|
|
|
|
|
| Your God and Its views on abortion
Posted: 7/4/2008 11:46:50 AM | Original Post:
Tis not a crime against God. God understands when a raped woman does not wish to have the child of her attacker. God understands when a person does not want to have children.
God agrees with those who choose abortion, and holds nothing against them. If they don't have kids, he says "So be it!"
I'd say that all of this depends on what and/or who a person defines their God to be.
Assuming, of course, they believe in gods. | |
|
| Your God and Its views on abortion
Posted: 7/4/2008 12:00:28 PM |
Yes I am familiar with the story. If we would murder someone what would happen to us? If a women looses a baby due to a missciarage they don't say that she lost a fetus. But if someone wishes to get rid of the life they are carrying they call it a fetus, why would you say this is?
Semantics. Good grief. 
I say to ease the concious. But we need to face the reality not try to kid ourselves.
I completely agree ~ stop kidding one's self. One should, in fact, view the world with open eyes rather than through the eyes of their religion of choice. That may be a part of who one is, but it doesn't mean it's right or wrong to anyone else.
~OT~ No one tells me what to do with my own self. PERIOD. If I want to worship in a Christian faith, a Buddhist Temple, or the grandure of nature ~ that's up to me. What I choose to eat, drink, or allow to grow within me, is also up to me and only me. Too bad birth control is so commonly overlooked. Women should take care of their bodies and that should include making certain they won't have to "choose" abortion, adoption or to raise a child ~ possibly on their own. You choose to have a child, you'd better be prepared to do it for the rest of your life without sniveling about the man not doing his part. We can't dictate what others want ~ protect your own self and you won't have a moral decision to face down the road. (And I'm so sick of all these failed condom, the pill didn't work, the tubaligation was not effective stories ~ please ~ human error is human, story-telling/false justifications are just silliness.) JMO  | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/4/2008 4:59:46 PM |
Tis not a crime against God. God understands when a raped woman does not wish to have the child of her attacker. God understands when a person does not want to have children.
God agrees with those who choose abortion, and holds nothing against them. If they don't have kids, he says "So be it
Abortion is murder doesn't matter how the woman got pregnant. God agrees with those who choose abortion? Who told you? Doesn't the bible say "thou shall not kill"? I don't see how God would agree. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/4/2008 5:48:29 PM | "Abortion is Murder," seems to me a far too simplistic answer to this question. It is a fact that many women who fall pregnant are, for one reason or another, unready or unwilling to have children. If a child is born to a woman who has neither the resources nor the commitment to conscientiously raise it as a well rounded, fully functional member of society, it may well grow up as a damaged, angry miscreant, bent on exacting revenge on the society that granted it life. He/she may become a serial killer, and eventually become subject to the whims of the very people who granted it life, only this time they would be arguing strongly for its demise as "justice", or "closure", for the victims accrued in its trail of destruction. (I'm thinking America here)
Hypocritical @ssholes in my honest opinion.
Support the rights of fully grown but flawed individuals that actually exist and interact with the grown up world, before you start espousing the human rights of clumps of cells. Say NO to Capital Punishment.
Thinks: bloody hell, this is a long thread. Does anyone even read this sh!t? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:45:08 PM | | Jus' dreamily dreaming here, in a dreamy sort of way, but what if we could have negated the effects of a Hitler or Ted Bundy by a well judged abortion at the appropriate time. would that have been right or wrong? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/5/2008 12:39:12 AM | sihtdaeruoynac: "Doesn't the bible say "thou shall not kill"? I don't see how God would agree."
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
ALSO:
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)
Do I really need to go on?  | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/5/2008 6:46:51 AM |
"Abortion is Murder," seems to me a far too simplistic answer to this question.
The statement itself is a bit too simplistic, but as I stated before, belief changes nothing. Abortion must be treated as murder due to subjectivity. ...sigh... It seems everyone skipped alegiant_one and my posts and are barreling down the same flawed line of reasoning.
For the rest of this post, drawing out "what might be if" is only an "if." It proves nothing and cannot even be considered. If we killed every child that MIGHT turn into a social miscreant, there wouldn't be enough room to bury the bodies.
The death penalty clouds the issue. It is completely irrelevant. The issue is abortion. I will, however, state that the death penalty cannot be compared to abortion because justifcations for the death penalty are VASTLY different than the justifications for abortion. Death penalty arguments are nothing but misdirection. If I must argue that point, I will, but I would prefer to keep this as simplistic as it really is.
There are many things one cannot do with oneself. You cannot build fires on your own property which endanger the safety of others. You cannot speed on the interstate in your own car on the road your tax dollars paid for. You cannot shoot guns into the air. You cannot use illegal drugs because of the consequences to others. You cannot fly your own aircraft in restricted airspace. You cannot dump toxic chemicals even if it is on your own property. Most importantly, you cannot murder for any reason other than immediate life-threatening duress.
Is abortion murder? Oh... wait, my bad... Abortion isn't murder if you believe it isn't. Sorry I forgot that belief changes fact. It seems strange to me that MOST Christians (who fully appreciate the power of belief) understand that life does not become non-life if you believe so, while SOME atheists (so inclined use pure reason) cannot grasp this simple truth. It looks like a reversal of roles.
It has nothing to do whatsoever with belief. Understand that if you support choice, you support choice to revoke choice. Nothing changes the hypocritical aspect of that. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/5/2008 7:53:25 AM | "Abortion is Murder," seems to me a far too simplistic answer to this question. It is a fact that many women who fall pregnant are, for one reason or another, unready or unwilling to have children. If a child is born to a woman who has neither the resources nor the commitment to conscientiously raise it as a well rounded, fully functional member of society, it may well grow up as a damaged, angry miscreant, bent on exacting revenge on the society that granted it life. He/she may become a serial killer, and eventually become subject to the whims of the very people who granted it life, only this time they would be arguing strongly for its demise as "justice", or "closure", for the victims accrued in its trail of destruction. (I'm thinking America here)
The argument that abortion prevents the development of potentially harmful human being, in this case a future serial killer, has no merit. Even a wanted pregnancy can produce same, and there is no evidence that an unwanted pregnancy has a greater (or lesser) chance of producing a serial killer or a Nobel Peace Prize winner, all other things being equal. It's an argument without a shred of proof, only prejudicial assumptions about the children of those with less access to resources (the disenfranchised) and less funds (the poor). It's also a question to which Science can apply its scrutiny and testing. It's a matter of gathering the data (facts) and presenting them for peer review. And yet no-one has stepped forward to settle the matter. So, in the absence of evidence, a workable thesis, or proof, I'd say this argument goes in the garbage.  | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/5/2008 12:11:52 PM | Well demolished romanticoptimist, but I wasn't really trying to justify abortion by my crude and fanciful illustration. The intention was more to wag a contemptuous finger at those for whom a clump of cells deserve more right to life than a full grown but flawed person. I find the so called pro-life and pro-execution stances incompatible with each other.
The argument for or against abortion is something I would shy away from making any kind of sweeping judgement on 'cause it appears to me to be a question that is fraught with pain and stress for the women involved. They are probably best placed to make a judgement for themselves without too much interference from either males or religious zealots. I think it must be a horrible thing to go through and hopefully no woman takes the decision lightly. I s'pose this makes my position pro-choice, within the constraints recently reviewed by our government here in the UK. They voted to retain the current limit on abortions of 24 weeks.
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/5/2008 12:57:13 PM | They voted to retain the current limit on abortions of 24 weeks.
If only 24 weeks was not irrefutably suggestive of sentience and response. I speculate that this marker was set due to the times most women find out about pregnancy, with only minor consideration of the fetus's level of development. I could post facts and pictures, but I have already referenced an article which is more than sufficient.
They are probably best placed to make a judgement for themselves without too much interference from either males or religious zealots.
This part of the argument really blows my mind, but it's very typical. A woman and mother has x-ray vision right? Follow along here. The choice of the woman is likely far more clouded than any objective observer. It is made under stress and fear, much like lawyer dealing with an extremely important case with a clear ethics dilema involved. We do not allow people to simply make decisions based on emotional gravity. What I mean by that is one could violate any law because of reasons which were justified by him/her. It does not changes the consequences or whether or not the decision was right or wrong.
This argument uses both an unsustained appeal to emotion and commits a subjectivist fallacy. Refer again to belief and whether or not it changes anything.
Jus' dreamily dreaming here, in a dreamy sort of way, but what if we could have negated the effects of a Hitler or Ted Bundy by a well judged abortion at the appropriate time. would that have been right or wrong?
Although we have addressed the issue of "what if," Hitler brings an interesting point to mind. Over the course of human history, untold attrocities have been commited, not simply by madmen, but by whole populations. Societal consensus has brought about more deaths than any deranged killer.
The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of the clearest reason and if systematically executed represents the most humane act of mankind."
Adolf Hitler. - Mein Kampf
vol. 1, ch. 10 1925
Proof positive only that entire nations can be deceived by rationalization. I often ponder what makes abortion any different from the holocaust, the crusades, or the Spanish inquisition. This does not support the pro-life argument, but it does clearly demonstrate that societal consensus could be wrong and that investigation into the matter is warranted. All too many people follow along like sheep when someone has an idea that seems to make sense. It's sad how terribly ineffective humans are at arriving at well-thought and supported conclusions. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/5/2008 2:38:38 PM |
Well demolished romanticoptimist, but I wasn't really trying to justify abortion by my crude and fanciful illustration. The intention was more to wag a contemptuous finger at those for whom a clump of cells deserve more right to life than a full grown but flawed person. I find the so called pro-life and pro-execution stances incompatible with each other. I too see no reconciliation between being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. To me, if the one is taking a life, then so is the other. But I do recognise that those who advocate capital punishment for certain crimes have some justifiable grounds for their case.
The other group that might need a finger wag are those who support abortion at any time without regard to any rights of the unborn child and yet are appalled at Capital Punishment. But I also recognise that they too have justifiable grounds for their case.
The argument for or against abortion is something I would shy away from making any kind of sweeping judgement on 'cause it appears to me to be a question that is fraught with pain and stress for the women involved. I agree. It seems unkind and inhumane to me to declare "Abortion is MURDER!!!!!!" to a woman who has had an abortion and is suffering from the quite common sense of guilt and/or loss about the decision. While I would prefer it didn't happen, I cannot bring myself to judge a woman who has made the decision harshly. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/5/2008 5:33:29 PM | Lilith Delost I am not a christian, I follow a buddhist school cultivation system. Even I was taught all killing is wrong no matter what. Knowingly killing living things. What did a baby do before it's born? Did the baby hurt anyone? A baby is pure in heart. In buddhist school they teach to refrain from killing knowing even up to the point of eating meat!
A baby can be adopted these days there are tons of people wanting to adopt babies. Not everything in the bible is the word of god. People added their own beliefs and even during translations people changed things. It is impossible to keep something orginal the same forever. For example if you have 20 people, you tell a story to the next person to you and it's passed on to the next person, when you get to the 20th person the story is much more different story than the orginal.
<div class="quote">
I agree. It seems unkind and inhumane to me to declare "Abortion is MURDER!!!!!!" to a woman who has had an abortion and is suffering from the quite common sense of guilt and/or loss about the decision. While I would prefer it didn't happen, I cannot bring myself to judge a woman who has made the decision harshly.
Maybe the woman hurted the man in a past life. Everything happens for a reason. We are suffer because of karma. Bad things happens to us because we deserve it. How would you feel if you were the baby? Ever think about that? It is a living thing and you don't call it murder. It is ok for a baby that's pure in heart to suffer yet it's not ok for someone isn't who isn't pure in heart to suffer? Isn't a mother suppose to protect their young even if she has to risk her life. Even animals risk their own life to protect the off spring. Some of us humans are no better than animals! That is very sad. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/5/2008 6:51:29 PM |
I think it must be a horrible thing to go through and hopefully no woman takes the decision lightly. I s'pose this makes my position pro-choice, within the constraints recently reviewed by our government here in the UK. They voted to retain the current limit on abortions of 24 weeks.
Pro-Choice People really need to intelligently understand "What" the surface level definition of what “PRO-CHOICE” means…and also Focus on, to what extent, the PRo-Choice Position reaches...
In other words, which “CHOICES” do we ACTUALLY support by claiming that position AND what does that “CHOICE” ACTUALLY Do ?
With that said, I'm Pro-Choice for the woman. She can CHOOSE not to conceive. If she gets pregnant against her CHOICE, she can CHOOSE to carry the child to term and then keep her baby. Or she can CHOOSE to give the child up for adoption so he/she will be loved and cared for. But she can't CHOOSE the quick way out of a difficult problem by taking the LIFE of that little baby. That’s NOT Pro-Choice…that’s Pro-Abortion. (I know some people will have a problem with that....sarcastic....but it seems to make sense.) You're either FOR Abortion or AGAINST Abortion. Not-withstanding Ectopic Pregnancy or some Life-Threatening medical dilema for the mother.
The ONLY result from CHOOSING Abortion is a Dead Human Being. CHOOSING Life has many more viable and constructive options.
 | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/5/2008 7:55:49 PM | I too see no reconciliation between being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. To me, if the one is taking a life, then so is the other.
For starters, capital punishment is Biblically supported and even commanded.
Abortion is not.
Taking the life of a murderer (a law that is derived from the O.T), is not even in the same atmosphere as murdering an innocent unborn creation of God.
The other group that might need a finger wag are those who support abortion at any time without regard to any rights of the unborn child and yet are appalled at Capital Punishment. But I also recognise that they too have justifiable grounds for their case.
No argument here, doll.
The argument for or against abortion is something I would shy away from making any kind of sweeping judgement on 'cause it appears to me to be a question that is fraught with pain and stress for the women involved. What of the women involved that are simply younger (the unborn) than those that refuse them life, by aborting?
It seems unkind and inhumane to me to declare "Abortion is MURDER!!!!!!" to a woman who has had an abortion and is suffering from the quite common sense of guilt and/or loss about the decision. While I would prefer it didn't happen, I cannot bring myself to judge a woman who has made the decision harshly.
A woman who has had an abortion in her past can receive forgivness and healing from the very God that she commited sin against by robbing His child of life.
The in the Book of Psalm, we are taught that God weaves, makes and creates His children, in their mother's womb, before their heart begins to beat.
I would never say anything unkind to a woman who has had an abortion in her past, but offer only words of kindness, love and forgivness that is available.
But I refuse to lie to one that is considering it today and say that the act is "OK" or that God does not see it as murder. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/5/2008 10:21:43 PM |
I said: I too see no reconciliation between being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. To me, if the one is taking a life, then so is the other.
Apologist~D.A : For starters, capital punishment is Biblically supported and even commanded.
Abortion is not.
Taking the life of a murderer (a law that is derived from the O.T), is not even in the same atmosphere as murdering an innocent unborn creation of God. I would never equate the two polarised examples you gave. However, killing a person who is supposed to be a murderer but later is found to be innocent is too.. well, "final". And it seems to be both vengeful and archaic. As for it being biblically supported, I've always considered the Old Testament Law must be filtered through Jesus Christ. If I recall correctly, when faced with an adulterous woman (The Law command she be stoned to death) He didn't do as the Law commanded. His seemed to be a choice to act with Love rather than Law. That's my read anyway.
I said: It seems unkind and inhumane to me to declare "Abortion is MURDER!!!!!!" to a woman who has had an abortion and is suffering from the quite common sense of guilt and/or loss about the decision. While I would prefer it didn't happen, I cannot bring myself to judge a woman who has made the decision harshly.
Apologist~D.A : A woman who has had an abortion in her past can receive forgivness and healing from the very God that she commited sin against by robbing His child of life.
The in the Book of Psalm, we are taught that God weaves, makes and creates His children, in their mother's womb, before their heart begins to beat.
I would never say anything unkind to a woman who has had an abortion in her past, but offer only words of kindness, love and forgivness that is available.
But I refuse to lie to one that is considering it today and say that the act is "OK" or that God does not see it as murder. I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying "it's OK. Go for it." I'm simply saying that heaping scorn and finger pointing don't help the woman who has had an abortion find reconciliation, especially if they already feel the anguish of guilt or loss. Or both. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/6/2008 6:34:27 PM |
If I recall correctly, when faced with an adulterous woman (The Law command she be stoned to death) He didn't do as the Law commanded. His seemed to be a choice to act with Love rather than Law. That's my read anyway.
I have to agree with your interpretation. I believe love and mercy is a far higher principle than justice and law and they are the entire foundation upon which the gospels are lain.
Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuses you, even Moses, in whom you trust. -- John 5:45
In any case, the death penalty is only misdirection. It cannot be compared to abortion because the justification behind it is vastly different. I am mostly against the death penalty. I think death should be a judgement reserved for God alone, but at the same time I do not know if I could face a grieving family bearing an unspeakable attrocity with those convictions. The reason such convictions might waiver is because of the clear balance involved. Death(victim) vs Death(killer) or Death(victim) vs Mercy(killer). The problem with abortion is there is no mercy needed. Mercy cannot be extend to the unborn because they have done nothing bad to require it. The death penalty comparison is hopelessly flawed.
If faced with the ridicule (real or imagined) a woman must encounter because of an illict pregnancy, being asked about a baby she plans on giving up all the time, the risk of losing her job or being unable to find one, post-partum depression, combined with the extensive list I described earlier, it still doesn't justify death, especially of an innocent. Nothing you add to the list short of death can tilt that balance.
Excluding non-religious persons who feel conviction for the pro-life cause for a second here, I think Christian pro-life beliefs have reinforcing dynamics because our entire belief system rests upon the fate of one innocent man. The crucifiction of Jesus changed the entire balance of forces in all creation. It attested to the fact that one innocent life has enough value to decide the fate of worlds. Still, even if we completely excluded God from our reasoning, the entire pro-choice belief still has no justifiable foundation. It falls down logically, philosophically, theologically, morally, ethically, whatever method you would like to use. It is my personal dream that we can stop finger-pointing or heaping scorn and start legislating. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/6/2008 7:20:36 PM |
It falls down logically, philosophically, theologically, morally, ethically, whatever method you would like to use. It is my personal dream that we can stop finger-pointing or heaping scorn and start legislating.
Logically? No. There is nothing logical about ascribing any more value to adult humans than to any other life form. Even less logic to valuing a highly incomplete human which cannot possibly exist on its own anyway.
Philosophically? No, because that depends on your philosophy. See preceding.
Theologically? No. Many don't follow any such theology, so a theological basis is relevant only to the individual. Further, all three of the main desert monotheistic faiths prescribe infanticide and abortion. So it is written, so shall it be done.
Morally? No, because there are no absolute morals. This is another "exclusivity of truth" item.
Ethically? Highly debatable. I think this is again a matter of perspective.
Finger-pointing and scorn? You've made your highly theistic point of view known. It's not logical to value the existence of a fetus any more than a cancerous tumor. Both are based on "potential", not in proven real current traits. That is the essence of the capital punishment comparison. It's not a comparison of the killing of a proven criminal versus an unproven innocent. The comparison is one of "potential". Those who argue against abortion frequently lay claim to the "potential" of the future person. Bollocks. That person could just as well prove to be a genocidal dictator. "Potential" is an argument without substance. That leaves reality, and the reality is that a fetus lacks not only the vast majority of the traits of an adult human, it also lacks most of the traits of an adult chicken, pig, cow, trout, clam... In short, the "preservation of human life" aspect is purely an emotional argument, not a rational one based on evidence. All a fetus really shares with an adult human is genes. Same can be said of sperm. Best toss out the condoms, since you'll be knowingly dooming millions of humans by using them. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:11:31 PM |
Still, even if we completely excluded God from our reasoning, the entire pro-choice belief still has no justifiable foundation. It falls down logically, philosophically, theologically, morally, ethically, whatever method you would like to use. It is my personal dream that we can stop finger-pointing or heaping scorn and start legislating.
I agree with you both....romanticoptimist and altruist80. However, I still think that most people are "hung up" on believing that Pro-Life people are out to take people's choices away. That couldn't be further from the truth. Pro-Life apologists defend the people in the womb by showing the Truth as to their Humanity...Scientifically and Philosophically. Also, what I don't think people fully understand is the abortion processes themselves. (Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so) There have been graphic websites created on the internet, with graphic pictures, which show abortions and aborted fetuses. But people don't want to look at something so repugnant, so they dismiss it. As a result, it doesn't become a factor in their belief system.
To me, Graphic Pictures are appropriate, as long as the pictures are TRUE....and if they ARE TRUE...I think they should be admitted as EVIDENCE. And in the "Socratic" quest for TRUTH...NONE of the evidence should be "filtered", because we find it “personally” repugnant. If something is so HORRIBLE that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps WE SHOULDN'T BE TOLERATING IT !
With that said, all one can do in a text Forum like this is to provide apologetics for the Pro-Life view through Science and Philosophy (not that God is irrelevant), and also to describe the medical explanations and definitions (play-by-play, if you will) of abortion procedures which are used to educate and inform people...without providing the visuals to go along with the Evidence, of course.
The Goal is to win people's hearts and minds with Truth. Not to take people's choices away. (not that either of you ever said that) Only THEN can we legislate responsibly through our Representative Democracy. It's going to take some work to educate people on Abortion because we're up against a society that is rebellous toward God and political people with reprobate minds.
In the Abortion debate, Abortion is called a “CHOICE”. If this is true, women who CHOOSE Abortion should know what they are CHOOSING. The following Smorgasbord are descriptions of the various types of abortions that are performed in this country.
RU-486
RU-486 is a drug that produces an abortion. It is taken after the mother misses her period. It can be used up to the second month of pregnancy. It works by blocking progesterone, a crucial hormone during pregnancy. Without progesterone, the uterine lining does not provide food, fluid and oxygen to the tiny developing Human Being. The Human Being cannot survive. A second drug is then given that stimulates the uterus to contract and the Human Being is expelled.
Women who abort with the drug RU-486 experience nausea, severe cramping, vomiting and bleeding. But the resulting emotional distress may have even more impact. Rather than being “over with” in a few minutes (as in a surgical abortion) this abortion could last for over a week. Then, when the woman finally does abort, she will expel a tiny dead human being - her developing baby.
Suction-Aspiration
In this method, the cervical muscle ring must be paralyzed and stretched open. The abortionist then inserts a hollow plastic tube with a knife-like edge into the uterus. The suction tears the developing Human Being's body into pieces. The placenta is cut from the uterine wall and everything is sucked into a bottle.
Dilation and Curettage (D and C)
This is similar to a suction procedure except a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife is inserted into the uterus. The developing Human Being and placenta are cut into pieces and scraped out into a basin. Bleeding is usually very heavy with this method.
Dilation and Evacuation (D and E)
This type of abortion is done after the third month of pregnancy. The cervix must be dilated before the abortion. Usually Laminaria sticks are inserted into the cervix. These are made of sterilized seaweed that is compressed into thin sticks. When inserted, they absorb moisture and expand, thus enlarging the cervix. A pliers-like instrument is inserted through the cervix into the uterus. The abortionist then seizes a leg, arm or other part of the developing Human Being and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the body. This continues until only the head remains. Finally the skull is crushed and pulled out. The nurse must then reassemble the body parts to be sure that all of them were removed.
Prostaglandin Abortion
Prostaglandin is a hormone that induces labor. The developing Human Being usually dies from the trauma of the delivery. However, if the developing Human Being is old enough, it will be born alive. This is called a “complication.” To prevent this, some abortionists use ultrasound to guide them as they inject a “feticide” (a drug that kills the fetus) into the developing Human's heart. They then administer prostaglandin and a dead Human Being is delivered. This type of abortion is used in mid and late term pregnancies.
Dilation and Extraction (D and X)
This abortion is also used on mid and late term babies, from 4 to 9 months gestation. Ultrasound is used to identify how the unborn baby is facing in the womb. The abortionist inserts forceps through the cervical canal into the uterus and grasps one of the baby’s legs, positioning the baby feet first, face down (breech position). The child’s body is then pulled out of the birth canal except for the head which is too large to pass through the cervix. The baby is alive, and probably kicking and flailing his legs and arms.
The abortionist hooks his fingers over the baby’s shoulders, holding the woman’s cervix away from the baby’s neck. He then jams blunt tipped surgical scissors into the base of the skull and spreads the tips apart to enlarge the wound. A suction catheter is inserted into the baby’s skull and the brain is sucked out. The skull collapses and the baby’s head passes easily through the cervix.
Choice?
Abortion is called a “CHOICE”. What is really chosen is the killing of a Human Being. The methods differ but the results are the same - a dead baby. Even abortion supporters admit this. Dr. Malcom Watts, writing a pro-abortion piece for the California Medical Association said: “...it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.
The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous until death.”
The real question is not about “Choice.” It is whether we have the right to kill over 4,000 human beings a day, for any reason.
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:33:50 PM | Frog Eyes,
Glad you could join us. Better catch up before you go re-hashing arguments which have already been addressed. However, you have presented some new ones. I will try to address them.
Logically? No. There is nothing logical about ascribing any more value to adult humans than to any other life form. Even less logic to valuing a highly incomplete human which cannot possibly exist on its own anyway.
I will deal with the first part of this one, because the first statement is by far the most audacious I've seen. First off, you will not find many human beings that will lend credit to the statement that human life is equal in value to say, a turnip, so I will apply your Occam's razor to cut away the irrelevant part of your argument. We judge human issues by human standards. Turnips and dogs are not really involved here just as Einstein's ether has no place in Lorentz's equations. We are comparing alledged life to difficulty or trauma.
Philosophically? No, because that depends on your philosophy. See preceding.
I conceed.
Theologically? No. Many don't follow any such theology, so a theological basis is relevant only to the individual. Further, all three of the main desert monotheistic faiths prescribe infanticide and abortion. So it is written, so shall it be done.
I recognize the infanticide element of what you are refering to but not the abortion. It is a different argument entirely. Even so, it bears no relevance because such deeds were never a matter of convenience or emotional trauma. We must either agree that God passes judgement or He is out of the picture, because I do not think you can substantiate that God ever claimed to kill arbitrarily. Any action on an innocent must be viewed as arbitrary and/or having no retribution element involved, hence unjustified. Whether or not God is justified by man's standards is irrelevant at this point. We need only stipulate that God killed for different reasons than a woman who has an abortion. Being as we are exploring the reasons and/or justifications to answer the moral question of abortion, God's judgements must be excluded here because the premises are unequal. Theologically (with some common sense analysis), the God of the Christian bible does not favor arbitrary murder but condemns it, so from the Christian perspective--Theologically, yes.
Morally? No, because there are no absolute morals. This is another "exclusivity of truth" item.
We can apply Occam's razor here too to construct a model of morality which excludes all ridiculus assumptions--e.g. the turnip comparison. As a matter of fact, we are building a moral model which now exceeds 600 responses. Are there really no "absolute morals" despite clear evidence of a somewhat "measurable" conscience that most human beings possess? Perhaps not. But if they all get together to discuss a moral issue, make certain stipulations of which premises are to be used, and arrive at a logical conclusion, would it not be valid model? Scientific models have been built upon less.
Ethically? Highly debatable. I think this is again a matter of perspective.
I conceed. That is after all, why we are here.
Finger-pointing and scorn? You've made your highly theistic point of view known.
Some ad hominem perhaps? I never claimed not to be a theist. It changes nothing.
Ok. We finally get to your claim. Avoiding an appeal to emotion, I will simply state that your first line is almost as audacious as the statement of humans being persona non grata (loosely). It depends upon the rest of your argument, so it must be addressed.
I will address your argument (as I did above in previous posts), but I think we may need to make some stipulations before we continue this line of reasoning, because it's evident you have reverted to a very neutral disposition on life (approaching nihilism), or least that is what it seems from here.
To continue:
We must reject emotion. We must reject human value. We must reject conscience as an emotion. We must declare moral decisions to be unsubstantiated, hence disqualifying even "right" and "wrong" because we cannot arrive at these conclusions based upon reason without any of the previous stipulations.
I suppose all that is left is to circle the bowl, eh? Honestly, bro, I am taking a break from logic for a second here to find out exactly if you feel human life should be preserved, because if not, this argument will not reach a conclusion. Based upon a null-value of human life, we must also place a null-value on human emotion and human difficulty, and that undermines the pro-choice argument as well as the pro-life argument. So where do you want to start? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:55:01 PM | alegiant_one,
You may want to include also that 35 states have laws which consider fetal death to be an additional and separate crime in the case of homicide.
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html
That site explains it in detail. Perhaps we can completely exclude the justice system from this entire argument, because obviously it is very confused. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/6/2008 10:33:48 PM |
Logically? No. There is nothing logical about ascribing any more value to adult humans than to any other life form.
Nonsensical.
It seems to me that ascribing value or "wanted-ness" as a value applies to things, not to people. Let me ask you a question. Do you think unwanted children should be allowed to stay in the world?...Logically?
Even less logic to valuing a highly incomplete human which cannot possibly exist on its own anyway.
Nonsensical.
If we base our “humanity” on FUNCTIONING (as you and I do), then according to YOUR logic, we are NO longer Human “BEINGS”….We are Human “DOINGS”!…The Fact that we EXIST as “Humans”, determines our “Being”, thus we are Human Beings. Your “argument” ASSUMES that the People in the Womb are not “already” FULLY human.
Philosophically? No, because that depends on your philosophy. See preceding.
You will find ONLY 4 differences between a newborn and the person in the womb. (See prior post.) None of which is Morally relevant to "Disqualify" the person in the womb, as being fully Human. Philosophically speaking.
Theologically? No. Many don't follow any such theology, so a theological basis is relevant only to the individual. Further, all three of the main desert monotheistic faiths prescribe infanticide and abortion. So it is written, so shall it be done.
I've seen and read many twisted interpretations of Scripture. Your comment doesn't surprise me.
Morally? No, because there are no absolute morals. This is another "exclusivity of truth" item.
Nonsensical.
If you’re going to assume that Morals are Relative, In other words, “There is NO such thing as Absolute Right or Wrong, and all we have are Personal Opinions…Your Arguments are going to face some Difficulties. People who “believe” this way are called Moral Relativists.
Moral Relativism is a "self-refuting" argument...It commits Intellectual Suicide...
3 REASONS “WHY” Moral Relativism Self-Refutes…
#1) It can’t even LIVE by it’s OWN Rules.
#2) It is IMPOSSIBLE to LIVE that way.
#3) It is IMPOSSIBLE to DISTINGUISH between the MORALITY of a “sociopath” and a “humanitarian.
Conclusion>>>Moral Relativists Don't Exist!
EXAMPLE…
If I were to go into your house and “steal” your stereo with the “belief” that MY MORALITY says “It’s OK to steal stereos”…and you saw me coming out of your house, with your stereo…and you “OBJECTED” to me Stealing your stereo…You have just DEMONSTRATED that you are NOT a Moral Relativist.
If Morals are Relative, and there is “NO” Absolute “RIGHT” or “WRONG”…and all we are left with is PERSONAL OPINIONS…then it is IMPOSSIBLE to Distinguish between the Morality of a “sociopath” (Adolph Hitler) and the Morality of a “humanitarian” (Mother Teresa).
We ALL believe that Morals are “Objective”…We may say we don’t, but we Really Do.....On Some Level, at least. There is really NO “Moral Neutrality” on Abortion.
It's not logical to value the existence of a fetus any more than a cancerous tumor. Both are based on "potential", not in proven real current traits. That is the essence of the capital punishment comparison. It's not a comparison of the killing of a proven criminal versus an unproven innocent. The comparison is one of "potential". Those who argue against abortion frequently lay claim to the "potential" of the future person. Bollocks. That person could just as well prove to be a genocidal dictator. "Potential" is an argument without substance.
Thats Funny. It's usually the Pro-Choice crowd that argues that the person in the womb is just a "Potential Life".
With that said, No woman sets out to create potential life and then destroy it. There is no such thing as creating a "potential life”.
You could potentially create life, that is, create a potential for life. When a man and a woman get married and have sex, there's potential in their conduct for life to be created.
You could create a life with potential, one that has the possibility of developing into something good or noble.
But that's the end of your options. You either potentially create a life or you create a life with potential. You never create a potential life.
That leaves reality, and the reality is that a fetus lacks not only the vast majority of the traits of an adult human, it also lacks most of the traits of an adult chicken, pig, cow, trout, clam... In short, the "preservation of human life" aspect is purely an emotional argument, not a rational one based on evidence. All a fetus really shares with an adult human is genes. Same can be said of sperm. Best toss out the condoms, since you'll be knowingly dooming millions of humans by using them.
Unrealistic.
*Sigh*...Confusing "Level of Development" with the "Human Doings" argument again. Yes...the Conceived Zygote lacks the "Present Capacity" to function as you and I do. However, (as an example) is the 4 year old little girl LESS HUMAN than a 22 year old college co-ed, simply because she hasn't developed her reproductive system yet? The conceived Zygote has the "Inherent Capacity" to be a Human Being ...meaning "nothing more will be added" to make it a Human Being. It has everything programmed into to it from Conception.
*Sigh* The fetus shares not only genes, but chromosomes. 1/2 mom, 1/2 dad. It also has its own DNA and genetic code. (just like you and I do) FROM CONCEPTION!
*Sigh* Sperm and Ovum, left to themselves will Die. Only when they undergo the fertilization process, does individual human life begin to develop.
I thought everyone knew this stuff from high school. In college and universities, does indoctrination replace education?
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/6/2008 10:55:18 PM | *- At this point I am going to step in and remind posters of the Religion-Supernatural Subforum Posting Rules especially this much misunderstood section on what Exclusivity of Truth means lest there be any confusion
Exclusivity of truth in regards to personal religious belief (Preaching): - Examples: (Not okay)
"My (generic faith) beliefs are the one true way"
"Your religion is delusional because I don't believe in it"
"You are wrong because you aren't a true (generic faith)"
Note: Those making such statements are claiming to be the only arbiters of "truth".
(Okay)
"It is my belief that spinning dead chickens over my head is the only way to salvation"
"Not being religious, I see such things as being delusional"
"In (generic faith) this is held to be true"
Please read the full rules stub and be sure that you stay within them.:-TheMadFiddler-* | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/6/2008 11:40:05 PM |
To me, Graphic Pictures are appropriate, as long as the pictures are TRUE
Argumentum ad misericordiam. Appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Such pictures present no relevant facts, they are only used to "tug at heart strings" in lieu of evidence and a rational argument.
Women who abort with the drug RU-486 experience nausea, severe cramping, vomiting and bleeding. But the resulting emotional distress may have even more impact. Rather than being “over with” in a few minutes (as in a surgical abortion) this abortion could last for over a week
Which pretty much describes natural miscarriage as well.
Then, when the woman finally does abort, she will expel a tiny dead human being - her developing baby.
Argumentum ad misericordiam.
The suction tears the developing Human Being's body into pieces.
Argumentum ad misericordiam.
The abortionist then seizes a leg, arm or other part of the developing Human Being and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the body. This continues until only the head remains. Finally the skull is crushed and pulled out. The nurse must then reassemble the body parts to be sure that all of them were removed.
Argumentum ad misericordiam.
into the developing Human's heart. They then administer prostaglandin and a dead Human Being is delivered.
What is really chosen is the killing of a Human Being. The methods differ but the results are the same - a dead baby.
Your words are chosen not for their logical impact, but for their emotional impact. You have no rational support for your argument. Does your opposition choose their words similarly? Certainly, but they usually do so to make a logical argument. Appealing to emotion is a fallacy because it is subjective and not universal or unbiased. Evidence based logic and reason are. You offer facts, but your arguments are emotional, not logical, and don't hold much water.
It is whether we have the right to kill over 4,000 human beings a day, for any reason.
In the vast majority of cases, their only claim to being "human" is genetics. On that basis, every menstrual period or ejaculation represents a great many unrealized "human beings" killed because you didn't cause a pregnancy, or at least try to. If you consider the question in terms of mental ability or overall development, we kill and eat a great many creatures which are more "human" in their development and conciousness than any fetus.
First off, you will not find many human beings that will lend credit to the statement that human life is equal in value to say, a turnip, so I will apply your Occam's razor to cut away the irrelevant part of your argument.
I am far from the only person who doesn't consider humans inherintly better than any other animal. It is only laws and enlightened self-interest which mandate "thou shalt not kill". A freely living organism cannot be aborted, so there's no "do unto others" aspect. There IS the aspect though, that a fetus IS a parasite or infection in many senses of the terms, and we freely rid ourselves of those. Contrary arguments on this entail either "human potential", or "humans are different", both of which are easily countered.
We must either agree that God passes judgement or He is out of the picture
No, because there is no single definition of a god and no way to ascertain what his preferences really are. There is no empirical evidence of any gods existing. In a free society, basing any legal argument on religious doctrine entails imposing a subjective and not rationally supported view upon a majority purported to live in an objective and rational system. It's not acceptable. Either way, your statement is false. The Bible provides instructions on when and how to abort. By HUMAN choice, not God's. So - believe in a god, and it comes down to which god and which interpretation you adhere to. Don't believe in ANY god, and it still comes down to how you view human life, human potential...and, well...reason. Even the most rational people have irrational streaks at times. One need not decide on God's involvement. Involving god requires an irrational argument, and excluding god does not prevent one.
God's judgements must be excluded here because the premises are unequal.
In essence, we agree on this point, although I've already been more long-winded in the previous response.
We can apply Occam's razor here too to construct a model of morality which excludes all ridiculus assumptions--e.g. the turnip comparison
Strawman. The turnip was your example, not mine.
But if they all get together to discuss a moral issue, make certain stipulations of which premises are to be used, and arrive at a logical conclusion, would it not be valid model?
Agreed. But you will find that basic rules of societal behavior are widespread. Most of the 10 commandments and related rules are not the tiniest bit exclusive to the Abrahamic faiths. They all come down to "enlightened self interest". Abortion does not, so we're not likely to reach a widespread majority agreement on this unless it's confined to particular faiths.
Some ad hominem perhaps?
Perhaps. I won't rule it out absolutely, but my point isn't to attack you, but to point out that a very sizable part of your arguments are entirely derived from your faith, and are not evidence based. I don't see much finger-pointing or scorn in YOUR arguments, so my response was off-base in that respect. However, scorn and finger-pointing are far more consistant with a theistic anti-abortion argument than with the opposite. They are invariably wound up in appeal to emotion and appeal to ignorance fallacies [along with a wealth of other fallacies]. Appeal to emotion is certainly a favorite for anti-abortion arguments.
Based upon a null-value of human life, we must also place a null-value on human emotion and human difficulty
Bingo. Human life has no inherint value. Nor does any other individual. The value of either the individual or the species is measured by their contributions to the species or to the system. As a species, humans have in fact undermined a great many systems, including those required to ensure survival of their own species.
and that undermines the pro-choice argument as well as the pro-life argument.
I don't see how it undermines the pro-choice argument. It's an inherintly "pro-choice" view because it does not predetermine what a choice should be. The anti-abortion view requires imposing a non-rational choice of one person upon the choices of another, regardless of the latter's motivations.
To address your first point...
Better catch up before you go re-hashing arguments which have already been addressed.
Generally, I agree. However, these arguments are nothing BUT rehashing. Sometimes the rehash is worded better. It honestly wasn't worth reviewing all of the previous responses in order to express my own perspective - concisely, I hope. Unless the arguments I have made have been previously logically refuted [which I doubt], then my offering them up without reviewing everything else is reasonable. I have seen more than a few arguments made, clearly without reviewing the relevant posts, which were utterly pointless because the arguments made had already been refuted by logic and evidence. They could have benefitted from review, not that it would have changed their minds one iota. On the other hand, I try not to make such arguments :)
Addendum:
Perhaps we can completely exclude the justice system from this entire argument, because obviously it is very confused.
I agree. I understand the perspective though. This is a "human potential" situation, since it assumes that the mother would want to carry the fetus to term. My question would then be: which of these states consider abortion to be a crime? Do these states draw the limit at the same point in both cases?
Regardless, the US federal government [or at least certain religious factions within it] would like abortion to be illegal everywhere, and they go so far as to dictate whether third world nations receive aide, based upon their abortion laws or lack thereof. So much for "bastion of freedom". All can be free like us, as long as they obey our God. Hm. I'm reminded of "all pigs are created equal". | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/7/2008 6:55:07 AM |
I don't see how it undermines the pro-choice argument. It's an inherintly "pro-choice" view because it does not predetermine what a choice should be. The anti-abortion view requires imposing a non-rational choice of one person upon the choices of another, regardless of the latter's motivations.
If human value is null, human freedom is also null. That is not a far-fetched conclusion. I am simply stating that based upon your premises/stipulations, that niether argument can be validated. If we go completely nihilist here, there no no point in debating anything, ever, for any reason. The woman would be a random anomaly just like the fetus. Null-values across the board. Revoking choice to either the woman or the fetus would be pointless. If you apply a nihilist perspective here, you must apply it equally to both sides, and as I said, both arguments become null.
Appeal to emotion is certainly a favorite for anti-abortion arguments.
It is also a favorite of pro-choice arguments. It is always about the poor woman and how hard it is for her to carry a baby to term despite *insert number here, I'm sure it exceeds abortions* women who do it everyday, even with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/7/2008 7:32:40 AM | I don't care what a woman does. If she wants a abortion I can't stop it. I will not say a word to her or hate her. But if I was in a relationship involved with her I would leave her for good, still be friends but noway I would want a relationship with a murder.
Anyways any woman that has an abortion will have to pay the price in the future. She will create a lot of karma. It will come back to haunt her. | |
|
|
| Page 28 of 35
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 |
|
Home
login 
