How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Abortion   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Abortion

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


25 posted 12-29-2006 02:24 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

While I certainly don't want to minimize any statements by you, Ed, and countless other pro-lifers, Stephen, the quotation of yours that I questioned was taken in the context of the Bible and God's forbearance, both of which you chose to use as a prologue. Essentially, though, we're in agreement -- there are no scriptural "statements against abortion." While that certainly doesn't legitimize abortion, clearly it also can't be used to condemn it.

I think you're going to find yourself similarly at a loss should you try to use the Bible to prove that human life, in and of itself, is <Sodom> sacred. Unless, of course, you're using one of the more secular definitions of sacred? That would, perhaps, be ironic if not terribly convincing.

Perhaps, though, we should save your demonstration of the <Gomorrah> sanctity of human life for another thread? It's only relevant to this discussion, after all, if we first agree on a definition of what constitutes life and when it begins. I think few today would argue that life is <the Flood> without value, but a respect for life doesn't necessarily mean I should call a priest for Last Rites every time I trim my nails or otherwise dispose of a little DNA. Every living cell, after all, carries the potential for life. (And isn't it interesting that those most willing to argue the <first born sons> sanctity of life are the first to denounce the creation of it through any but their own means?)

Oh, and one last thing. Only wimps need sleep.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


26 posted 12-29-2006 03:13 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Ron,

That was brilliant.

I started laughing out loud half way through the piece.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


27 posted 12-29-2006 09:01 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

More later,

But Ron makes the agonizingly careless conflation of divine activity and human.  A God who is able to raise the dead, and even redeem the life he takes, and who is perfectly holy and righteous may judge as he sees fit.  He never said "I shall not kill".  

While some may question Theodicy here, at least the distinction should be made for the purpose of proper Biblical exegesis.


Again, a complication and confusion of the argument in my opinion.


Stephen
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


28 posted 12-29-2006 12:03 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I think the confusion, if any exists, Stephen, is introduced by your use of the word sacred. Once you do that, you no longer get to exclude God. After all, idolatry aside, we don't get to determine what is or isn't holy. He does.

Again, it's not really relevant to this discussion. It's also not relevant to this thread that you just set God up as a "Do as I say, not as I do" Father and opened the door to the possibility that God could also lie to us any time He chose. No, God never said, "I shall not kill," but I think He did say, "I shall not murder." I also think that distinction goes a long way towards explaining why life, in and of itself, is not sacred, is not holy, and has never been the purpose of God's plans. To live is not to convey sanctity.

None of which matters to this discussion, however, unless my finger nail clippings are deemed to have a life apart from mine.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


29 posted 12-29-2006 12:31 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
None of which matters to this discussion, however, unless my finger nail clippings are deemed to have a life apart from mine.
This attempt at reductio-ad-absurdum is problematic since you are the one equating fingernails with a baby in in utero ... not me.  The difference should be obvious, but I will be back later to explain in more detail, and also show that you've conveniently slurred over the God/creature distinction when it comes to retribution judgment and dealing death.


Stephen  
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


30 posted 12-29-2006 12:35 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Everyone:

I'm not sure why the majority of this thread has to concern itself with the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of whether or not abortion is wrong.  I disagree strongly with pro-life advocates who argue that a Biblical understanding of life is a critical component to the pro-life argument.  The same people, wrongly I think, try to argue that the U.S. is a Christian nation on the basis of the Declaration of Independence's appeal to the "Laws of Nature's God" (i.e., the Biblical record) as a basis on which the U.S. claimed its governmental sovereignty.  That's just plain wrong.  Actually, and oddly enough for me I find my views more akin to Thomas Paine's political philosophy, I think science and logic are far more effective tools.

If we accept the legal definition of murder as the premeditated, deliberate, and intential killing of a person with malice aforethought (accepting felony murder doctrines as well and disregarding, for now, mitigating factors that reduce killing others to manslaughter), then the issue is narrowed to whether the fetus ought to have standing as a person, and therefore be afforded Constitutional protections.

I think a fair legal compromise would be to allow a medical standard of fetal viability (i.e., when a fetus, with medical care, is reasonably expected to survive outside of the womb) to determine when a fetus is entitled to due process protections (i.e., if a fetus is a person entitled to due process protections, then they cannot be deprived of life without due process of law).  Sure, this standard is somewhat arbitrary (and potentially a moving target as medical science improves), but I think it is more logically consistent than arguing that a person is only a person if not connected to a uterine wall by an umbilical cord (as Hawke seemed to say on his website).

I'd recommend Francis J. Beckwith's "Politically Correct Death" for a fairly comprehensive treatment of the quality of logical arguments for and against abortion.  To be fair, on the other side of the argument, you have David Boonin's "A Defense of Abortion."

Jim
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


31 posted 12-29-2006 03:15 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Gentlemen,

May I, from experience:

This topic always becomes laced with every notion under the sun, primarily, because there will never be a world agreement, global practice or universal law, expansive cultural or social norm, or all-embracing spiritual standard or belief that will encompass or control each individual's viewpoint upon the act of abortion.

With that said and understood, I offer my own viewpoint without challenging another's, simply because I have no right or ability to control what another woman keeps or disposes of any more than what she eats or doesn't eat. Food for thought, from experience, is all I share:

I asked myself this question:

If I cannot will a person to live,then how can I rightfully will a person to die?

Was I speaking of my babies? No.

I was speaking of my babies' father, when I was carrying our twins.

He chose another life over and above being my husband or a father. He walked out/ abandoned me, and began destroying himself with drugs and alcohol. There was nothing I could do, but carry my twins, alone. I had no control over anyone, but myself.

Talk about mixed emotions! I wanted him to die. I wanted him to live, a healthy normal life. I wanted him to love me, like he said he did, as I thought he did, or else I wouldn't have married him. I wanted him to love his babies. I wanted him to hurt, as I hurt, and I wanted him to be afraid and desperate and lonely, and a plethora of other negative things that I suffered while broken-hearted and devastated. I know he suffered, from different things for different reasons.

I also suffered the anguishing loss of one of my babies. I couldn't will her to live either. Miraculously, my second daughter survived, even though the doctors had every scientific reason why she shouldn't be alive. She was born at 23 weeks gestation and extremely tiny, though she possessed a spitfire will to make it, and she is still a spitfire today.

As extremely grateful and blessed as I am with her presence in my life, I must be honest. I cannot sit here and paint myself as some kind of Saint. I was never more screwed up in my life than when I carried those babies.

Did I consider abortion? Of course I considered it. More than once. Being loving, hard working, morally and spiritually upright wasn't feeding the son I already had. I had no clue how I might feed/clothe/shelter 3 babies by myself. Due to my husband's quest in "finding himself," complete responsibility found me. The banks, finance companies, and the landlord were at my door every day, wanting money and repossessing nearly everything I had. My health had failed me, mentally, emotionally, and physically, and I had a son, sitting there, looking at me every day, with the bluest eyes that kept me fighting to be there for him. I was more torn than a country at war. I collapsed plenty of times and I have no idea how I got back up. Each day was a virtual blur of hopelessness, need, routine, what's next? why me? what if? how? I can do this, I can't do this, where is God? Who is God? What have I done? I deserve this. I don't deserve this. They don't deserve this. I'm a failure. I'm not going to give up. I give up. I didn't give up.

but Pieces of me died.

Yes, there is more than one way a person can die.

There is more wrong with the world than abortion

though I do feel abortion is wrong

it's no more wrong than expecting
an expectant mother to carry the weight of a child/children

Alone.

Is it murder? With my personal feelings aside, the word "pregnant" needs to be redefined, before murder can be properly associated, because a woman can't be a little bit pregnant, though, according to scientific study, she can carry something that can be a little bit human.

We can address every faith and belief or scientific finding, known or new, but personal struggles form an ambiguity that becomes more trusted than whatever another tries to sell as the absolute truth.

Example: I don't believe in abortion, but can I prevent resulting pregnancies from rape or molestation, and provide for all needy children. No. So I am being ambiguous and egocentric if I cannot provide a solution for the innocent, and yet expect the innocent to adhere to MY standards. This is human, and very faulty (and if anyone wants to refute this, please do so)—It is also Godly. In the way that humans have painted our God to be.

That God, is not my absolute truth.

I believe I had help, yes, from a higher power, because something or someone had to be bigger than me to help me get up everyday, very pregnant as I was, guiding me and introducing me to the right people, protecting my every step, but I still suffered loss. Do I feel punished or forsaken? No. I feel lucky. But I'll Never feel lucky enough or special enough to make decisions for another on pregnancy, Sirs.

because pregnancy is required, thus far, in order to bring forth life. Abortion isn't even the beginning of our troubles. It's terribly controversial, and it seems to overshadow more destructive acts such as rape/molestation/and abandoned children. We can even count out illegal acts, and just look at the population of grandparents, who are now raising a second generation, even third generation children. Where are their parents? How is this happening? It's not just teen pregnancy. These are adults, who have left their children to pursue more important things. I think we need to look at the ugly truth of what Parenthood has become and what it means to some children, because abortion is a by-product of that truth, and it's a preoccupation for some that think they can give birth to the world.

I'm sorry I'm only able to provide a perspective that seems double-sided. No matter how much I love my children, I can't make someone else love them or make them love their own, and perhaps it isn't even a question of love, because it takes a hell of a lot more than love to raise a child.

peace~
Reg
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


32 posted 12-29-2006 05:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well, it would seem young master Edward has yet to make a single argument here.  

quote:

But Ron makes the agonizingly careless conflation of divine activity and human. A God who is able to raise the dead, and even redeem the life he takes, and who is perfectly holy and righteous may judge as he sees fit. He never said "I shall not kill".

While some may question Theodicy here, at least the distinction should be made for the purpose of proper Biblical exegesis.



Ok.. let's look at what People in the Bible do in a few passages;

Numbers 31:17-18 (New International Version)
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

So, while killing all the male children all the women who are pregnant and potentially pregnant are to be killed without regard for the fetus.


Judges 11:29-40 (New International Version)

29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."

36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."

38 "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

From this comes the Israelite custom 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

quote:

The pro-life argument is not built upon one lynchpin scripture, but rather the scriptural view of human life, which is sacred.



What is the scriptural view of human life we are to take away from Jephthah the Gileadite?

Genesis 38:24-28 (New International Version)

24 About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant."
Judah said, "Bring her out and have her burned to death!"

25 As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law. "I am pregnant by the man who owns these," she said. And she added, "See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are."

26 Judah recognized them and said, "She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn't give her to my son Shelah." And he did not sleep with her again.

27 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 28 As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, "This one came out first."


So, punishing a prostitute takes precedence over protecting her fetus!


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


33 posted 12-29-2006 06:19 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I'm not sure why the majority of this thread has to concern itself with the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of whether or not abortion is wrong.



I don't think it is Jim.  At least -- it isn't in my thesis -- quite the opposite is the case.  It is rather that I say it can't be used to make the argument one way or another -- and Stephen is attempting to persuade us otherwise.

quote:

I think a fair legal compromise would be to allow a medical standard of fetal viability (i.e., when a fetus, with medical care, is reasonably expected to survive outside of the womb) to determine when a fetus is entitled to due process protections (i.e., if a fetus is a person entitled to due process protections, then they cannot be deprived of life without due process of law). Sure, this standard is somewhat arbitrary (and potentially a moving target as medical science improves), but I think it is more logically consistent than arguing that a person is only a person if not connected to a uterine wall by an umbilical cord (as Hawke seemed to say on his website).



I'm not sure that I seemed to say that -- I think I said 'Some' say that.  In practice there isn't room for the paper this thread isn't printed on between our compromise positions Jim.

Interestingly enough though -- some of the 'Some' who would say that were the Israelites in Old Testament theology.  Adam became a living soul when God breathed into him ( I know you know this Jim -- I'm being pedantic for the sake of thread coherence) and in Halacha (Jewish law) .a baby...becomes a human being when the head emerges from the womb and breathes. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life'.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


34 posted 12-29-2006 07:32 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Edward,

We live in an extraordinary place of wealth, confidence
and expectation.   We for example do not fear crop failure,
and no one is as poor as will starve except by ignoring
or refusing the assistance available, ( I know).

  In  Narrow Road to the Interior, Basho relates how he and
his fellow traveler came upon an abandoned two year-old
child in the woods.  He comments about how sad it was
that the parents were compelled to such an extreme, yet
he relates that all he did was throw the child a small packet
of food and move on . . .  

In some villages infanticide at birth was practiced in Japan
until well into the nineteenth century as a matter of group survival.

I think we have to be careful in our judgments.

I will give you this: when the termination of human life is a function
of convenience rather than dire necessity then the whole value
structure is thrown into doubt for human life to my mind is the
ultimate value regardless of the adjectives attached to it.

John
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


35 posted 12-30-2006 12:14 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Concerning the replies of Ron and LR ...



The reason I have brought up abortion from a scriptural view first, is simply because Reb has lengthily challenged the assertion that the Bible supports a pro-life position rather than a pro-abortion one.  Secondly, it was because the thread didn’t start with legality, but with the ethical question, as Ed didn’t use chilly legal terms like “homicide”, but throaty and emotionally charged words like “murder” and “wrong”.  I didn't choose to address the Biblical because it is my only argument for pro-life, but because it is nonetheless an important one and foundational in the sense of providing a moral framework which most in reality agree with ... even Ron, who aptly reminds me that God doesn’t murder and neither should we.          


Let me illustrate ... Earlier Ron pointed out that God in the Bible has communicated, in effect, "I will not murder".  And somehow this was supposed to refute my assertion that God's acts of executing justice (ie, the first-born of Egypt, Sodom, etc ...) are very different than a person committing abortion.  Actually it contradicts Ron’s original take that such wrathful episodes in the Bible prove that there is no “sacredness” for humanity.  It proves the opposite, for critical minds.  Think with me a moment ...


Like Brad, I think Ron's writing is superb.  The wit and satire is impeccable (I'm still stinging ).  But the substance is altogther different.  In reality, I can thank Ron for bolstering my argument that life is sacred (not unconditionally or autonomously sacred), when he pointed out that God's acts of taking life are based upon righteous judgement, rather than murderous intent.  I never said (or even hinted) that life was autonomously "sacred" or of inherent worth, without relation to God.  That kind of claim could actually serve as the very definition of "profane", and is a more humanistic idea than Christian.  So Ron has only erected a straw-man that he can knock down.  But the very fact that I concede that God sometimes takes life away, that he has a unique role concerning life and death, should make it clear that I am not claiming some kind of autarchical consecration for humanity.  No intrinsic worth here Ron, it's all dependent upon the "imago Dei".  But if there’s one thing I can agree on, which Ron said, is that even if we agree on the sanctity of human life, and that we shouldn’t “murder”, we need to ask the question as to what constitutes a human being ... rather than being adjectively human, such as a toenails might be described.  And for that I will be presenting what I think are pretty good arguments that a fetus, at whatever stage, is a human being.  More later ...  


Now concerning Reb:  


I’ll leave it at this concerning the Biblical statements he’s made:  It’s easy to lose the forest for the trees, especially when those trees are dug up, and taken out of their particular grove.  And without visiting every scripture you've commented on right now... I’ll simply say ....

(more personally here, as a “Dutch Uncle” might be)                  

For you to quote the Bible’s account of Judah’s reaction to his daughter inlaw’s pregnancy (especially when she was pregnant by HIM, in an episode where she was misaken by him for a prostitute) in order to suggest that the Bible even begins to begin to condone killing her and her unborn child, takes the cake.  It’s been a while since I’ve seen an attempt made from such a tattered and confused context that you've implied.  Are you simply ignoring (or expecting others to ignore) the fact that the Bible is not a one dimensional book of moral platitudes, but that it is also often a book of historical narration, and that therefore we shouldn’t assume every instance of reportage involves endorsment?  It makes it even worse for you when the context of this entire passage is about Judah’s folly, rather than his righteousness.  “You are more righteous than I”  were his own words.  And if this wayward man doubted his own righetousness, how much more God?  Really Reb, you lost me here.  You can do much better than that.  

But thanks to Jim, I did come across a good article which explores the fallcy of the theological claims of pro-abortion.  I find it is very sound exegetically, and though I could ferret out the details myself, I would rather post it as an addendum to what I’ve already said.  

The Bible presents a pretty strong case that the unborn are fully human beings.  (And I don’t have to convince you that it says not to murder).  For those who want to seriously prove that the Bible does not have an anti-abortion case whatsoever, this will be a good article for you to ponder.  And for others who aren’t sure either way.

http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/bibsac.pdf


more later,


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-30-2006 12:45 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


36 posted 12-30-2006 12:39 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

REb:
quote:
and in Halacha (Jewish law) .a baby...becomes a human being when the head emerges from the womb and breathes. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life'.


Not that I think later Jewish improvisations hold the weight of scripture, I still would find this surprising, if it is as you say.  And I would like more than your word here, could you provide a reference?


humor me.


Stephen.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


37 posted 12-30-2006 01:13 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

It’s easy to lose the forest for the trees, especially when those trees are dug up



The forest IS every individual tree Stephan... I don't have time to dig them all up -- let's just talk about the one's we're walking by.  

quote:

For you to quote the Bible’s account of Judah’s reaction to his daughter inlaw’s pregnancy (especially when she was pregnant by HIM, in an episode where she was misaken by him for a prostitute) in order to suggest that the Bible even begins to begin to condone killing her and her unborn child, takes the cake.



The point here is not that Judah fathered the child -- but that had she actually been a prostitute, or merely unfaithful, as was evidenced by her showing pregnancy after three months, she would have, by law, been executed.

You can start here for a Halacha source http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortion.html

and here;

quote:

Judaism refuses to take a simplistic stand on this very nuanced moral issue. Yet, three things are plainly clear: One, Jewish tradition does not consider a fetus to be the same as a human being. The text from this week’s parasha explains: If a pregnant woman is accidentally injured in a fight between two men and she miscarries as a result, the man who injured her is responsible for monetary compensation as a penalty. It is not a capital offense. The fetus has value, but not status as a full human being. (Exodus 21:22) Two, the health and safety of the mother always takes precedence over her fetus. The mishna supports this by teaching: “If a woman’s labor becomes life threatening, the one to be born is dismembered in her abdomen . . .for her life comes before the life of the fetus.” Three, a fetus is not considered to be a full, living, independent soul until it emerges from its mother’s womb. The same mishna text teaches that, “once most of the child has emerged it is not to be touched, for one soul is not to be put aside for another.” (Mishna Ohalot 7:6).

Unlike historical Christianity, which considers “ensoulment”—the time when the soul enters the body—to occur at conception, the Talmud teaches that the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day, and it is considered to be less than a full human being until it is born. (Yevamot 69b) The fetus is seen as a nefesh, a soul, only after it emerges from the womb. Although there is a broad spectrum of opinion within the Jewish community, our sages from the time of the Talmud, through the great medieval commentators to the modern day rabbis have overwhelmingly permitted abortion to save a woman’s life. But rabbinic authorities are divided on the question of whether abortion is permitted for the sake of a woman’s psychological well-being.
http://www.betham.org/sermons/briskin030131.html



To be fair though -- look for other early Christian extant materials Stephan... like the Didache from the middle of the second century CE -- clearly commands against abortion and calls it murder.  But, you'll have to figure out why these texts weren't canonized and why the early Church DID have a different view of ensoulment and abortion issues as described in my text.
hunnie_girl
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 06-18-2006
Posts 2539
Canada


38 posted 12-30-2006 04:01 AM       View Profile for hunnie_girl   Email hunnie_girl   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hunnie_girl

yes, true it is murder. i agree on you with that. I think it is wrong but I think it is ok if the child will have a problem, ie: mentally challenged, a deformity, adjoined twins, etc. I don't think it is right to have a child like that where they wont be socially accepted. Otherwise i think you should have to deal with your mistakes. Although i think no child should be thought of as a mistake!!! there is my opinion.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


39 posted 12-30-2006 12:30 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

quote:
Unlike historical Christianity, which considers "ensoulment"-the time when the soul enters the body-to occur at conception, the Talmud teaches that the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day, and it is considered to be less than a full human being until it is born. (Yevamot 69b) The fetus is seen as a nefesh, a soul, only after it emerges from the womb.



No man can determine the soul of the baby inside the womb, nor will I believe in any God that operates purely by that man's determining.

Does anyone really want any human to determine the soul of a baby?

When it comes to religion, women seem to be mouthless vessels in the harbor of men's seed. I'm beginning to believe the great flood was just as symbolic of such as it was a wipe-out.

I don't need scripture or science to convince me that babies are more than water in a bucket, though the bucket is more questionable, since the importance of women falls second to the importance of the depositing male, biblically, and please don't label me a man hater for stating my opinion. I worship a good Father.

I have to believe in a soul. It keeps me from sinking into the same dark oblivion my child would be in if I didn't.  I'd also hate to think I barely missed the cut-off period of soul handouts according to some scriptural beliefs. And the breath of life theory greatly disturbs me for all mothers of stillborn children.

Yes, the soul deeply affects the argument for me, but as far as being a tangible basis for legislation? No way. These things would also have to happen or be halted.

1: A person has to believe in a soul for the rules to apply.

2: gender selection discard (widely practiced in many parts of the world)

3: terminating a child with a congenital anomaly or birth defect. (I don't feel they are soulless)

4: termination to save an adult mother.

5: termination to save a child impregnated by a sick adult.

6: Separation of church and state, tricky, de-separation? re-de-separation? respiration of church, I'm confused.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


40 posted 12-30-2006 12:55 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Reg,


There are different strands in this one thread.  There is the legal.  But there is also the ethical and existential.  I don't think Hawke was trying to recommend legislation based upon someone's idea of "ensoulment".  


Though with the moral question, like you, I think all such arbitrary designations of "soul" only prove that even those who know there is a soul, don't know when.  A strong argument to stay with the sign that God and nature has given us with conception.  If you know, but you don't know when, play it safe.  And if conception seems like just another arbitrary point, science itself affirms that it is a totally new organism genetically speaking.


Stephen  
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


41 posted 12-30-2006 02:27 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Thank you Stephen, and I want to clarify that I understand that Hawke was only providing info/reference, but there are many who feel law goes hand in hand with religious belief. Marriage, Eye for an eye, etc.

but this statement: " If you know, but you don't know when, play it safe," taken in a different context, could also be applied more often with regards to unwanted pregnancy. Contraception highly helps to reduce the need for abortion, but there again, there are religious standards against it and the education involved.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


42 posted 12-30-2006 09:14 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

[Insults removed - I'm giving a bit of leeway in the other thread, since it's all but ruined any way, but please don't presume it will extend beyond that thread. Remain civil or don't remain; those are the only two choices you'll be given. Thank you, Ron.]

Unlike the rest of you, I won't use the Bible. [edited] Not to mention how many different bibles there are. The Baptist one, the Methodist, Mormon, Presbyterian, Lutheran or Catholic; there's too many to work from.

My approach to the subject is very simple and it always has been. "Is a human life being destroyed?" Yes "Is someone, say... the mother, destroying a life?" Yes "So life is being prevented?" Yes "Is it killing?" Yes

I fail to see the difference between a mother killing her one year old kid and aborting her baby. Just because the child is unborn and still in the womb doesn't mean he or she is not living. And you all know it. Everyone knows it. Life begins in the womb. Did you hear me? Life! IN THE WOMB! The kid is alive and kicking with eyes, fingers and a brain. Unless you believe that life just magically starts as soon as the baby hits the surface than you can't argue it. Destroying a human life is murder. Let me ask... If the child wasn't aborted, would he have been born and have grown up and got married and had kids of his own and live and be a human being? YES! But no, he was aborted and was robbed of life. Life was taken from him.

Some ask: "What about rape victims that become pregnant?" The kid had nothing to do with it, why should he be put to death? Did the baby rape the woman? HELL NO!!! The man did, so why isn't he put to death? He's jailed and the kid is killed. Is that right?

A kid will be born with defects, so let's just kill him for mercy. Ha, what a load! Should a mentally challenged forty year old be killed for mercy? If he is killed, the killer would be arrested. A handicapped baby is killed, the killer will be arrested. People have problems but that doesn't mean they need to die. I have bad eyes, should I be knocked off? When I was a kid, I had severe hallucinations that landed me in therapy, should my parents have killed me for mercy's sake? Huh! Tell me.

Abortion is killing. Forget the bible and all that other jargon. Typical... beating around the question with overcomplicated bull. Times were different when the Bible was written, it can't be used here.

People figure, if they can't see the kid, it must not be alive. If it's still in the mother, it must not be alive. A small part of me doesn't blame the mothers. When they become pregnant unwantingly, they are scared out of their minds. Sometimes abortion is the only option they think they have. NO, I blame the doctors who provide it and the facilities that facilitate it. They are death dealers. Baby killers. Murderers.

That's all I have to say about that.

[This message has been edited by Ron (12-31-2006 01:13 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


43 posted 12-30-2006 09:22 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

rwood:
quote:
Contraception highly helps to reduce the need for abortion, but there again, there are religious standards against it and the education involved.

You're probably aware that I myself don't think religious ideas need to be completely divorced from Government.  (thankfully they never have, since even our concept of human rights is religiously based)  But that being said, it can be wrongly applied, abused, and taken too far.  

But either way, at least we can agree that there needs to be education and social reform surrounding the issues of pregnancy and parenthood.  However, the question of whether abstinence teaching or contraception teaching is best remains open, seeing that both practices would lead to a decrease in unwanted pregnancies.  But that's probably another thread entirely.


Stephen.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


44 posted 12-30-2006 10:20 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

No man can determine the soul of the baby inside the womb, nor will I believe in any God that operates purely by that man's determining.

Does anyone really want any human to determine the soul of a baby?

When it comes to religion, women seem to be mouthless vessels in the harbor of men's seed. I'm beginning to believe the great flood was just as symbolic of such as it was a wipe-out.

I don't need scripture or science to convince me that babies are more than water in a bucket, though the bucket is more questionable, since the importance of women falls second to the importance of the depositing male, biblically, and please don't label me a man hater for stating my opinion. I worship a good Father.




Hello Regina,  it doesn't seem I've seen much of you since the last time we did this about 5 years ago -- good to be talking with you again.

I think the issues above were exactly the impetus behind Roe V. Wade... it didn't have anything to do with hating men -- it had to do with an absent man -- and other men telling her exactly what she could and couldn't decide for herself.  I wonder, given the hardship you've been through personally, and because you made the choice for yourself -- if you think it would have made it better or worse for you if Roe V. Wade hadn't become the law of the land and you felt that you had no option at all.  Very interested in your thoughts there.

Obviously there are faiths and denominations that render women to second class status when it comes to the theological, and an ancient overlap of religious systems and government would extend that into personal liberty as well in some systems.

What do you find the present climate, in this system, this country, and Tennessee to be for women?

Given your later comments about ensoulment and birth control -- I'm also wondering your views on birth control methods that prevent implantation vs. prevention of conception.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


45 posted 12-30-2006 10:26 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

You're probably aware that I myself don't think religious ideas need to be completely divorced from Government.  (thankfully they never have, since even our concept of human rights is religiously based)  But that being said, it can be wrongly applied, abused, and taken too far.  



I don't think they CAN be divorced from a process that allows religious diversity.  It is rather, ironically, the theocracy that would seem to eliminate religious ideas from government ... but, I suppose that's another thread Stephan
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


46 posted 12-30-2006 11:00 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Glad you're finally back Edward.

Although the personal attacks don't bother me directly, they simply aren't allowed here at PIP, so, it may be better to edit them before they run the risk of getting your thread locked.

quote:

Unlike the rest of you, I won't use the Bible. Local Libel, I mean Rebel, has proved that you can pretty much twist any verse in the bible. Not to mention how many different bibles there are. The Baptist one, the Methodist, Mormon, Presbyterian, Lutheran or Catholic; there's too many to work from.



I thought this all started because you were going to debate my website?  Show me any twisting with a detailed explanation please.

quote:

My approach to the subject is very simple and it always has been. "Is a human life being destroyed?" Yes "Is someone, say... the mother, destroying a life?" Yes "So life is being prevented?" Yes "Is it killing?" Yes

I fail to see the difference between a mother killing her one year old kid and aborting her baby. Just because the child is unborn and still in the womb doesn't mean he or she is not living. And you all know it. Everyone knows it. Life begins in the womb. Did you hear me? Life! IN THE WOMB! The kid is alive and kicking with eyes, fingers and a brain.



What is the difference between life, human life, and a human being?  A corpse is fully human.   Life does begin in the womb, I don't think there's anyone in this debate, or any statement on my site that would say otherwise.  Is it your contention though -- that a human being begins when it is kicking, has eyes, fingers, and a brain?

What about a zygote?  

quote:

Some ask: "What about rape victims that become pregnant?" The kid had nothing to do with it, why should he be put to death? Did the baby rape the woman? HELL NO!!! The man did, so why isn't he put to death? He's jailed and the kid is killed. Is that right?



What about the rights of the woman and her life?  She doesn't get a say?  For the rest of her life she has to be the mother of a child she didn't choose? Is that right?

quote:

A kid will be born with defects, so let's just kill him for mercy. Ha, what a load! Should a mentally challenged forty year old be killed for mercy?



At what point, in your opinion, does fetus become equal to a forty year old male in rights under the Constitution?  And, why?

quote:

Times were different when the Bible was written, it can't be used here.



So, then, not in so many words -- you agree with my thesis.

quote:

People figure, if they can't see the kid, it must not be alive. If it's still in the mother, it must not be alive.



This is a complete misstatement of the issue Edward.

The question is not whether or not the Zygote or Fetus is alive.  It is rather, when does it become a person deserving Constitutional protection.  If it is incapable of surviving outside the womb -- is it yet a person?

quote:

NO, I blame the doctors who provide it and the facilities that facilitate it. They are death dealers. Baby killers. Murderers.



Well, that borders on scary Edward.

But let's take a look at Rabbi Briskin's scenario:

quote:

I learned this week of a couple, who after a prolonged period of trying, discovered they were pregnant. The news of her pregnancy spread through their families. Their excitement was contagious. Their deep desire to bring life into this world was finally being fulfilled. I can only imagine their horror when a routine test revealed severe and irreparable birth defects in the fetus. Their dream turned into a nightmare. What should they do? Carry the fetus despite the risks? Abort despite their visceral reaction against it? Theirs was a heart-wrenching choice that they needed to make in consultation with physicians, family, clergy, and their own conscience. Ultimately, they made their choice privately. I do not know what Karen and I would choose if we were faced with a similar crisis. Of one thing I am certain, however: I would hope that Karen and I would have the right to make the choice for ourselves, protected, rather than impeded by the state.
http://www.betham.org/sermons/briskin030131.html




Should this couple be allowed to make their choice with physicians, family, clergy, and according to their own conscience, privately... or do you get to do it for them?
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


47 posted 12-30-2006 11:19 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

"I thought this all started because you were going to debate my website?  Show me any twisting with a detailed explanation please."

[edited] I said the Bible can't be used because it can be interpreted so many ways. Off your website, I'm debating that you agree with abortion.

"Is it your contention though -- that a human being begins when it is kicking, has eyes, fingers, and a brain?"

[edited]

"What about the rights of the woman and her life?  She doesn't get a say?"

Does a woman have a right to kill her 5 year old? Again I fail to see the difference.

"For the rest of her life she has to be the mother of a child she didn't choose?"

I've asked before, are adoption agencies myths? Maybe she shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want a kid. And if it was rape, then there comes the adoption thing again.

"At what point, in your opinion, does fetus become equal to a forty year old male in rights under the Constitution?  And, why?"

[edited] If you can kill a baby scot-free, why not kill a forty year old? And the rights of the Constitution? The kid’s a human. Why shouldn't he be protected?

"So, then, not in so many words -- you agree with my thesis."

More or less, I don't think the bible can be used here. I said that.

"It is rather, when does it become a person deserving Constitutional protection."

It is a person to begin with so right away I imagine.

"If it is incapable of surviving outside the womb -- is it yet a person?"

If you get in a car accident, God forbid   , and you have to be put on life support and oxygen and are incapable of living without the hookups are you still a human? Or did you magically transform into something else?

"Well, that borders on scary Edward."

Really? Saddam killed people and was blamed and hanged for it. The docs kill the babies; I fail to see the difference.

And your story, if the kid died in the womb then it died in the womb. What do you have to say about aborting healthy babies. You seem to avoid the question. Why don't you try answering some of the questions for a change instead of giving more questions? [edited]

[This message has been edited by Ron (12-31-2006 01:18 AM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


48 posted 12-31-2006 12:05 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

If you get in a car accident, God forbid , and you have to be put on life support and oxygen and are incapable of living without the hookups are you still a human? Or did you magically transform into something else?



Since this is the closest you've come to actually formulating an argument let's just start there.

The question isn't whether or not I'm human.  The question is about the personhood of a single cell that is incapable of replication outside of a womb or artificial incubation.  It has no eyes, fingers, feet, nor brain.  It only has a unique DNA pattern.  It is a human cell.  Is it a person?  If so-- why?

What if it isn't yet implanted?

I don't stop being human after I'm dead.  What are my rights though -- when I can't function without artificial life support and I'm incapable of rendering my own decisions?

quote:

I've asked before, are adoption agencies myths? Maybe she shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want a kid. And if it was rape, then there comes the adoption thing again.



Does a mother stop being a mother after the child is adopted?

quote:

It's called an analogy, have you heard of it? If you can kill a baby scot-free, why not kill a forty year old? And the rights of the Constitution? The kid’s a human. Why shouldn't he be protected?




A zygote is neither a baby nor a forty-year-old.  They are all human.  Ron's toenails though, are human.

It's your opinion that a zygote is a person.  Why does your opinion take precedence over those who would say Constitutional rights should be conferred when a fetus is capable of survival outside the womb?


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


49 posted 12-31-2006 12:28 AM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

Listen, if you're just going to answer questions with more questions then we won't get anywhere.

Why don't you directly answer anything?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Abortion   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors