Abortion - your views.

[Peder Andersson]

Here are my thoughts on the subject.

Rape victims always have the right to abortion.

When it comes to accidental pregnancies i think it is the womans choice, it's her body. The man doesn't have any say in the matter.

I also put the woman's decision before any religious beliefs, most beliefs have been created by men and therefore has a very wicked view on what women should and should not do.

 

[Misty]

Accidental pregnancies...well, women and men should be more responsible in the future when it comes to such cases. Though I'm Christian, I wouldn't say my beliefs are behind my reasonings. Both men and women should use proper protection before having sex - no unborn child's life should be just thrown away because someone was not careful enough. There are effective ways of contraception other then the bog standard condoms. I'm not sure what other methods men have though...of protection. Generally women have many options.

So I'm stuck in the middle. I'm neither fully Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. I'm stuck in the middle tbh.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

It amuses me greatly that I managed to provoke such a response from someone that obviously did not read my post correctly and the ones that came before it.

No, I read the posts that came before yours; you’ll see that I posted on this thread just three or four pages ago.

It amuses me more that you compare the persecution of Jews to abortion. I'd love to be able to tell you that the comparison is uncanny but unfortunately you have taken so much of my post out of context that it makes me just smile, almost on the verge of laughter. I'll try to explain the my point of "conciousness" to you but some how I highly doubt you will read it correctly and just see the bits that you want to see, just so you can try and attack my post with your sarcastic and witty reply.

What have I taken out of context? You indirectly stated that a defining criterion of humanity is consciousness and pain perception. Not once in that post or in any other post you had made in this thread previously did you ever qualify that position with the statement that the person also had to have zero brain developmental history. We’ll get into why that’s an inadequate secondary criterion in a moment.

Anyway, the conciousness I referred to wasn't that of the same of drugging a man till their concious is subdued. What I was referring too was actually that the brain is so underdeveloped at that stage, it isn't even active yet. Yes their brain is developing and something is there but nothing is going on.

And the difference between the Jew you hypothetically murdered is the fact that the Jew had already developed, had bveen living their life and had previously held conciousness. However, a fetus that is aborted never reaches any of this. Like I said it's brain is practically non existent and what is there doesn't work.

Your first sin is that you think that the brain is an organ of thought, an unfortunate vestige of Cartesian dualism which hinders psychological science, but i]Te absolvo, te absolvo[/i].

Your second sin is that you have no appreciation for neuroplasticity. See, most people have this concept that the adult brain is the “ideal” or “complete” brain, but this is actually just a projection of our ageistic social constructs. The brain is never, ever in a structural stasis; it’s always rewiring itself, as often as from one month to another. Wilder Penfield went through an enormous amount of trouble to map the cortical surface in terms of its functions, but we now know that Penfield’s “map” is continually in a state of flux. Ergo, on a purely physicalist level, it’s like evolution-- it’s nonsense to think of brain development as ever being “complete” or “superior” just like it’s nonsense to think of species evolution as ever being “complete” or even “superior.” Neurological structures and functions are selected for by the pre-, peri-, and post-natal environment; and they are only “complete” insofar as they have reached a generally steady state relative to their developmental/evolutionary context.

The problem this poses for you is abstract, and I don’t pretend that I have the skills to get you to understand it immediately--since you commit the first sin, you’re predisposed to the second. But here goes. You’re saying that you define “consciousness” as that moment when the thalamus assumes a structure that allows input/output to pass between cortical tissues and sensory/motor organs. You consider this an absolute boundary. But I’m saying that, if we’re only considering physical evidences, it’s arbitrary in the full context of human development, because the formation of this bridge is no more or less a mark of brain “maturity” than are the brain impulses that begin coordinating an embryo’s organ systems at week 7, or than are synaptic modifications occurring in the adolescent brain the first time he has sex without a condom and finds his pelvic thrusting motions being shaped by the moaning responses from his statutorily raped girlfriend. The only way that you can meaningfully assert an absolute, stuctural boundary for developmental stages is if you appeal to evidence that goes beyond physicalism. Id est, a spiritual authority. Hence, your third sin, hypocrisy:

Why does it matter? An aborted fetus has no movement, brain activity and underdeveloped features. Why should it be classed as a living being rather than a lump of underdeveloped flesh? If we started life at conception, we would be 9 month old at birth. Now you tell me why it matters so much to you that a lump of flesh that resembles Seahorse more than human with no evident life inside of it.

See, you’re clever enough to realize that Pro-lifers who appeal to all this neuro-physio stuff are just blowing steam because physical structures and functions tell us nothing about ethical constructs, but what you don’t spot, because of your underappreciation for neuroplasticity, is the fact that you’re in the same pickle. Why does it matter whether the thalamus is up and running? Why should this make an embryo/fetus be classed as conscious rather than a lump of underdeveloped flesh? As I said, you need to presuppose an authority or evidence that’s outside the physical system. Christian pro-lifers have that. Pro-choicers who are secular, don’t. Therefore, our position is more cognitively defensible.

As for you're reference to "Blacks", you obviously haven't been around a person so disabled they pray every day for their life to end, just like that child I mentioned more than likely will be doing.

Actually, my very real and not at all hypothetical wife is such a person.

Your comparison to the stereotypical view on African American's is just as amusing as your comparison with Jews. Again there are so many differences between the severely ill baby I held and the people you satirically described. You obviously choose not to see any of them.

And what difference would that be? Eliminating poverty through elimination of the impoverished was once spoken of with the same kind of elevated rhetoric of “compassion” as you employ now to defend eliminating suffering through the elimination of those who suffer. And when such people protested that they weren’t suffering quite to the point that they wanted to be snuffed out, their cognitive capacities for self-decision were questioned.

Actually I have never seen any research a papers that claim the Brain has enough activity to be responsive within the Embryogenesis period (0-12 weeks).

The embryogenesis period lasts from 2 to 8 weeks; you are referring to time period encompassed by the first trimester. And there is sufficient responsiveness at week 7, as I said before, for the brain to begin coordinating organ systems. Organ regulation requires a feedback system. Ergo, if the brain is receiving inputs. But you’d probably say that doesn’t count because it’s not responsiveness to the outside world. So it would behoove you to know that at week 7 the embryo can also respond to tactile stimulation of its skin. Granted, much of the rest of the CNS is pretty uncoordinated, but as neuronal selectionist processes continue, their integration is naturally inevitable.

 

[Shu]

You see, any Joe Blow can claim that his opponent is "brainwashed," but regardless of whether it's true, the illustrious Mr. Blow has won nothing in the argument unless he can prove that there's a good reason why his opponent's putative "brainwashing" makes his opinions invalid.

Wrong thread for it. This is an abortion thread, to explain reasons why people are brain washed is an entirely different thread all in itself, to give this even justice I would need to write an essay fashioned response which would take more time than I would like. Calling someone brainwashed, and knowing they are brainwashed is different.

The whole point is people lack the experience in life to actually make their common opinion justified. When expressing their views on this life going topic, one has to dive into what they truly believe, not what they were force fed as a child or by their religion. To do so, one can't go on auto pilot and side with an easy way out. He/she can't have their hand held and have someone else make their decision for them.

Problem is when people give opinions against abortion their arguments are usually not well supported due to bringing religion into it or just saying "just because". The only argument is ... "is the organism in which is aborted considered a life, or just a parasite at the time."

I stand on the parasite end, and I could support my arguments - but I would rather just quote myself 2 billions times since I've posted many times before in this thread.

It is not a self thinking individual, it has no quality of life yet. It doesn't know it is alive.. it only feeds on the mother until that one faithful day he/she is born.

The people who call it shallow only need to come at it with a realist approach and stop trying to make supportive arguments from what other people say. Disconnect yourself and think about what the actual organism is within the mother. Now.. I'm not saying that there aren't emotional ties to aborting or miscarrying a child... but it is purely psychological.

 

[goreki]

mothcorrupteth,

I had been awaiting your reply which would bring religious views into the matter. In all honesty I was not expecting it to be brought into the matter so quickly. Your God is not the same as my God, your beliefs are not the same as my beliefs. Therefore I could never sin as you see it and the apparent sin I commit is only in your eyes. I will let my God be my judge, not some strange man in a far off country who believes he is so divine and above his God that he has the right to judge another before God can pass down his judgement. You are a child of God, not on the same level of and certainly not the creator of.

As I said, you need to presuppose an authority or evidence that’s outside the physical system. Christian pro-lifers have that. Pro-choicers who are secular, don’t. Therefore, our position is more cognitively defensible.

To assume that just because Christians have a "spiritual connection" with life does not mean that they they have the right to be an authority on every persons decision which is precisely what you are suggesting right here. As you may (hopefully) have gathered, I hole certain spiritual beliefs even though they different from your's. I how ever want to give the right to choice. I don't want to force my beliefs upon people like you are doing. If a person chooses not abort a fetus based on their beliefs then that is perfectly fine, it is their belief. If a person chooses to abort a fetus due to their beliefs, that is also perfectly fine. People have the right to believe in what they desire and hold the opinions they desire with being dictated and persecuted by self-righteous people such as yourself.

You take so much satisfaction in your beliefs and judging others before actually thoroughly discussing any matters, that if I were to take you're view on things I would say that you indirectly have committed sin yourself.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged”

Fortunately for myself and for you I do not hold this kind of judgment others. I allow them to hold opinion no matter how much I disagree and argue. I will never shout out sin to another, but merely point out what I believe to be errors in their ways. And if they disagree with my opinion, I will let their God, who ever it maybe, do the judging.

As for your wife, I never said she was a hypothetical being. In fact I never doubted you have a wife. What I in fact said if you read my post, you will had seen only this in reference to your hypothetical banter:

And the difference between the Jew you hypothetically murdered is the fact that the Jew had already developed, had been living their life and had previously held consciousness.

and

Your comparison to the stereotypical view on African American's is just as amusing as your comparison with Jews.

I made no direct mention of your wife and I especially wouldn't even of consider mentioning her as she has not entered this discussion willfully. Instead she has been dragged and forced into this by yourself. Once again you fail to read my posts correctly.

Your first sin is that you think that the brain is an organ of thought, an unfortunate vestige of Cartesian dualism which hinders psychological science, but Te absolvo, te absolvo.

I have never actually said that I think the brain is just an organ of thought. I know the brain is a required element to our life. Without it we could not function and there is more to it than you and I could ever comprehend. While the fact that you brought Cartesian Dualism into this has no place in this discussion. If body and soul are separate entities or not, this only lays in the eye of the beholder. My opinions on such matter have not been stated, you have only made an assumption. Again your judgement on my apparent sinning is causing you to sin yourself. Please, read my posts before you take it upon yourself to pass judgement on me.

nemo sine iudex

But you’d probably say that doesn’t count because it’s not responsiveness to the outside world.

Actually I'm not going to say that doesn't count because I have already practically stated my opinion when I discussed the Thalmus earlier.

In fact as there is no Neocortex and the Thalmus does not connect until around week 26...

But to say it again. I am not denying that a fetus can respond and probably does respond inside of the womb. What I am denying is that up until the Thalmus connects, the fetus is not rely sensory information. Again, for the sake of this discussion can you at least read what I post instead of just reading what you would like to read.

In the end we hold polar opposite opinions and there is probably no chance that we will ever see eye to eye concerning this topic. The only option is to agree to disagree, otherwise this is going absolutely nowhere.

 

[phantasmor]

i, for one, think that if people got married, or able to take care of baby, before they had sex that there would be no discussion on abortion but then again there ARE people who rape and have sex with NO intention of having a baby and NO way of taking care of said baby

 

[EmoSquall]

I have always believed it should be the woman's choice but I can sort of see why people would be against abortion.
Can you please put more effort into your posts please, this is a debating section. Thank you =]

 

[mothcorrupteth]

To assume that just because Christians have a "spiritual connection" with life does not mean that they they have the right to be an authority on every persons decision which is precisely what you are suggesting right here.

Read more carefully. This is not at all what I was saying in the sentence you quoted. What I was saying is that identification of stuctural/functional milestones as the dividing line for the status of "humanness" must presuppose some kind of objective moral authority. A purely secular judgment of structural/functional milestones cannot meet such preconditions, because the highest authority it has ever been capable of appealing to is the whim of public consensus, which is notoriously fickle and therefore not an adequate foundation for moral absolutes.

I how ever want to give the right to choice. I don't want to force my beliefs upon people like you are doing. If a person chooses not abort a fetus based on their beliefs then that is perfectly fine, it is their belief.

Yeah, that sounds fine rhetorically, but to bully Pro-Lifers with the guilt that they're "forcing their opinions on other people" is just circular reasoning. What do you do when someone "chooses" to steal all the money in your bank account? Are you going to be convinced by the argument that it's wrong to "force your beliefs upon people" by stating that theft is wrong and should be punished? No, you're going to say, "Whatever! Theft is categorically wrong. Gimme back my money!" You won't let them get away with trying to change the ethical standard.

We all grow up with a reinforcement history in which that phrase is used in relation to things that are obviously matters of personal liberty, such as occupation or choice of friends. Therefore, when it's used in conjunction with actions that have been traditionally identified as categorically wrong, we feel the same emotions as we do when talking about matters of personal liberty. But it's a psychological illusion. The action's moral status hasn't changed, and that's what the issue is.

If a person chooses to abort a fetus due to their beliefs, that is also perfectly fine. People have the right to believe in what they desire and hold the opinions they desire with being dictated and persecuted by self-righteous people such as yourself.

Then what are you doing in a Debate forum? That's what people do when they debate. They assert what's right and wrong from their own perspective and either compromise or controvert in reaction to the other person's perspective.

You take so much satisfaction in your beliefs and judging others before actually thoroughly discussing any matters, that if I were to take you're view on things I would say that you indirectly have committed sin yourself. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged”

Ah, but you forget: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (Jn. 7:24). People who quote Mt. 7:1 in conversation often imply that "judge" or "κρίνω" means that all criticism of all kinds is absolutely prohibited, and therefore that it's wrong to form any distinction between good and evil. Which is absurd when you really think about it, because just the act of quoting the passage is judgmental in the sense that criticizes the other person's actions. And modern sentiments to the contrary, the New Testament is replete with statements that judge right and wrong and, in the case of Jn. 7:24, that directly tell you to judge between right and wrong. What's really at hand in the Mt. 7:1 passage is condemnation of those who seek the office of critic/teacher out of ambition or malice, to the point of "straining at a gnat"--focusing in on insignificant details just to be able hold your own head up high. Now, I freely admit to being absurd when I criticize your logic, and that much is perhaps a fault of mine--I do love so much to pull pigtails to make my point. But judge for yourself: Is the basic conception of neurological development not a key argument on which your position rests? Is it not an important component of the discussion to point out that it is consistent with your own relativistic questions about the boundary for humanness, questions that are legitimately asked of your own position? And, more to the point, have I demonized or condemned your person in criticizing your logic? Have I tried to elevate my own person? No.

As for your wife, I never said she was a hypothetical being. In fact I never doubted you have a wife... I made no direct mention of your wife and I especially wouldn't even of consider mentioning her as she has not entered this discussion willfully. Instead she has been dragged and forced into this by yourself. Once again you fail to read my posts correctly.

I never said you did doubt my wife's existence. I just wanted to make it clear I wasn't pulling pigtails when I answered your question that yes, I am personally acquainted with real persons who really have felt like they wanted to die because of their suffering.

I have never actually said that I think the brain is just an organ of thought. I know the brain is a required element to our life. Without it we could not function and there is more to it than you and I could ever comprehend. While the fact that you brought Cartesian Dualism into this has no place in this discussion. If body and soul are separate entities or not, this only lays in the eye of the beholder. My opinions on such matter have not been stated, you have only made an assumption. Again your judgement on my apparent sinning is causing you to sin yourself. Please, read my posts before you take it upon yourself to pass judgement on me.

No, you did not state that the brain is just an organ of thought; but your views presuppose it. My logic runs thus: (1) Cartesianism is wrong. (2) Your view unconsciously presupposes Cartesian categories of mind. (3) Therefore, you are wrong. But forget I said anything about Cartesian dualism. Rest assured, it has a place in the discussion (just like the nature of "brainwashing" does). But it would be too much work to explain why I obliquely referenced it as part of my criticism of common misconceptions about psychological science. To be clear, the point that I was actually trying to make is not that you think that the brain is an organ of thought only. What I am saying is that you think that we think with our brains, which is incorrect. Sounds absurd, I know. But explaining it is the same as explaining what I meant by Cartesian dualism--they're the same issue, and educating you on behavioristic and Aristotelian philosophies of mind would consume an inordinate amount of space.

But to say it again. I am not denying that a fetus can respond and probably does respond inside of the womb. What I am denying is that up until the Thalmus connects, the fetus is not rely sensory information. Again, for the sake of this discussion can you at least read what I post instead of just reading what you would like to read.

Except that to respond to a stimulus necessarily entails having to sense it in the first place. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[goreki]

Read more carefully. This is not at all what I was saying in the sentence you quoted. What I was saying is that identification of stuctural/functional milestones as the dividing line for the status of "humanness" must presuppose some kind of objective moral authority. A purely secular judgment of structural/functional milestones cannot meet such preconditions, because the highest authority it has ever been capable of appealing to is the whim of public consensus, which is notoriously fickle and therefore not an adequate foundation for moral absolutes.

If a secular judgement cannot meet such preconditions then why are many aspects of our life dictated by those who base actions on religious beliefs? They may not come from a leader directly but certainly influenced by. And to say that Christian Pro-Lifers have a moral and more defensible high-ground due to an apparent "authority or evidence that’s outside the physical system" is utterly ridiculous. You are only using your beliefs to assume and assert those assumptions that what ever exists outside a physical realm is infect a reality and not a work of fiction. The only evidence that exists is faith and belief.

Yet you try to defend this by saying that the only influence is public opinion. I can only assume that you do not realise that this public opinion goes on to dictate on how everyone lives their life. There have been so many things that one has not been able to see/do/think/etc due to secular influence.

This is exactly why I am Pro-Choice, because given the chance, secular entities would have us completely living our lives based on what they think. No-one ever said that if you are Pro-Life that you must abort your child. We simple say that if need be, you have the choice there to do it. But you obviously do not have to, no-one is forcing you to do so as you have choice.

Now while we discuss all of this we are just making the assumption that Christians are the only religion that make their voices heard, but when in fact there are many other religions who have their own views on abortion. Buddhists for instance have said that while they view abortion as murder they also take somewhat of a Pro-Choice view on many of the matters that may come with childbirth.

"Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.

If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."

Dalai Lama, New York Times, 28/11/1993

Buddhism may discourage abortion, but it also discourages imposing rigid moral absolutes just as Christians do. I can only assume that you against these views and would condemn Buddhists just as you had I when saying I had sinned. Are their religious beliefs wrong?

I suggest you stop looking at this from one view point and start opening your mind to other horizons. Not everyone can be right. Ot maybe they can.

Yeah, that sounds fine rhetorically, but to bully Pro-Lifers with the guilt that they're "forcing their opinions on other people" is just circular reasoning.

Is it not bullying to tell those that are Pro-Choice that they are wrong because of a Pro-Lifers belief that their religion says it is "wrong" and condemning their actions?. Pro-Lifers are just as bad for "bulling" as those from Pro-Choice beliefs when it comes to matters such as this.

Ah, but you forget: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (Jn. 7:24).

And are you forgetting the only "appearance" of me that you have is what you see on this forum?

have I demonized or condemned your person in criticizing your logic?

I think you should think about that question again. By shouting out that I have sinned based on my logic you have demonised and condemned my person. By shouting out sin you claim I have made a deliberate violation of religious and moral principle. Remember "sin is lawlessness". Based on a Christian belief I would have damaged my relationship with God and the only way to make peace with God and "save myself" is through Salvation. Thus you have taken it upon yourself to condemned my "soul" to damnation.

You can criticise all you want, I am happy for you to do that. But telling me I have sinned based on what I say or do is not for you to decide upon. Like I said, I will let my god be my judge.

No, you did not state that the brain is just an organ of thought; but your views presuppose it.

My views only presuppose it because you lack the understanding of my views. You made the assumptions from the very start that I do not take such matters in hand when I make my views known. When in fact I have thought about all the matters you have discussed for quite a considerable amount of time.

My logic runs thus: (1) Cartesianism is wrong. (2) Your view unconsciously presupposes Cartesian categories of mind. (3) Therefore, you are wrong.

But explaining it is the same as explaining what I meant by Cartesian dualism--they're the same issue, and educating you on behavioristic and Aristotelian philosophies of mind would consume an inordinate amount of space.

There is no need to try and educate me on these matters because I know enough as it is. So do not look down on me for matters which you assume I am not aware of. I choose to completely disregard these as they are simply philosophies; an educated assumption and nothing more. To make the assumption that these philosophies are actual fact is reckless. Though, as you are a person who evidently holds a great interest in such subjects, I know you will just true to shoot down my claims that they are assumptions. So let it be known that while there are philosophical views which I disagree with, there are those which I do agree with.

Descartes views that only the mind controls the body may be not be ridiculous as it seems but that all depends on your beliefs. But to make the assumption that pain, and so fourth transcends everyones body is ridiculous. Not everyone holds the same opinion on the subject of the existence of the soul. This is all just a matter of opinion and belief. Not actual fact. Therefore I can not be wrong as this all is a matter of opinion. And saying my opinion is wrong because your beliefs/opinion tell me otherwise is quite disgusting.

Going back to Buddhism, I suggest if you do not know if it that you look into "Anatman". This holds a completely different view on the "soul" and what it means, not to mention it is close to those views in Cartesianism. Again, I ask you if this is inherently wrong because it is not part of your belief system...

Except that to respond to a stimulus necessarily entails having to sense it in the first place. That was the point I was trying to make.

That may have been your point but my point still remains. With out that information being relayed there is no sense to be known of.

Just take this for example, in simple terms. It is like taking two sheets of wallpaper, both have exactly the same texture and are made from the same material. The only difference in both is their pattern. If you were to close your eyes and be given one of these, you wouldn't be able to tell which you have been given. With out that sensory information that your eyes relay to your brain you have no idea which is which.

So are you telling me that even without correctly assembled organs that a fetus can still feel pain? Remember, a crafts man cannot do his trade with broken tools, just as a fetus will not know of senses if they haven't got the right combination of "tools" to be aware of it. And this is only from the view point that a fetes has developed enough to have the right means to do so, which up until 22 weeks it has not.

I have predisposed the notion that we could only agree to disagree but you have evidently ignored that. Whether that is through the need for you try and turn my beliefs into those similar of yours, or be it that you just simply wanted an argument, or something else; I do not know. I would of been happy for you make the points you just made then go on to at least agree with the fact that we can only ever disagree with each others opinions, that would of been the compromise you speak of. But evidently you are so stubborn that you can't even bring this to a close when put forward. Instead we carry on this rally of "verbal" Tennis on whose beliefs are right or wrong; when in fact we could never come to such an agreement where you agree that I am right or visa versa.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

If a secular judgement cannot meet such preconditions then why are many aspects of our life dictated by those who base actions on religious beliefs? They may not come from a leader directly but certainly influenced by.

This argument doesn't even make any sense in light of the statement to which it is ostensibly a reply: Secular worldviews have no ontological basis for morality that stands outside of themselves, and Christians do.

And to say that Christian Pro-Lifers have a moral and more defensible high-ground due to an apparent "authority or evidence that’s outside the physical system" is utterly ridiculous. You are only using your beliefs to assume and assert those assumptions that what ever exists outside a physical realm is infect a reality and not a work of fiction. The only evidence that exists is faith and belief.

It's not an evidence-based argument, and you miss its point by trying to treat it like it is. It's a presuppositionalist argument. You see, if you want to assert an ethical standard that is true for everyone, then that standard by definition cannot be set by the caprices of human opinion. Whatever it is set by must be fixed and permanent. The argument is not that the existence of this external standard (which we might tentatively call "God's Law") is evidence for the Christian's moral standards; the argument is that such a standard must exist if we are to ever meaningfully state any objective morality.

And you do state an objective morality. You may think you don't. You may think you can call it a personal "choice" and that your own morality can remain peaceably separated from my morality. But that's just trying to erase the problem by relabeling it. The fact of the matter is, whether or not someone should have the personal liberty to have an abortion is itself a moral issue. And in essence, you're saying that everyone should give you the license to have an abortion. That, my friend, is an assertion of objective morality. In which case, you need some sort of external standard to justify it -- a proposition which stands opposed to your continuous expressions of distaste over asserting an objective right and wrong.

Is it not bullying to tell those that are Pro-Choice that they are wrong because of a Pro-Lifers belief that their religion says it is "wrong" and condemning their actions?. Pro-Lifers are just as bad for "bulling" as those from Pro-Choice beliefs when it comes to matters such as this.

First, we say that it is wrong because it is wrong. What any one religion says about the matter is irrelevant to what is actually the case, though it is perfectly consistent to point that one's religion corresponds to reality. Second, I say that your argument is "bullying" because it's hypocritical, but that wasn't the point. The point was that the argument was circular and assumes what it is trying to prove.

And are you forgetting the only "appearance" of me that you have is what you see on this forum?

By "appearance" Christ means not to give a superficial judgment on the basis of what the Law literally says, but to dig beneath the words and search for the more basic moral law. In context, Christ was saying that it was ridiculous to condemn him for healing (and therefore working) on the Sabbath. Granted, there are numerous applications, and judgment of character is one of them. But I'm not judging your character. I'm judging your stated moral standards and the logic behind them.

I think you should think about that question again. By shouting out that I have sinned based on my logic you have demonised and condemned my person. By shouting out sin you claim I have made a deliberate violation of religious and moral principle. Remember "sin is lawlessness". Based on a Christian belief I would have damaged my relationship with God and the only way to make peace with God and "save myself" is through Salvation. Thus you have taken it upon yourself to condemned my "soul" to damnation.

You can criticise all you want, I am happy for you to do that. But telling me I have sinned based on what I say or do is not for you to decide upon. Like I said, I will let my god be my judge.

Certainly, I condemn your beliefs in the sense that I identify them as definitely and unambiguously wrong -- not because I say so but because it stands in violation of an objective external standard. And certainly, this condemnation would, under certain conditions, extend to the execution of punishment: were I a presbyter in your church I would vote for your excommunication on the grounds of your beliefs (because this what the New Testament actually tells the elders of a church to do). But this is not the same as actually being the one who condemns you in the eternal sense. This is what our relativist culture never seems to understand: that there is a distinction to be made between being an agent of temporal condemnation (e.g. a magistrate enforcing the civil law) and being the agent of eternal condemnation (i.e., actually deciding your spiritual fate). You can scoff at that distinction if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it's one that most Christians form and one which I have followed: At what point have I indicted your person or your soul's eternal fate?

Regrettably, I do not have the personal time on hand to respond to the remainder of your comments. But to summarize to this point, you have basically argued that it's wrong and distasteful for me to judge others' moral standards, and yet this itself is a judgment of my moral standards. Not willing to concede this, you use selections from my standard to reinforce your argument, but without any respect for Christian hermeneutical principles, or for categories of theology.

 

[jasminepotts]

There's one or two posts I've read in which people are saying that the mother should go through with the pregnancy no matter what condition or illness etc they have got.
If its going to affect the baby and they are going to die within a few days or weeks of the mother giving birth, then the abortion should be acceptable. It would probably affect the mother more if she had the baby and then it passed in a very short space of time.
I'm going to use my mum as an example again. When I was about 2, my mother was pregnant with her current boyfriend. It was a planned pregnancy and everything was fine with it. The only problem was, my mum developed/caught tuberculoses, and her being pregnant meant that they could not treat her for it so she had to get it aborted. If it had not been aborted both my mum and the baby would have died. So its best for the mother to put herself first if she has a very severe illness that will cause damage to the both of them.

 

[Rarulla6]

I really don't like the idea of taking away life, but to be honest, it isn't my decision. People have a right to choose what they want and how they live and I don't believe that it's right to try to control it. Your going to have people disobeying any law no matter what it is.

There's one or two posts I've read in which people are saying that the mother should go through with the pregnancy no matter what condition or illness etc they have got.
If its going to affect the baby and they are going to die within a few days or weeks of the mother giving birth, then the abortion should be acceptable. It would probably affect the mother more if she had the baby and then it passed in a very short space of time.
I'm going to use my mum as an example again. When I was about 2, my mother was pregnant with her current boyfriend. It was a planned pregnancy and everything was fine with it. The only problem was, my mum developed/caught tuberculoses, and her being pregnant meant that they could not treat her for it so she had to get it aborted. If it had not been aborted both my mum and the baby would have died. So its best for the mother to put herself first if she has a very severe illness that will cause damage to the both of them.

Exactly. Does anyone think that it's not alright for an eight year old girl to go through abortion after getting impregnated by a rapist?

 

[Serah]

An...8 year old? o_o Dude, you don't start hitting puberty until you're 9. I don't see how it's possible for an 8 year old to get pregnant yet considering her female organs haven't developed.

You know, I have to ask why people are saying that if ANY woman, REGARDLESS of age should have to go through an unwanted, possibly dangerous pregnancy if she's raped? I don't think that's right. I know that if I were raped, I sure as hell wouldn't want my rapist's baby growing inside me. How do you know that the child won't end up deformed or sick? People don't realize just how dangerous pregnancy and birth just on it's own really is. I know this because I had a very harsh pregnancy and I almost died after giving birth.

I'm pro-choice. I always have been and always will be. I think if a woman gets pregnant accidentally when she wasn't meant to be it contraceptive failing, rape, whatever she has that right to abort the embryo if she so chooses. I don't get why people bitch about this. Especially men. You all need to sit back and think about this and put yourself in the woman's shoes. If you were a woman, or even women here. Honestly answer me this. If you were brutally raped and your rapist got you pregnant, would you REALLY want to keep it? Would you really carry through with a pregnancy that happened in such cruel and brutal circumstances?

 

[Six]

I told myself to never post in this thread. >.>


I think women should decide for themselves.

Yes, definitely for it if it's a cause of rape. This is not a choice, OR an experience you'd want to remember. Some women are mentally stronger, and can deal with this, some can't.

For those who can't it's only for the better to have an abortion.

If it's because some couple was too lazy to use protection, than I think it's their own fault, but I'm still not against it. <--- THIS is where I can understand people get pissed off about abortion, but I rather think the kid is better of that way, than to have parents who are fuck ups, and didn't really want the kid in the first place. >.>

Also...

I'm a woman. But I don't think it's right to say as a girl "You don't understand my pain! You're male! You can't decide on this!"

If you're a couple, you should be mature enough to work this one out TOGETHER. If you start arguing, there's NO way you're mature enough to compromise, LET ALONE, have the responsibility for taking care of a kid.

If you're in a good relationship, either the guy would understand and tell you it's okay if you want the abortion, or talk to you about it. What you do in the end is up to yourself, of course.

But I don't think it's fair to knock down the guys either. They're not giving birth no, but they're scared of what happens to their lady mentally as well.

(If you're in a good relationship as said)


So my view is abortion is okay if it's those cases. Specially rape. >.>

 

[Rarulla6]

An...8 year old? o_o Dude, you don't start hitting puberty until you're 9. I don't see how it's possible for an 8 year old to get pregnant yet considering her female organs haven't developed.

You know, I have to ask why people are saying that if ANY woman, REGARDLESS of age should have to go through an unwanted, possibly dangerous pregnancy if she's raped? I don't think that's right. I know that if I were raped, I sure as hell wouldn't want my rapist's baby growing inside me. How do you know that the child won't end up deformed or sick? People don't realize just how dangerous pregnancy and birth just on it's own really is. I know this because I had a very harsh pregnancy and I almost died after giving birth.

I'm pro-choice. I always have been and always will be. I think if a woman gets pregnant accidentally when she wasn't meant to be it contraceptive failing, rape, whatever she has that right to abort the embryo if she so chooses. I don't get why people bitch about this. Especially men. You all need to sit back and think about this and put yourself in the woman's shoes. If you were a woman, or even women here. Honestly answer me this. If you were brutally raped and your rapist got you pregnant, would you REALLY want to keep it? Would you really carry through with a pregnancy that happened in such cruel and brutal circumstances?

I started puberty at eight.XD

Although, it really doesn't seem possible, it's what I read from an article. People DO like mixing things up like nuts, though, just to get attention.<.< Sorry, I really should have thought that through better.>.<

 

[goreki]

This argument doesn't even make any sense in light of the statement to which it is ostensibly a reply: Secular worldviews have no ontological basis for morality that stands outside of themselves, and Christians do.

It makes perfect sense. You just fail to see the sense it makes. Are you telling me that without the influence of your religion in you life that you would be exactly the same person you are today, have the same views on moral standards and so forth? Some how I very much doubt so. The things we see, hear and feel have an incredible amount of influence on our lives. Religious entities are there to guide us with their influence.

It's not an evidence-based argument and you miss its point by trying to treat it like it is.

In which case neither is it an argument of religious and moral basis. If my "evidence-based argument" cannot be brought into this conversation then your talk on religious and moral standing can not either.

Not everything can be solely pigeon holed into these categories. I suggest you refrain from making such ridiculous comments in the future. Every side has a point in the argument, metaphysical or evidence-based.

It's a presuppositionalist argument.

No it is not, by putting forward that this discussion can only be a presuppositionalist argument you are immediately discrediting other religions by saying they do not matter because they are not of a Christian based faith. Presuppositionalism is of Christian basis, are you telling me that those of us on this forum that are not of a Christian faith do not belong in this thread? It certainly seems so and that is where your moral standing becomes to think it is above another's views, just because you have a certain faith. Sorry to burst your bubble but because you maybe Christian does not give you the right to tell others what opinions they are allowed and not allowed to have. You've just completely turned what you said about hypocrisy onto yourself. Not to mention proven my point on how religion and it's followers try to dictate our lives.

You see, if you want to assert an ethical standard that is true for everyone, then that standard by definition cannot be set by the caprices of human opinion. Whatever it is set by must be fixed and permanent. The argument is not that the existence of this external standard (which we might tentatively call "God's Law") is evidence for the Christian's moral standards; the argument is that such a standard must exist if we are to ever meaningfully state any objective morality.

Now you're just talking out of your arse. Just because something is written (be it the bible or law) does not mean it should never be changed. The bible says "So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it." promoting Capital Punishment in all cases. I can only imagine you would be a person that would gladly see a person who killed a man in self defence hung, drawn and quartered, despite the reasoning behind it. All because it set and written.

This is where people such as yourself fail to see the bigger picture in life and will ultimately be the complete fall of man. Things change, things are never what they seem and to never promote a change in our environment for the better of man will ultimately see our demise.

I hope your happy with yourself, you've just done exactly what you're fighting against. You took a life, and not just one.

And you do state an objective morality. You may think you don't. You may think you can call it a personal "choice" and that your own morality can remain peaceably separated from my morality. But that's just trying to erase the problem by relabeling it. The fact of the matter is, whether or not someone should have the personal liberty to have an abortion is itself a moral issue. And in essence, you're saying that everyone should give you the license to have an abortion. That, my friend, is an assertion of objective morality. In which case, you need some sort of external standard to justify it -- a proposition which stands opposed to your continuous expressions of distaste over asserting an objective right and wrong.

Now you're just twisting and contorting my words and opinions. Actually, thinking back you have been doing an awful lot of that. It seems to be what you do best. I do not expect everyone to agree with me, in fact my opinions are my own and I don't expect anyone to hold the same. You just make the assumption that I believe my word should be final. Come to think of it, you have just described yourself and your faith. Your completely expecting the word of your religious beliefs to be the law and it is you that is pushing people to not have the "license" to have a choice. You may want to live in a dictatorship but most of us do not. Denial might be part of your rebuttal but your continuous expressions of distaste over asserting an objective right and wrong certainly proves your fascism.

First, we say that it is wrong because it is wrong.

I have said it numerous amounts of times and I will continue to say it. It is only wrong because you believe it is wrong. Not because it is, not because it isn't. But because you believe it is and your faith says it is. How many times do I have to tell you that not everyone has the same opinions as yourself. Are the conflicting posts in this thread not enough to make you realise this?

What any one religion says about the matter is irrelevant to what is actually the case

You said it yourself that religion has a place in this argument. You're just a hypocrite under you lengthy worded ruse. If you really think that religion has no place in this then I suggest you do not bother replying, or at least prevent yourself from mentioning religion or bringing it into this discussion anymore.

By "appearance" Christ means not to give a superficial judgment on the basis of what the Law literally says, but to dig beneath the words and search for the more basic moral law. In context, Christ was saying that it was ridiculous to condemn him for healing (and therefore working) on the Sabbath. Granted, there are numerous applications, and judgment of character is one of them. But I'm not judging your character. I'm judging your stated moral standards and the logic behind them.

My moral standards and my logic are part of my character. They are who I am. You have judged me based on my appearance (which as I stated is just what you read here), and you were very quick to do so. I can only imagine that you had a picture in your mind as to who I am and how I look, etc and this was part of your judgemental behaviour.

Certainly, I condemn your beliefs in the sense that I identify them as definitely and unambiguously wrong -- not because I say so but because it stands in violation of an objective external standard.

You're starting to sound like a broken record with you consistant mentioning of standards. If my beliefs were unambiguously wrong then why are you the only person attacking me over these beliefs? Surely if what you say is true shouldn't more members of this forum be with you in this discussion of trying to tell me how wrong I am? Shouldn't everyone on this forum have an opinion that opposes mine? Look around this thread, it is more than likely that most people have an opinion similar to mine and based on your logic, you are the person who is wrong.

were I a presbyter in your church I would vote for your excommunication on the grounds of your beliefs (because this what the New Testament actually tells the elders of a church to do)

Thankfully for the both of us I am not of the same church and do not follow the same religion as you. In fact it is the judgmental dictatorial behaviour of people just like you that gives me little faith in some religions such as Christianity.

At what point have I indicted your person or your soul's eternal fate?

Do I really need to answer this or is your head so up in the clouds that you do not understand some of the fundamental understandings of your own religion? I explained this in my previous post.

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

I would say that I support, what I think of as, controlled abortion. That is, if there is a good solid reason, such as medical issues or rape, then it would be okay. I can understand the want or need of such a measure then.

However, where I start to disagree, is when people start doing it as an alternative to birth control. If you weren't smart enough to use a condom, or birth control, it shouldn't seem like an easy way out, to just kill the baby. No, that's wrong, in my opinion.

I also believe, in some cases, that the male should be involved, unless it was rape or something. It may be a woman's body, but the man had a part in it, and the decision is part his, too. What if he wants the kid, it's not fair to make a decison alone. It'd be a like man getting himself fixed without asking the woman.

Anyway, I don't want to agree, but just answer what my views are. I'm perfectly aware that most people don't agree with me, it doesn't matter, these are my views and not theirs or, for that matter, yours.

 

[Catnip]

I also believe, in some cases, that the male should be involved, unless it was rape or something. It may be a woman's body, but the man had a part in it, and the decision is part his, too. What if he wants the kid, it's not fair to make a decison alone. It'd be a like man getting himself fixed without asking the woman.

The man does have a part in it, but he won't be the one carrying the baby and giving birth to it. It will be her who faces the consequences, and really, I don't think their part in it is equal to the woman's. The man has a right to an opinion, but in the end of the day it really should be the woman's final decision.

 

[Apparent Amarant]

I'm pro-life

Well this is the only conservative stance I take on anything. It's not caused by religion or political view though. It is caused by the value of human life. I value human life too much to condone abortion. I am a man so my opinion is basically moot though. I think human life is an absolutely priceless thing, and a lifeform has to overcome such incredible odds just to get to the point of being a fetus. If you look at each individual life it's an absolute miracle that any specific person is born. Not that a baby is born in general but that THAT SPECIFIC baby is born. If you don't understand what I mean by how unlikely it is that a specific person is born then you need to stop and think about all the factors that have to line up perfectly for a specific person to be created.

Also people always say things like"what about victims of sexual abuse" when if you look at sheer numbers the majority of people who get pregnant due to sexual abuse keep the child. They do not get abortions so the fact that abortion is most commonly used as a last resort for birth control is pathetic. That's what it is mostly used for. Also just because something terrible happens to you doesn't give you the right to halt a life form from there chance at existing when they have come so close and already defied such great odds to get to that point. It simply isn't any persons right. I know people who have gotten abortions and they have had sex with many people and never use a condom, and the fact of the matter is that that is the reason that most abortions take place. It's ridiculous.

Now sexually abused people who do not want to carry the child and go through labor are an exception to me belief on the matter. I would still hope that they would at least allow the child to be born, because just because a great injustice has been done to you does not give you the right to commit an act of injustice against another life form who themselves is innocent of any wrong doing. That would be my hope but if they could not bare that burden I would not fault them or think anything negative of them.

You really can't be pro-choice and claim to value human life to the same degree as someone who is pro-life, because the very nature of abortion is denying life to another life form.

So I guess I agree wit padmelover. I believe that if the child was conceived due to sexual abuse or the the pregnancy or labor could be dangerous for the mother that those are exceptions and I would support people in those two situations decisions to get abortions.

 

[Martel]

I suppose you could say I was pro-abortion. If a woman doesn't want her child, then she should be allowed to get rid of it. Why not? I don't believe it has any rights until it leaves her womb, so it should not be thought of as alive or even human until it becomes an independant creature in its own right. Of course, the point that those who don't want children should use contraception can be brought up, and I agree with it, but things happen. The stupidity of humans in lust often disregards things like that. Of course, they all know that they can rely on aborting any children they may accidently have that they don't want, so perhaps denying them that right would encourage them to act more sensibly...although I highly doubt it. More like there will be a massive increase in unwanted, abused and neglected children.

In fact, I believe abortion should be forced upon those who are financially or emotionally incapable of taking care of children. That, or they should be forced to give up their children once they are born. Some people may believe that a life of misery is better than no life at all, but I disagree with that. It is far more inhuman to bring a child into the world when you have no real intention of caring for it properly, or you are incapable of doing so. By "incapable", I mean that a standard should be set by the government - its about time those in charge actually started doing something productive, as opposed to just declaring war on whatever country their finger happens to stab whilst they're perusing a world map - and people should be judged against that on a case by case basis. A good (or at least acceptable) quality of life, or no life at all. Its that simple, in my opinion.