life. But the people who did it should also go to jail for a very long time.

The difference wrt kids is that you have an option to refuse care in the long run, eg by giving up kids for adoption. In the violinist example, if lets say a suitable volunteer is available but needs time to come to the hospital, then yes, you need to stay attached for a short while and disconnecting would be immoral. But if this choice is not given to you, can you be expected to sacrifice an important chunk of your life for someone else?

Otherwise, should you be compelled to donate one of your kidneys?

"I have no trouble understanding a fetus was as much a life as a new born as an honest and principled position" Starting with that is huge. Getting called a women hater, or getting told as a man you have no right to have an opinion, or get written off as a religious idiot, starts to polarize your opinions. But when each side recognizes the others opinion is valid then you can start to look for a compromise.

Personally I think making abortion something that has to be legislated at the state level and leaving moral issues up to public referendum would go a long way to removing it from the normal political divide.

> "There are issue like abortion, that to me are like the holocaust. I know most don't agree with me on that, and I can understand that they don't see a fetus as a life, I get it. But imagine for a second that you were firmly convinced that a fetus was as much a life as a new born."

Okay, so here I am - lifelong progressive Democrat. And I'll open up to this discussion.

So, I'm believing that at the moment of conception a full viable life is formed. And that life has the full rights and protections afforded by the State (both federal and all levels beneath).

Let's start with the simple route - the parents are happy to have the child, are financially capable, and medically sound for delivery. In this nothing is different from how it is today. A healthy child is born to a happy family.

Our differences seem to come from all the complications in the process.

Let's start with an understandable one - the life of the mother is in danger if she delivers the child. This is a horrifying decision. Does the state force the delivery of the child and thus condemn the mother to death? Is not one of the roles of modern medicine to protect people from death? This is, after all, why we now give birth in hospitals.

So, before I go further arguing with myself - what's your rationale as a conservative Christian on that scenario? Is it really as simple as "protect the child's life at all costs"?

For what it's worth - I don't think anyone's an idiot for being on the conservative side. I think a lot of the issues we struggle with in this day and age (such as abortion) are just far more complicated and intricate than most give credit for.

"Life of the mother" is very different from "it's my body", though. If I believe that life begins at conception, I can perhaps bend to a "life of the mother" exception. "It's my body"? But it's not just your body - there's another life involved as well - so you can't just do what you want with your body.

Okay, so you can bend to "life of the mother" exception. I can follow this a bit further then.

How do you handle and account for miscarriages? A sizable number of pregnancies end in miscarriage - especially if we view life as beginning at conception. So in miscarriage the mother has ended the life of the child.

What's the framework with which you believe this should be dealt with? What's to be done with people who have biological disorders leading to problems with gestation? After all, if life starts at conception then it's pretty quickly no longer just a woman's body.

How is a miscarriage any different to an infant dying of natural causes?

Sometimes babies die naturally it's sad, but there is a huge difference between dying naturally and dying due to intervention or neglect.

Surly you can see there is a big difference between a woman having medically difficulty bringing a child to term and an abortion? In the one case she has done all she can to provide for the child in the other she has actively pursued this child's termination.

If the mother and the child are going to die with out intervention you attempt to save both. That may mean an early birth or c-section giving the child little to no chance at survival, but you still try, you still treat that child as a human.

Of course I see the difference. But think of the perspective of the state here. The state must protect the life of the child, as it is a full citizen of the state.

When an infant dies of natural causes it's usually trivially simple to rule out murder. But in the case of miscarriage/abortion the procedure for early-term abortion simply causes a miscarriage. So in order to adequately protect the life of the child we'd need to be able to determine if the miscarriage was forced or not.

What, in your view, is the ideal role of the state as a protector of life in this situation?

I think if the mothers life is at risk the doctor has to make the call on who to save. Sometimes this has to happen. I'd compare it to triage, docotors sometimes have to make a call that means one person lives and another dies. I have no issue with this as long as they recognise both lives and make judgments based on that.