»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Ok... let's see who's brave.. lol
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Ok... let's see who's brave.. lol |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
an excerpt from my upcoming site update: Abortion [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 09-04-2001).] |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Wow, some really interesting stuff here. Still other issues that bother me more: 1. Government funding (I think it's necessary). 2. Parental consent (I think it's necessary). 3. Freedom of non-violent protest (I think it should be allowed as much as possible). I'm not sure if this is too far off topic but I was reading about Mill the other day and he argued that marriages should be forbidden unless the couple could show the ability to support a family. Otherwise, they would be a burden on society. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Government funding should pass the same means testing as any other government provided health care -- if that's what you mean I agree. Freedom of assembly/speech -- yep -- have to have it as long as everyone remembers where their rights end -- at the point someone else's begins. Blocking sidewalks and accosting women in their cars in parking lots are not 'peaceful' protest in my book. Publishing lists of doctors -- questionable -- including their home address -- invasion of privacy. Parental notification -- absolutely disagree -- can't think of any good reason why it's necessary. Plenty of reasons not to. Means testing for marriage? The notion of means testing for having children isn't a new one -- but going all the way back to marriage... I couldn't see that under any circumstances -- reproductive rights tampering is trecherous enough. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If someone under eighteen is allowed to make this decision without parental notification, it seems to me that they should also be responsible enough to be given the vote. I really think the above is well written by the way. It helps that I already agree with the position but on first read, I found it thouroughly persuasive. If I have the time, I'll try to nitpick but right now, great job! Brad |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Sorry...I find just the topic of conversation ludicrous. Not to be sexist...but let's see who is brave???? I walked through the lines of protest in front of the Delta Women's Clinic on St. Charles Ave. in New Orleans in April of 1986. I exercized my right of choice, knowing full well that those outside, no matter if we were in agreement or not, also exercized their rights of protest. And--I defend the rights of both. But as to bravery...hmmm...that is something I still ponder. And? It's a self-judgement that I live with...but right now? it's late..or early, depending, I suppose, on if you've slept...(pssst...that was an intended sarcasm not without relevance) I think a better question is can morality be legislated? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
well serenity if you don't like the 'title' I suppose that's one thing.. but please clarify -- is it the title you find ludicrous or the topic of abortion? if it's the title you dislike--I chose it because most people treat it as the third rail and will not only not discuss it - but won't even consider formulating an opinion on it -- as fundamentalists and pro-life activism continues to put pressure on conservative politicians the supreme court landscape will become more and more anti-roe v. wade -- this is a major front on the horizon--again--so what is ludicrous about discussing it? Brad -- I can sympathize with the intent but there are many emancipated minors who are not afforded the opportunities of adulthood -- and even some adults -- for instance 18 year olds who are old enough to vote -- aren't old enough to drink... I don't see how endangering the well being of a minor with requiring parental notification by tying the proposition to an extraneous issue like voting rights comes into play -- I think that would be an excellent topic for discussion though. Thanks for the compliments -- I did read the sites listed above about three years ago with scant notes -- I was appalled to find how much of the original documents I nearly reproduced -- whole sentences in some cases -- I still need to do some more re-writing before I publish. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thanks for the clarification Reb..ya know I love ya, but I WAS confused. sigh..no prob.  |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I don't think hitting theology and biology can really cover this subject- what about psychology? I admittedly am not well educated on the subject of abortion, but I am aware of a certain post-abortion depression women go through. There are also moral ramifications outside the biblical sources you cover- not all pro-lifers are die-hard Christians. I think you did a very thorough job presenting your side of the issue, or rather, the parts your presented, but there's more to the whole picture here. I eat only sleep and air -Nicole Blackman |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hush...I agree with you. Having been there, and done that...I can tell you that the extent of my "counseling" was the presentation of a plastic womb with fetus... "This is how you look now..." and walla...they pop the fetus out, and? "This is how you will look afterwards." No one mentioned that I would grieve. No one mentioned that my body would go into hormonal shock. No one took any psychological profile to even try to gauge whether or not I could handle the results of "my choice." No one told me that I would have nightmares a decade and a half later--- of a lost baby crying, comfortless. No one mentioned that when I did finally hold my first born, that I would burst into tears, thinking of my first conceived. And all of this said, one would think that I am no longer pro choice. I was pro choice then and remain so now. I'm not one to kick the door shut AFTER I have gone through. But I have, on occasion been asked, by some who were considering the same "option"--"what should I do?" I told all three the same thing--either way, they would have to live with the results of their decision the rest of their lives--and they should think long and hard about as to which result is the easiest for THEM to live with. As for parental consent, I have a daughter. And of course ideally she would confide in me in such a circumstance. But if for whatever reason she felt she couldn't? I would prefer she have a safer method than a coat hanger. And as for government funding? I have long been appalled that Mifepristone, or RU-486 was so vehemently opposed in this country for so long. I am even more appalled that sex education is still vehemently opposed in many public schools. So...where do I stand on this issue? Pro-choice. Absolutely. Abortion has been around for as long as there have been desperate women, and will continue to be around, legislature approved or not. But even being pro-choice, I also understand that I made a bad choice for ME. Nor would I ever presume to make that choice for anyone else. And Reb? I have to tell you, the topic line of discussion raised some emotional issues for me. Obviously. Because of the day that I went there, and the fact that I walked through a protesting crowd, many women holding babies to block my way---I was called "brave." But it's been a toss up for me as to which was braver, that, or to raise the child alone. So forgive the quills of this porcupine. (They are, after all, a defense mechanism. So is the stench of a skunk, but I've had enough bravery for one night...lol) Peace to all...damn I wish I could sleep sometimes. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
hush -- I don't disagree -- there are other things to be said about the topic but is it up to me to say it all? I'm very well aware of atheists for life and feminists for life -- I spent a lot of time discussing this issue with someone who was both. So, I know most of the arguments there are. It's important to consider this subject though because as more justices retire (and there are 4 coming up soon) the country is in a position to pack the court with some rather worrisome judges -- the arguments of athiests and feminists for life are so obscure you aren't even prepared to present them -- and probably not many are -- most people in this country favor choice but are ill equiped to discuss the issue especially with the Pro-Life Conservative Christian types who are militant on the issue and spout rhetoric containing the word 'murderer' in every other sentence. I have no delusion that I'm ever going to persuade anyone on this issue in one direction or another. However -- if, by preaching to the choir I can give them a few verses to sing -- that's worthwhile. Another issue that I've completely left out in this essay is that the real problem most conservatives have with abortion is the loss of male control over women -- but that's a futile point to belabor in my opinion. Serenity -- to love one does not require agreement -- I sympathize with your anguish and I will just say -- being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. And -- in defense of the people who were there for you and didn't tell you what you would feel years from now -- all I can say is -- how would they know? Many women have never looked back and have no regrets whatsoever -- but, I do agree that people need to talk about their experiences -- people are too quiet about this. On the issue of parental notification -- I would hope also my daughter would talk to me -- but I don't think the government can legislate family communication -- and abortion isn't the only medical procedure that does not require parental consent. And sleep -- sleep is for sissies...  [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 09-05-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm not speaking for anybody else here but, as a man, I've been through this. My mistake was not making my intentions clear (I said, "Let's make sure and then we'll talk. Hell, I was 22.) In retrospect, I see my mistakes, my lack of commitment to a woman that I truly loved. Her insecurity and my unwillingness to make a decision caused it to happen. I can't change it back and I wouldn't if I could (I have Lynne now) but, damn it, I don't want someone else telling me how to make or unmake my mistakes. Certainly not the government. I have to live with this but, psychologically, it has to be the parents who make the decision, not the government. And it has to be adults. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well I can certainly sympathize with that scenario Brad -- been there before too -- only in my case I never new anything about it until a good ten years later -- her motivations were more career oriented. She would say -- if she was participating in this debate -- that abortions would be totally unnecessary if we didn't have a patriarchal society that views women as 'weak' and childbearing and child care as a weakness. And I would have to say she had some pretty convincing arguments -- although I think she was even at a loss as to how to change things for the better. On the issue of parental notification -- I have to bring up a couple of other scenarios -- if a child notifies the parent of a pregnancy and the parent has the authority to make the decision there will be girls having babies that don't want them -- or having abortions that don't want them -- the whole point of roe v. wade was that it is the woman's body and therefore -- her choice -- I think in the case of an emancipated minor there should be some mandatory psychological help provided for her to help her in the process of making a decision and then dealing with it afterward -- but -- it's still up to her -- and up to her if she wants to involve her parents/gaurdians or not. just for those with nothing better to do -- I've added a section on Philosophy to my website http://www.geocities.com/nighthawke700/philosophy.htm later |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Hints of consciousness have been found in 7-month-old fetuses and measured brain-wave patterns similar to dreaming at 8 months gestation. Speaking from my own personal experience..My daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation. 2 weeks after the legal abortion limit. She came on her own accord. A perfectly normal and healthy baby. She had all the features of a (baby). Hair, lashes, nails, ten fingers and toes..etc. And a temper! 2 lbs. 6 oz. A twin to be exact. But I was unable to carry her twin. With all medical and scientific studies and fact aside, along with all religious beliefs. I have one question that has always haunted me in this debate. (If I cannot will my child to live, then how can I will it to die?) And believe me, there is no judgement on others choices or decisions. I fully recognize and support anyone's personal decisions. So please do not think I am bashing the Pro Choice or uplifting Pro Life. It is just a question from my own personal experience about life. That has nothing to do with my own (choice) if you will. Nothing to do with religion or law or anything controllable by man. I had no control over what became my daughter. She had a 5% chance of survival. The doctors could not do anything to save my child. She exists today because of something? Science fails to explain, for there is no explaination as to why she is here. She just is. And a fetus she was not at the time of birth. She cried and pitched a fit so scientifically viable she was. So I'm wondering if the info provided to the public is somewhat false. The only thing different about her besides her tiny existence, was that her eyes were still sealed (like a kittens). Which many do not know that this is fact. Which she opened two days later, never even having to go on a resperator, and saw the world for the first time. She changed my life, and my ways of thinking. And opened my eyes to the fact, that we will never know everything, and we are not always as strong as the weakest being. I do not believe that anything on this topic should be oppressed or aggravated into a frenzy by religion or preference. It is a fact of life, since the beginning of time. But I believe my question is valid. And I will stand by that. [This message has been edited by rwood (edited 09-06-2001).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think you bring up a legitimate point that's been touched on by serentiy as well -- in this debate it's important to know the answers to two questions -- "What are the moral implications of abortion?" "What are the legal implications of abortion?" I don't think there is a natural tendancy for people to detangle these questions when they discuss this very emotional issue. Fortunatly -- all of my surviving children were full term deliveries or c-sections so I never had to go through a preemie scenario but one of my brother's girls was born about 3 months prematurely and survived... close to 100 thousand dollars later she came home and is a vibrant intelligent child... It's very difficult to imagine what life would be like without our children once we have them -- and personally -- I've always felt the viability criteria should be the legal limits on this issue -- and that's what the justices in roe v. wade actually intended -- and as you pointed out your daughter was delivered 2 weeks after the legal limit -- but what's unfortunate is becasue of the language of the benchmark case abortions are still allowable for just about any reason after the court sanctioned limits on viability. This is where the issue around the 'partial-birth' abortion (as called by anti-abortion activists) heats up. If I understand though -- you seem to be saying even though, for you, the question of abortion seems unthinkable -- you don't want a legislative body making that decision for you? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Since it's been said that all of the issues haven't been discussed here I'm going to post an excerpt from a conversation with a person who is no longer able to join us here: quote: [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 09-07-2001).] |
||
|
Apachecat906 Member
since 2001-09-04
Posts 217Michigan, USA |
I have one thing to say and that is to RWood and only because I can not contain my emotions. Please forgive my digression from what seems to be a logical and thought provoking conversation. RWood--your story is, in a word, beautiful. You touched my heart deeply by sharing. What an amazing thing life is. In the four minutes it took to read your post I've reconsidered the life of the child I brought into this world six months ago, the one that I'm carrying now, and my own. Thank you |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Apatchecat906: Thank you! For the miracle of a positive connection through the words of a pure stranger. To rethink, or change direction in the face of this topic, is pure bravery. I salute your courage to do so! It is the highest honor, but still I cannot take the credit for your decision to reconsider. (Something) else is very much at work here. And I hope it continues to work in your life in the most rewarding ways. As this has been the most rewarding day since my own miracle arrived! My words fail my feelings completely as all I can write is (Thank you) |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
LR: If I understand though -- you seem to be saying even though, for you, the question of abortion seems unthinkable -- you don't want a legislative body making that decision for you? Okay, this is it. This is where I will probably get beaten down by public outcry. You have read my first post, and I am still deeply struck by Apachecat906. Now here's the other side of the coin for what it's worth. It is unthinkable for (Me) but in no way would I expect anyone to carry a child, especially in shame or hopelessness as a seed that grows within them to remind them they are female, taken advantage of, repressed in ignorance of youth, rape, molestion and any other horrible happening to the females of our society. And that does include my own Miracle of a daughter! For even though I am firm in the belief that life is precious, I cannot choose that for anyone any more than I can choose what someone will eat for the next nine months! Society does not paint a pretty picture for us to love ourselves as we are and then carry a child. It does not provide much courage, strength or support for unwed mothers, career mothers, or otherwise. So I feel the issue is pushed from the getgo towards desperation, and hasty decisions. So yes, No legislature needs to remind any woman that she is female for the rest of her life by sentencing her to motherhood. She must be able to choose. For some of the reasons we become pregnant are not our choice. Education is failing us. For even if we become educated, and use a form of protection and think that our relationship with the father is the strongest in the world, mistakes still happen so therefore it makes the female appear even more weak in the face of (But I told you so. You have been taught better than this. You knew better than to do this) So the Scarlett Letter is still pinned upon us. Partial Birth Abortions? I feel strongly against for reasons I have already mentioned. There has to be a point of realization of mistake or choice. However hard it is to choose, it must be done as soon as possible. Simply because the partial birth abortions (graphic) are surviving in some instances. But how it will be determined as to what (Soon as possible) is, I'm afraid I'm the worst to decide. That may be where we will have to fight, within the legislature, within our hearts, and hopefully someday in an undivided fashion just as we did the vote. That is what amazes me. We stuck together to vote for a man, but yet we divide when it comes to our own womb! And I believe so highly in God that My daughter belongs to him as far as I'm concerned, but God never gave me the right to throw stones at any one. For my experience was a double edged sword of reality. If You completely relate God's Will in the life of one of my Daughters, Then I would have to relate The Death of her twin the same. I don't think God did that! It would be easy for me to use God as an excuse or an example, but it truly would undermine the miracle of life. I had to write in return of my first post to remain honest. I still stand by my question, my faith, my belief, myself, and mostly my daughter. [This message has been edited by rwood (edited 09-08-2001).] |
||
|
desert fox New Member
since 2001-11-29
Posts 7 |
wanted to start out by saying thank you to all who have contributed to this thread, it is a controversial subject and not easy to talk about, so yes I do understand the subject line, many people shy away from the topic because they are afraid to defend their position. I might not be able to defend mine, as I do not have the extensive research and photographic memory as you do LR, but I would have to agree with RWood. If I cannot will my baby to live, how can I will it to die? I believe that we have the right to abstain, and in lieu of that use 10 kinds of birth control at the same time if we want to, but I do not believe we have the right to take the life of a baby. If it has the substance to make it out of the womb if left uninterupted, then we do not have the right to interupt its life. now quality of life is something else. What I believe you have done here is mix 2 topics, abortion and quality of life. If an adult does not have the right to terminate his or her life just because the quality of it is bad, then why would an adult have the right to decide that for a fetus? ok, gotta go, but will come back as soon as I get another chance |
||
|
desert fox New Member
since 2001-11-29
Posts 7 |
oh one more thing I forgot to address, if the government saw fit to pass legislation that made it legal to kill another person...would you? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
sigh...again, I refer to personal experience. My thirteen year old cousin committed suicide, because she was pregnant. Ironically enough, she blew her brains out on Father's day. She did not just kill herself, and her child, I promise you I witnessed the death of a family. Still not recovering. Twenty years later. There is much to think about here. And I still maintain it is a personal decision and should remain so. But damned if I don't feel she would have felt she had another option. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Serenity, I don't see a strong gap here. rwood is quite clear in his position and desert fox seems to agree with him (although admittedly it could be the one sentence). It may be morally wrong to have an abortion, but most people here don't seem to want to turn back the clock. LR's distinction is clear for the majority here. I think. I like rwood's point: "For even though I am firm in the belief that life is precious, I cannot choose that for anyone any more than I can choose what someone will eat for the next nine months! Society does not paint a pretty picture for us to love ourselves as we are and then carry a child. It does not provide much courage, strength or support for unwed mothers, career mothers, or otherwise. So I feel the issue is pushed from the getgo towards desperation, and hasty decisions." ------------------------------- Desert fox, The answer to your second question is yes. Given no explicit contexts, I can easily come up with times when killing is necessary. Brad [This message has been edited by Brad (edited 11-30-2001).] |
||
|
Irish Rose Member Patricius
since 2000-04-06
Posts 10263 |
Hello. I respect your right to your beliefs. I’m certainly not afraid to offer my own and my input since that is what the subject calls for. But let me offer something I experienced. Not myself, personally, for I have never had an abortion. But I knew a man, the best friend I ever had. A kind, gentle soul. His girlfriend became pregnant, 20 years ago. He drove her for the abortion, paid for it, and eventually they never saw one another again. He didn’t give it much thought throughout the years. But he wondered if he would ever father a child. Then at age 40, he married and his wife became pregnant. It didn’t hit him until he saw the sonagram. Yes, it was and still is legal. It is a choice available. Yes, it is thought to alleviate pain and suffering and make a person’s life more pleasant and tolerable. But this man began to experience pain, regret, guilt and sorrow. His tears were real tears, there was no going back, no “undoing the choice” The pain of “what if” continued into intensity when his beautiful daughter was born. His daughter, who brings him more joy and love than anything he ever dreamed possible from another. But would the other child have done that if allowed to be born? He felt he had failed that child….because it was inconvenient. Does God consider the fetus human life? At what point is it “human” and when does the soul come into being? May I quote a verse, as I noticed you have? Jeremiah 1:5 Jeremiah 1 Jeremiah 1:4-6 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." He knew who? Someone who wasn’t even yet a fetus? It is my personal belief that He did indeed write it in the book. Food for thought. Kathleen (Kay) |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Brad--I'm sorry I was unclear as to the point of my input there--it was meant to not be an opinion either for or against parental consent, but a sad offering of fact of what can happen when a child who is bearing a child has no one to turn to for counsel. This issue, I fear is too personal for me to continue to discuss. So I politely bow out, as there have been issues introduced that I simply prefer not to address. I will be happy to discuss my personal feelings via e mail, because I still feel, that unless you have been there, or have the capablility of finding yourself in that predicament, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW. But I leave you with this Gloria Steinem quote: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement." [This message has been edited by serenity (edited 12-01-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Serenity, "I'm sorry I was unclear as to the point of my input there--it was meant to not be an opinion either for or against parental consent, but a sad offering of fact of what can happen when a child who is bearing a child has no one to turn to for counsel." --I guess it's my turn to apologize, I didn't see your comment in that way either, I didn't think you were commenting on parental consent. I just thought it was important to stress that one can be personally, morally against abortion and still believe that it is a decision best left to the individual, not the government. For me, the lack of counsel, that she felt she had no other way to go, is one tragic aspect that, I think, we should try to change -- it doesn't do much to say, "Well, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place when you're already pregnant." --I don't know how to change this but I think it's something we should talk about. --If you want to discuss this more, I'm fine with e-mails but not always the most consistent in keeping up the exchange. A personality defect. "unless you have been there, or have the capablility of finding yourself in that predicament, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW." --This may be true, I don't know, but I don't see where this gets us. Men and men, women and women, men and women agree and disagree on many things. I'm not saying there is no divide, there is, but I don't see any value in privileging one's opinion only on the basis of sex (unless you mean that you don't want others -- men or women -- telling you what to do when it's you). --It's a dangerous path to take because we've tried it in the other direction (men over women) and know that that doesn't work. But I leave you with this Gloria Steinem quote: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement." --Perhaps so, but it neglects the fact that many women are also against abortion. You find yourself in a strange position of arguing that your opinion (whatever that may be) is the correct view for all women, and those women who disagree are therefore misled, have false consciousness, are duped by men or whatever to keep this separation intact. --It's far better to assume people are different from you and try to persuade them to your view. --It's messy, it's difficult, it's complex, but I'm not fond of the idea that anybody has a biological tendency toward any specific opinion. They may, I don't know, but I do know that this is a weapon that far too often backfires. --I'll leave it at that. Brad PS Conversation brings us together, silence isolates. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Brad? I thank you for your gentle understanding. And please try to understand that I don't believe it's a privelege of opinion...it's more of a privelege of women, to feel life literally kick inside of them... This is a very difficult topic for me. Because I have felt both---I have felt life literally being sucked out of me---and felt the miracle of survival kicking in me. AND BOTH WERE MY CHOICE. (Now THAT is privelege.) Having my children saved my life. And I didn't mean to go here with this, but my pregnancies were the ONLY thing that ever got me off drugs and alcohol. I had such a disposition of self-loathing that it took caring about someone or something other than me to make me stop. (And of course, I slipped, but that's another thread.) When I carried my first BORN? The first time I felt that butterfly flutter in my womb, I felt like the eighth wonder in the world, and thought to myself, "I can't be ALL THAT BAD..." (SMILE WITH ME BRAD) I don't mean to have a superior tone, but it's more like a war veteran talking about battle with someone who has never been there. It's not superiority. It's a sadness, actually of knowing I will never be fully understood. now...have I earned my silence? Hugs to all... [This message has been edited by serenity (edited 12-01-2001).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Welcome to the discussion Irish Rose... believe me when I say that you are too kind to say that I have quoted scripture here -- what I have done is misquoted it the same way that pro-life readers do to attempt to put something there that suits my purpose -- which is again -- really what your own verse does as well -- that verse had nothing to do with the subject of abortion -- it is speaking of the antiquity of God and (his) omniscience, omnipotence, and the place of (man) in the universe. The closest scripture I quoted that had anything remotely to do with abortion was the one pertaining to an assaulted woman being caused to miscarry -- which -- is relgated in Hebrew justice to be a civil matter (since women and children were the property of men) and not a criminal one. Another passage that furthers this point is from Numbers Chapter 5, Verses 20 - 28 20 But if, while owing him obedience, you have gone astray and let yourself become defiled, if any man other than your husband has had intercourse with you' 21 (the priest shall here put the woman on oath with an adjuration, and shall continue), 'may the LORD make an example of you among your people in adjurations and in swearing of oaths by bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth; 22 and this water that brings out the truth shall enter your body, bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth.' The woman shall respond, 'Amen, Amen.' 23 The priest shall write these curses on a scroll and wash them off into the water of contention; 24 he shall make the woman drink the water that brings out the truth, and the water shall enter her body. 25 The priest shall take the grain-offering for jealousy from the woman's hand, present it as a special gift before the LORD, and offer it at the altar. 26 He shall take a handful from the grain-offering by way of token, and burn it at the altar; after this he shall make the woman drink the water. 27 if she has let herself become defiled and has been unfaithful to her husband, then when the priest makes her drink the water that brings out the truth and the water has entered her body, she will suffer a miscarriage or untimely birth, and her name will become an example in adjuration among her kin. 28 But if the woman has not let herself become defiled and is pure, then her innocence is established and she will bear her child. Here it appears mandatory for a cuckolded husband to cause his cheating wife to miscarry by drinking poison.. or.. have an abortion if you will... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Hello desert fox and thanks for your input here... you asked: quote: My answer is that an adult (woman or emancipated minor) does have the right to determine what happens to/in her own body, and that a fetus is not an adult or even a full term (able to live outside the womb) human being. And no, I haven't mixed two issues -- what I've said is quality of life is ostensibly an issue according to Solomon. |
||
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
Hi All! I am a "newby" here and I was actually just out looking around when I came across this discussion. Which I have to say hit me like a ton of bricks. First of all let me say that Serinity, you and I are sisters in a way, as I feel all of us women that made the choice to abort. I agree with you, that no one tells you what you will feel afterwards, and the pain that will follow you everyday from the day on. It was not so long ago that I told my fiancee' about that day, and though I was afraid that he would think of me as an awful person, he did just the opposite. He held me as I mourned for that precious life that I ended. Sometimes late at night, I curse myself for doing what I done, but at the time I felt as though I had no other choice. I will have to answer for that sin someday and when I hear people spouting hateful words at a young girl that is walking into the Abortion Clinic, I think to myself that nothing that those people say will ever bother her near as much as what will come later in the wee hours of the night and will continue to haunt her for a lifetime. I would like to think that I have found some kind of peace over what I have done, but let me remind you that having peace with it does not make it anyless the painful. I know that I am only speaking for those of us whom have done this and regretted it. There are those that Abort like they are buying a new dress, and they wear it just as well. I don't judge these kind of women but I do pray that mercy is with them one day. For those of us that have spent countless hours crying and regretting, and feeling numb, and as though we are bad human beings. Personally I don't think that I am a bad person, I was just a confused person that made a bad choice. It is very easy for someone that has not walked in our shoes to be judgemental, but for all of the people that judge us, there are just as many whom understand. As the Prophet Kahlil Gibran once said...."In order to know the secret of death, you must seek it in the heart of life. For life and death are one, even as the river and sea are one." I experienced death when I walked into the doors of that clinic....but I was also granted the wonderful experience of life when my children were laid in my arms. In closing I must say that I hope that for every hurting heart that lies within any women that has to live with what she has done, may she somehow find peace. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) ... that a fetus at about 3 weeks has a four-chambered beating heart. where do we draw the line human / non-human again? And on a more philosophical note ... let's say someone had aborted you, would the fact that you had not yet lived your life in time somehow erase the fact that you were robbed your potential human life (being aborted)? The fact that you are living breathing and writing at this time tells me that you would have been robbed something of great value had you been aborted... and even if your life had not turned out so fortunate, you would have still been robbed of the opportunity of making life something better had you been terminated in a fetal stage. Biblically? As you mentioned you did the same thing as you percieve pro-life advocates as doing... isolating scriptures for your purposes. But what about the whole council of scripture? Is there something in the panoramic view of scripture which might give us a sneaking suspicion that God feels very strongly about abortion being morally wrong? I think so. Too many scriptures portray life as sacred. And too many of them present love for others as yourself, as the measure by which to make decisions. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Ask yourself if you would prefer to have been aborted before you abort another human life. Because regardless of time, I think it is the same life which is ultimately affected. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Stephanos? E mail me and I will share with you the experience. But please understand that we already disagree as the King James version of the Bible as a point of reference. If that is beyond your comprehension, there's no sense in talking... I would say it all now, in fact, I just backspaced it out---but I feel my personal emotions cloud this issue...AS THEY SHOULD. Peace to you and may I close with this? "For all of your wisdom, get understanding..." sigh...don't know the book, chapter and verse and not even sure if that's the direct King James version quote, but for now, I think it will do. Love to you, and to all...and Brad? Silence is probably wiser and more difficult. |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
Very well spoken Serenity.... I find it amazing how others will quote scripture from the Bible about what we should and should not do. I have and still do read that same Bible that taught me that to kill was a sin.... But God also said "ask and ye shall be forgiven" All sins are the same in His eye. And that goes for judging others, because it is very easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done. However, it is an entirely different matter when you are in the situation. Surely you learned in all your reading and studying of the Bible dear Stephanos that you should never judge others. Whether or not you agree with it does not matter, when you allow yourself to judge, you yourself have become a sinner. Like I said before, all of us whom have made that choice will have to answer for it someday. Have childlike faith...and laugh accordingly. [This message has been edited by timothysangel1973 (edited 12-06-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is getting a little confusing for me. That's okay, I get confused all the time. Reading through the passages here, including the original post, shows me that many valid points are simply not being discussed here. Why is that? I don't think Stephen's post was meant as an attack or a judgement on others, I do think his points seem, well, poorly designed to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with him. In fact, it's a retreat from using the Bible as the 'Word of God' to attempting to discern what God meant from the overall feel. That's a tremendous concession although I don't think it was intended. Also, his philosophical point isn't really a point at all, simply metaphysical speculation -- nothing wrong with that except that you can pretty much say anything you want. And if you can say anything you want, the question is simply whether it resonates with you on a personal level or not. No big deal there, no attack. It's like reading a poem for the first time-- does it work for you or not? As far as the four chambered heart theory goes, well, again, he concedes much in his own words. We decide what is human, we decide the value of humanity, we decide what to do with our own lives. For Christians and many spiritualists, the above is an extremely arrogant statement, but, from a different perspective, it entails great responsibility and response-ability. For some of us, the idea that anybody has some esoteric power, some key, some secret knowledge that others don't (and can't unless they follow the same path), is a ruse to force agreement without thought. It may be true but you force the argument into the private realm. You are saying, I know more than you, follow me, do what I do, think what I think, or dire consequences will follow. Like the war veteran, you claim unspeakable knowledge, but for some of us this means no knowledge at all (or rather no useful knowledge) and the very mystery created can be just as attractive as it is repulsive. Once divulged, however, it often loses its magic. Serenity, I'm not arguing that you should tell us your story, that's your choice, you earned the right to be silent a long time ago. In fact, I'm not sure you should tell your story (at least not here). I don't think it would have the persuasive force that you seem to think it would have. I'm sure people would sympathize/empathize but I don't think it would change anyone's mind. However, as mentioned above, silence is just a much a tool as speech, it has power, but that power is not controllable (like metaphysical speculation, it can mean anything you or I like), but to break that silence does not mean that you have to say one thing only, there are always other things to say. What are some of those other things? This has been mentioned before by several people but I'll bring it up again: Why is it that a free society, an open society such as America so completely creates the feeling of powerlessness in women (and men) that they are forced to take such drastic measures as suicide? Why is the emphasis on validation/accusation and not on creating the maximum, and making people aware of the maximum, number of options available? Why the emphasis on morality after the fact and not on creating a society where many of these questions simply don't arise (or arise rarely)? To answer these questions in some concrete, plausible way is a far more difficult endeavour than remaining silent. Brad |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Actually Brad, the only thing I ever hoped to gain, was not the joyful victory of being right, nor sympathy...just enough to be understood. It's why I write. In fact, I pointed out earlier that I am both Pro-life and Pro-choice. I just felt the need to point out that I do not accept Biblical quote alone as a valid point of reference. I am simply saying that walking a mile in someone else's shoes, can make a valid difference in the grasp of understanding an issue. It is not "theory" to me and my reasoning of silence is that I do understand that my emotions cloud my thinking on this. My story is simple. I was a junkie who aborted a damaged pregnancy. There is no argument in that. It happened so for me this question is moot. Don't misunderstand my tone, it's not angry silence, but this makes me sadder than you could imagine, and emotionally--FOR NOW--I have other issues to deal with. That's all. As for now, again sadly, I have to go. I will ponder your questions and generally, don't mind stating my mind publicly as most of you know, but I felt uncomfortable as it might seem like a plea for sympathy. Which was not my intention. Hugs Brad, will come back later and ponder your questions when I have more time. I have company now. More later. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Serenity... My response was not to you personally, but to the original post by Local Rebel (and in general to the replies following). Here is the beginning of the original post... let's see if this sets the stage for using the bible as a reference in discussion... Local Rebel wrote: "Abortion Theology The book by which conservative Christian pro-lifers have espoused faith says that causing a miscarriage is not murder. The whole Pro-Life argument is predicated upon ' thou shalt not kill' Kill what? Nothing? Not even a fly? What does that commandment mean?" Since Local Rebel began with scripture in his discussion of this issue, (in fact using it as the main leverage of his own argument), I felt that it was in no way inappropriate or out of context to go there as well. As to your own past situation with abortion, I meant no offence to you personally. I am merely stating some of the reasons why I believe abortion is morally wrong from a Biblical stand point. (BTW...I am not holding to any particular translation such as the KJV). Does this mean I am heartless and without sympathy for the plight of women who are in desperate situations or who have chosen abortions? No. I too have sinned. And I agree that sin is sin. I have a plank in my own eye that I had better work on removing before I try to remove your "specks". But the fact of the matter is that we (from the start) were discussing the issue of abortion as being right or wrong as a general moral precept... using scripture as a reference point. The trend in this post wasn't started by me. I mean no offence to you. And I don't want to appear cold or calculated in my treatment of this issue, which is painfully close to your heart and life's experience. I don't want you to think that I am placing a frigid pedantry above compassion and concern... but the context of the thread dealt with dogma and position. And that's where I went. I cannot pretend to have so much compassion for someone's baby (born or unborn) while showing no compassion to that person. If that's the way this felt to you, I apologize. However the idea about judging others sometimes comes across to me as saying (though not verbalizing it) "Don't have any definite moral convictions or you are 'judging'". There is a difference between speaking against people or individuals, and in speaking against sin. Jesus himself was very kind to "sinners" and people who did all kinds of morally wrong things... so much that he earned the reproachful epithet of "friend of sinners and tax collectors" from the religious elite. But he did teach that certain things were wrong, publically. He didn't condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery in John 8, but still said "Go and sin no more". He was different than the heartless religious in a way, and the same as them in another... namely that he shared their belief that adultery was sin. The way I have heard some teach "judge not", it seems that to be fair they would have to censure themselves for 'judging' those who judge. For they, like those they speak of, also are judging out of a moral conviction... namely that it is wrong to "judge". The point I am making is that we MUST judge in one sense...I have heard you do so. it is wrong to do so in another sense. There is a moral way to 'judge' as well as an immoral way to judge. When the scripture says "Do not judge lest you be judged", it too has a context to be taken in the light of the whole Bible. I cannot apologize for my moral convictions. I can explain that I am not judging or taking liberty to scrutinize your situation which I know nothing about. Just trying to clarify. respectfully, Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Hello timothysangel and welcome to the conversation -- it's always good to have more points of view represented. I'm sorry for the pain that you've suffered... it must have been very difficult for you. People change over time -- as you know -- so there's no telling really how anyone's attitudes and opinons will shift through time -- or what people will feel... Stephanos, If you're asking me how would I like it if I'd been aborted -- all I can say is that sometimes I feel like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie and at other times I feel like George Bailey at the end of the movie. Had I been aborted I doubt I'd feel anything at all. Pertaining to an overall theme of the reverence for life portrayed in the Bible -- this is the Bible that says 'thou shalt not kill' and then says David is a man after God's own heart because when he goes to war he kills every man woman and child among the enemy. And this is the God who decides he's created a wicked race and just floods the earth and kills them all except for a boatload of people and animals. The same God who rains fire on the cities of 'evil'. Of course, later, we see this God of power evolve into a God of love -- love and forgiveness -- albeit -- the only way he may forgive is if his only begotten son is willing to suffer mutilation and asphixiation on a cross... then.. he'll forgive... This is the God of whom it is also said in the more enlightened times of love and forgiveness we should fear -- not fearing those who can harm the body -- but fear God who has power over our souls. It seems to me -- the subject even taken as a whole is open to interpretation -- and in that light as a whole the somewhat disjunct canon of scripture seems to say more that human life is pretty inconsequential. But I don't want to paint that bleak of a picture of my view of scriptures -- I think in reality what this collection of books illustrates is that humanity has struggled throughout history to know and understand God -- a struggle that we don't really have the equipment to handle -- and our interpretation of God is always going to be limited to the norms and paradigms of our culture. And I also think that as a result God is anthropomorphized in scripture as well as daily life. Like Einstein -- I believe there is a God, but I'm not convinced that he's particularly obsessed with human history -- at the same time -- neither do I think he plays dice. There was a life that was very precious to me, and she had no faith in God, and had concluded for very different reasons that human life was precious -- even moreso because the universe is chaos.. that all we have to cling to is each other. As I watched my father dying slowly, becoming less and less himself as his brain was consumed by cancer, it became very clear to me human life is defined by sentience..... and that one day there will be a debate about the rights of other animals or even artificial intelligence (if sentience can be achieved artificially). Brad, I agree, there are many talking points falling by the wayside here -- but that's especially normal for this topic. I thought your observations on Stephanos posting were very interesting and you made excellent points. |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
Hi Local Rebel Thanks alot for your kind words! I guess what prompted me to reply the second time was the the question "how would I have felt if I were aborted" I find that absolutely absurd, but the point that I am trying to make here.... (timothysangel stops and thinks for a moment) Is simply this It is evident that I was not aborted, because at the time my mother made a different chioce, however her circumstances were far different from mine might I add. The whole "feel" issue is what struck me odd, I speak for myself when I say that the negative far out weighed the positive when I was at that point in my life, so therefore I don't think that I was "feeling" anything, atleast not anything good. The days that followed and the days that still lie ahead of my time here on earth, do include alot of "feeling"...in fact, that is part of the punishment for the "sin" for going against the Bible and it's sriptures as stated above. At that point in time, yes...I was Pro-Choice, but when I look into the eyes of my children or watch my son score a touchdown, or my daughter play with her doll I am Pro-Life. I was born, raised and still live smack dab in the middle of "The Bible Belt". I was raised to obey the scripture of the Bible, but if we are going to use this as our main reference tool for our arguments with Abortion then we must know that for nearly every subject known to human kind there is a scripture for it. I don't quote the Bible because I beleive that I would do it great injustice if I mis-quoted it. Everynow and then a verse comes to me and I use it. I have enjoyed this topic very much, because I think that part of the healing is to talk about something, this has all been very interesting to me. Rebel, I think that you ahve some really good points, though I ahve to say that I do not agree with all of them. (but you knew that right?) But it goes without saying that for all of the scripture that Stephan can find to concrete his cause, he will never be a woman and he will never have to make that choice. Dont get me wrong Dear Stephan, I truly beleive that you have strongly made your point. However let me remeind you that "feeling" goes much deeper than the womb, it scars the heart and it weighs on the mind. But, when I read the Bible...the same one that tells me that what I done was wrong, I find promise that I am forgiven and that one day my heart will ache no more. Bless You All ! until next time.....~timothys angel
|
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, you said: "In fact, (Stephen's point is) a retreat from using the Bible as the 'Word of God' to attempting to discern what God meant from the overall feel. That's a tremendous concession although I don't think it was intended." There is somewhat of a difference between concession and mitigation. More than anything I was trying to relate the importance of taking scriptures into overall context ... even the whole Bible, measuring, balancing, and interpreting scriptures with other scriptures. At first glance this might seem to be relinquishing the stance of the authority of scripture... but it actually through subtlety is pointing to the divine nature of 66 diverse books as a living whole. This "word of God" doesn't just speak in the way of blurting ... but it whispers like wind along time and humanity in strange and wonderful ways. In this way you are right about the "overall feel". I was backing off of (not abandoning) absolute doctrinal authority and appealing to the emotions of humanity, especially those stirred by a broad view of the written word. He has "written the law on their hearts". My moral and aesthetic appeal to righteousness and love, is not as much of concession as it is an example that God's influence is wider than we ever imagined and deeply ingrained in who we are as humans created in his image. This too is the direction I went with the idea of the beating heart... I guess the point is, that we are, as you say, permitted to decide what we think is human or not. Yet the appeal to the intricacies of the pumping cardiac muscle in a 3-week old fetus, was my attempt to awaken feelings that it might be wiser to err in the other direction if erring is possible in the least... Maybe the whole process of gestation is humanity through time... and it is. If we can decide it isn't humanity pre-birth ... then why can't we decide it isn't humanity 1 month post birth? The point is . . . where is the line? It is better to leave the lines where they were drawn by the Creator according to the Judeo-Christian view "before the foundations of the world". And Brad... the philosophical point you spoke of is certainly no mere metaphysical speculation. Even science can (and does) show that in most cases unaborted fetuses will be born as infants... and aborted ones in all cases (except in failure of the abortion process) will not. That, Brad, is the difference between life and death. And it happens... it is not just speculation. Aren't you glad you were born? . . . I guess that's the better way to say it than "how would you feel had you been aborted"... aren't you glad you were given the chance to live. I stated the photo negative before, whereas this is the photo in living colors. If not glad to be born, at least glad to have had the chance at living. Although the scriptural world-view also validates the "negative", assuring that our lives do not end with physical death... so aborted humans may have the opportunity to think about how they feel about past events in the world to come... (now I'm getting speculative.. forgive me... lol) Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 12-08-2001).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Stephanos? THANK YOU. Also thanks to all who participated in this--and Reb? You have MY head spinning, as I too, just watched MY father die pound by pound and my family is still reeling--so the implications of your point is downright overwhelming and startling. Brad? You've been a true gentleman and I thank you. tim's angel...I thank you as well. And now, I think I'll begin my Xmas break, as I don't think my kids want philosophy for Christmas... I'll be around, Happy Holidays to all, be it Solstice, or Hanukahh (never could spell that) or Christmas. I enjoyed. Peace to all. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
timothysangel .... I too pray God's blessing on your life. And through Jesus is the wonderful awe-inspring truth that we are forgiven of the terrible guilt and anguish of sin... whatever that may have involved for each of us. A blest holiday to all... in love and friendship, Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephen, "I was trying to relate the importance of taking scriptures into overall context ... even the whole Bible, measuring, balancing, and interpreting scriptures with other scriptures." --I agree with this, but is that how others view the Bible? Aren't you leaving an opening for debate, discussion, disagreement while still retaining the Bible as authority? As a result, the reliance on the Bible as TRUTH is, as you say, mitigated, not because it's not the TRUTH but because we have to interpret it. --Later, you point out that there's a Bible in the human heart and we should follow that as well (I liked the way that was written by the way). That's as good an anchor as any but it still doesn't alleviate the problems I, as you well know, want to concentrate on. --Christians, in their reliance on TRUTH, forget that this is the situation were in and inevitably fall back on sound bites. These only convert the already converted. Come on guys, if you really believe in what you say, come up with better arguments to convert those who disagree with you. "then why can't we decide it isn't humanity 1 month post birth? The point is . . . where is the line?" --That is the question. Birth, one month after, one month before -- all are legitimate positions. The difference is when do we have society and government interfere with the decisions of the care taker (the woman)? The trick is to persuade someone who doesn't believe in the Christian God and persuade him and her to your position. -------------------------------- On metaphysical speculation: --By positing an eternal soul who can look down and show disappointment at not being born, you also posit the ability to show approval. You separate the body from the soul in such a way as to make the body nothing more than a vehicle and, like buying a car, perhaps that soul can decide that that particular situation, that particular model, isn't to his or her liking. --It's an argument for abortion as much as it is against one. --The only way to escape this dilemma is through God's prohibition; a prohibition that has no more persuasive force than the fear of Zues's thunderbolt for many or, for you perhaps, the fear of being reincarnated as a mosquito. ------------------------- Serenity, I'm a gentleman? Don't suppose you want to remind my wife of that now and then? Brad |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
grinning...Brad? I would have to hear HER perspective first! and ok, ok, I'm GOING... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Brad said: quote: I wonder what argument would have to be made for you to change your position Brad... I think for me it would have to be proven that there is sentience at conception... or at least be able to prove at one point the capacity for sentience exists... two brain cells able to synapse? I don't know... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
What about promoting adoption? What about promoting the research and money for foetal transference rather than foetal elimination? What about creating communities that stop stigmatizing women after the fact and work toward giving them a support network where intelligent decisions can be made regardless of someone's personal belief system? These wouldn't necessarily change my mind but they're something we can agree on. As Stephen, for example, well knows, I can not argue against his spritual beliefs, but I think too much time is spent trying to justify those beliefs and not enough acting on them. Work with difference, not against it. Brad |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Just thought I'd jump in here for a short comment or two. In reading the foregoing I wondered if anybody would bring up the beating heart in a fetus. Finally, Stephan did. Then, Reb said he only wanted to be convinced that a fetus had sentience. By definition (I know, I know, but Webster wrote one of my favorite books) a beating heart would be sentient because of the mere fact that it is "beating," which displays the contraction of muscles in response to nerve "commands" (stimulus) thereby displaying the sensation and perception of nerve stimuli. Sooooo, I guess, by your definition, a fetus with a beating heart is a human being. I liked (in a twisted sort of way) your use of Bible quotes. You used Job, so I will give you a small quote from Jeremiah (they both start with a "J") ... 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you... (oh, that was God talking). We Christians believe every fetus has a soul. Therefore, we cannot kill a being with a soul. Gee, Reb, you call yourself an atheist yet you admitted to belief in God. Lemme see now, Webster (here I go, again) says that and atheist is "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being." So, maybe, you're not an atheist at all. Maybe you're an agnostic (or, as written hereinbefore, a Gnostic). Brad, I'm not forgetting you, my friend. You said "Christians, in their reliance on TRUTH, forget that this is the situation were in and inevitably fall back on sound bites. These only convert the already converted. Come on guys, if you really believe in what you say, come up with better arguments to convert those who disagree with you." Golly, am I supposed to convert you? I don't think so, but I will say this ... I know the TRUTH and you do, too. The difference is you won't admit it (that ought to stir up the embers a little ) There were a couple of other points, but I said I'd be brief Regina, your beautiful comments speak volumes. God bless you. And, God bless you all as we enter into the season of celebrating His birth. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I never said I was an atheist.. I said I was an agnostic (stated here and on my website)... which.. is not the same as a gnostic... Irish Rose already beat you to that verse Interloper on the previous page. Lest there be any further hair splitting the definition of sentience I invoke is that of self awareness or consiousness. But thanks for pointing out many words have multiple meanings in the English language. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 12-11-2001).] |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Reb, I could have swarn you said: "Like Einstein -- I believe there is a God, but I'm not convinced that he's particularly obsessed with human history -- at the same time -- neither do I think he plays dice." I guess I was wrong Sorry, I missed that. That is what I get for speed reading, huh? Gee, you didn't comment on the fetus as a human and what it would take to change your mind. Guess you were speed reading past that part, huh? See, we DO have something in common after all Merry Christmas, Reb. By the way, I agree with Brad, this was a VERY well written piece. I hope you do not change it too awfully much in your own editing. One of your better pieces in my opinion. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
That's exaclty what I said. Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same. The athiest says there is no god. The agnostic either says we cannot know whether or not there is a god or that we cannot know god. The Gnostic says there is a God and we can and must know him. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If you eliminate the word 'a' then the sentence is correct. A fetus is human. A corpse is human. Neither are Natural Born (human) Citizens of the United States with Constitutional Rights. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
oops forgot to say thanks for the compliments on the peice.. I don't speed read -- I speed write..  and happy holidays (whatever you celebrate) to all... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Local Rebel .... you wrote: "I think for me it would have to be proven that there is sentience at conception... or at least be able to prove at one point the capacity for sentience exists... two brain cells able to synapse? I don't know... " Just a thought or two... Even if there were only the remote possibility that fetuses have the capacity for some level of sentience (your test for qualifying something as alive or human, I gather), then wouldn't the burden of proof lie with those who promote abortion rather than everyone else? After all, the line, as we have all attested, is ambiguous (a clue to me that it has been divinely drawn, ... or that we weren't supposed to meddle here, or at least so confidently). Straining at such a hopelessly nebulous target, why would the archer want to let the arrow fly? And where will the responsibility fall when something other than a presumably lifeless target is hit? I know deep in my spirit that human life is life all along the continuum, from conception to death ... I know this from God's word as well as from my deepest moral convictions of conscience. It is the archers or promoters of archery (using the analogy above) who are not quite sure about their target. also you wrote: "A fetus is human. A corpse is human. Neither are Natural Born (human) Citizens of the United States with Constitutional Rights." Well that is afterall our question rephrased. Those who are against abortion believe that unborn children should have constitutional rights. As a Christian I am also saying there are laws higher than national laws... "inalienable rights". The Fathers of our nation took a stab at trying to express something "endowed by our creator" that existed quite before the constitution or any other national document was in existence. And I'm not arguing that a corpse should have rights... I'm just arguing that we shouldn't be so rash as to turn the first of your two examples into the second. Brad, you wrote: "What about promoting adoption?" I'm all for it. "What about promoting the research and money for foetal transference rather than foetal elimination?" again... all for it. "What about creating communities that stop stigmatizing women after the fact and work toward giving them a support network where intelligent decisions can be made regardless of someone's personal belief system?" If you mean (in not so many words) that those who are "pro-life" (to use a catch-all label) should set aside their moral treatment of the issue of abortion, and channel their energies into social reconstruction to help foster alternatives to abortion for women... then I totally agree except for the part about laying aside moral issues concerning abortion Both must be done. If one is done and not the other trouble ensues. Morality with no social ministry ... that's showing the wrong while hiding the right. It's painting the delimma in minutest details while blurring the ways of escape. A social emphasis with no morality also runs into great problems... it tries to encourage "intelligent decisions" ( I think you may be inferring decisions other than abortion here), but procures that abortion itself will always be viewed as a viable option... even an intelligent decision. With morality aside, it actually emerges as one of the most cost effective ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies ... Consider the costs of welfare. And I think the moral "anti-abortion" stance, or "pro-life" or whatever you may call it, is (by it's more noble proponents) not intended to stigmatize women after the fact, but to dissuade many women from choosing abortion before the fact. It tells them the truth about abortion and warns about the agony of guilt that will inevitably follow. We've even seen such remorse in this very thread ... my intent is not to condemn. So I think your idea of a society where there are no moral considerations because they don't really matter may be fit for the John Lennon song "imagine", but not for real life where the rubber hits the road. Because moral considerations are important even to those who don't profess belief in God. No one gets away from such questions, they must be answered. The concern is manifest even with the pro-choice side, in their arguments of "when does life begin?" If there is no moral consideration, then what does it really matter? The fact is, it matters. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 12-12-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephan, I think you're right, morality does matter. I see no point in hiding one's convictions, but I think acting on one's convictions can go further than simply stating that conviction. I don't think there are many pro-choicers who believe that abortion is a moral good as such. What would be the reasoning? Eugenics? A decrease in the surfact population? No, I think we're all closer to agreement than we believe. I just think there are many positions where we can reach agreement and take action while still disagreeing on other points. It's trying to get away from all or nothing battle divides (where politics does take precedence over morality) to finding moments where we can all work together. And it's also getting away from those damned sound bites. Interloper, No, you don't have to convert me, don't worry about it. It's a strange position, however, to argue a Christian duty to spread the gospel and not worry about the actual conversion rates. My point, at any rate, was not to stress the morality as the end point but as the starting point for more effective strategies. Brad PS Rights keeps coming up here. One of these someone remind me to make rights it's own thread. |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Reb, I thought you said you were an atheist. i guess I got that wrong too Brad, Spreading the gospel is a duty of a Christian. The conversion rate is really a matter between the converted and God. I have never seen a conversion rate posted or discussed in any church or evangelical meeting or the summaries thereof. Oh, I'm not worried about converting you, Brad. You are an intelligent man and you will find the truth when you are ready for it. Just hold your daughter and look at her and tell me you'd wager her eternal soul on anything. Then look into yourself and tell me you'd wager your own eternal soul and risk the unpleasantness of eternal damnation. You say there is no God. Well, what if there is? If the chance of that were 1 in a billion would you like the odds on eternity? |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Reb, How do you know neither was a natural born citizen of the United States of America with constitutional rights? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Interloper, That's a different thread, isn't it? |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
As regards to the comments about a beating heart being proof of sentience or humanity, let's not forget the rest of the animal kingdom. My dog has a beating heart, and is aware of his surroundings, and gives love freely. My finches have beating hearts, and sing and entertain me all day. A beating heart is not where the line is really drawn. Humans think about the past, the present, and make plans for the future. We build things, we destroy things, we fantasize and dream. We look to the stars and the moon and the sun, and some look to an all-powerful entity for guidance and protection. So far as I know, my dog and birds never think about the future beyond the next meal, and they sure don't give a hoot about creation, but love to procreate. But it's doubtful they ever think about whether or not there is a God or an afterlife. So what exactly is a human? And at what stage of "LIFE" are we human, as opposed to being potentially human? I believe in a God, but it isn't the typical Christian version of God. And arguments based upon the Bible have little to no relevance or persuasion with me. But I value life itself, in many forms. (BTW, I am a vegetarian. I do not kill to eat, I do not kill to survive. But I will not try to convert you.) And while I firmly believe in women's rights, we need to focus on adoption or other options, for the sake of all humanity. But don't throw stones at those who disagree or find themselves in a situation where they feel abortion is the only option. And women who go to the clinics should be allowed to do so without harrassment or fear, but should be given a whole lot more information and emotional support than what is usually offered. I speak from a personal experience here, one very much like Serenity's. I never felt there was another viable option, but that did not make it any easier emotionally. These are just a few thoughts. BTW, I am brave. I drive a Toyota Tercel in Alaska in the winter, without fourwheel drive or studded tires. Maybe that makes me more foolish than brave? LOL. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
midnitesun, you wrote... "So what exactly is a human? And at what stage of "LIFE" are we human, as opposed to being potentially human?". This has been one of the pillars of my position the whole thread... If it is vague... if we are not sure, then why gamble? If we value life enough to want to see justice done to those who murder 1 year old infants, then why wouldn't we want to be completely sure that the fetus is not "human life" before we advocate terminating them. Abortion must be the confident assertion that the fetus is definitely not human, or else it is potentially killing a human being, something which even your own conscience tells you is wrong even though not yet believing in the all-knowing God who formed your concience. But those who believe that abortion should be avoided, do not have to know the exact moment when the organic structure becomes human. In fact the vagueness of that very thing proves to them why it is imperitive not to abort. It's just too much of a risk. This is not throwing stones at those who choose abortion, it is telling the truth to dissuade them if possible. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
How long does this go on? This argument runs on the presumption that it means one damned iota. IT DOES NOT. For I promise, as long as women have gathered herbs in the field, and understood the medicinal properties...ABORTION EXISTED. As long as there is a coat hanger, abortion will exist. For as long as there are desperate, frightened, HUNGRY women/children...abortion will not be denied...no matter what you postulate or enact into law--- You can pretend to have divine knowledge-- assure yourself that you are intellectually qualified to define life--but yanno, all we really see is one fine point of a fun house mirror. sigh...(I tried restraint, Ron, I really did.) beating my head against the desk here... and perhaps we should start still yet another thread regarding where is the line between religious "duty" and fanaticism...when does one's beliefs invade another's rights...? Rather than show respect and tolerance for a living being already in existance, some would rather debate the point of existance over such that they have no control--IN PRESUMPTION OF KNOWING the mind of an unknowable GOD! Why is MY opinion so irrelevant? If I am the vessel, the point of ORIGIN, (debatable, I know, but I refer to myself as the tactile point of origin here) why is what I say and feel discarded so easily? And why if I bring that point up, am I attacked as acting "superior"--made defensive by the simple biological fact that as a woman, it is MY BODY...my being, which is the vessel? IT IS NOT MY THEORY, BUT MY EXPERIENCE. I am not insensitive to a father's rights, but yanno, It was ME who was anemic, ME who could not walk through a day, ME who glowed like Casper...Me cut open with C-sections...me with two kids and measles and chicken pox...and no money. Superiority? sigh...at least pass a kidney stone before you talk to me, okay? (OKAY. NOW THAT WAS SARCASM.) And, as for Biblical quotes: It sort of sickens me to think that this same motive of 'moral duty' was taken to the extreme of international terrorism, and I, personally would love to see this timely idea addressed. Where is a line drawn between a religious duty to inform, or should we all attempt to convert others, no matter what the means...chapter or verse, inquisition, or a plane piloted by martyrs into buildings, becoming bombs? May light be with you this Solstice. Merry Christmas. Happy Hannukah. and Kwanza, et cetera... SEASON'S GREETINGS. Now...why is that so difficult? |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Midnitesun, Last time I checked no human ever had an animal(dog, finch, etc) fetus. Your argument is without foundation. If you do not believe in what the Bible says, then we have no comman point of debate. I believe a HUMAN fetus has a soul upon conception and that God "knows" that soul. You don't ... end of discussion. I will answer your question as to what is a human ... it is the product of human conception. You could, of course, use the Webster's definition but Reb would CROAK if I quoted Webster yet again Brad, why another thread? It was just a response to Reb's reply ... unless you are referring to the odds on eternity. That would not be a bad thread We Christians can't get beat up or outnumbered in multiple threads any more than one {I hope } |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Interloper said: quote: As a Christian, it saddens me to be put in that light. You're essentially saying there can be no discussion except with those whom already agree with you. Jesus rarely taught dogma, but convinced through parable, logic, and example. Where would Christianity be today if He had been so quick to end discussion? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
No one has yet responded to my point... though alot of emotion has been poured out in many directions. My desire is not to degrade, condemn, or to offend. But again it seems to me the presumption of claiming "divine knowledge" is heaviest with those who support abortion. They seem to be sure (somehow) that a fetus is not "human". They must either admit that they know (or that they are the final arbiters of this question), or that they don't care... It doesn't do away with godlike knowledge, it just places that knowledge soley with humanity which is far more scary than placing the larger porition of it with God. Serenity you wrote... "You can pretend to have divine knowledge-- assure yourself that you are intellectually qualified to define life--but yanno, all we really see is one fine point of a fun house mirror." . . . Exactly! All the expressions here that there is no defining moment of arrival for the fetus (into being a human), far from helping the "pro-choice" position, make it all the more dubious. . . And this is something to be considered even before bringing in the belief of God as the arbiter and judge of all moral decisions. . . so there is always a common point of reference in our morality and ethics as humans ourselves. Respectfully, Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 12-17-2001).] |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Ron, I agree completely. I have never, however, tried to equate my poor abilities with those of Christ. With my limited mental faculties I find it difficult to debate a point where there is not at least some small common ground. God said it, I believe it, and that's all there is to it. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I came back to explain my outburst of temper. I'm afraid I received an unpleasant e mail regarding this topic from a bogus hotmail account. I guess I should have expected that. I will not however, change my e mail address, nor will I hide it. I also will not change my mind. I do find the topic title more amusing now, however. (No worries, it's nothing I have not heard before, it just caught me offguard.) My apologies to the rest of you guys. And for the record, I have never had an argument with Christianity. Just a few Christians. I advocate peace and religious tolerance, and in no way do I wish to "recruit" or "convert" others. And I'd like to thank my anonymous benefactor of prayer. I shall pray for you too. Now for penance...I am going to get ready to watch some football. The Saints play the Rams tonight. (GROAN) Peace to all. Stand up for whatever it is you believe in, and I promise you I will be right there, very vocally supporting your right to do so. Now, since there are seemingly some prayers being said in my behalf...do you think you could add just a tiny one for the New Orleans Saints tonight? Methinks they might be even more in need of them than I. Love to you all! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
"We Christians can't get beat up or outnumbered in multiple threads any more than one {I hope }" I liked that I hope part. Honestly, it just cracks me up when Christians play this card. Terribly sorry that you feel victimized in your quest to tell other people what to do. I know, I know, it's not you, it's God. It just sounds like you. (Please don't take this seriously) Seriously though, go back and read the beginning of this thread. My daughter, in fact, is the result of legal abortion. Stephen, I'll try to come back later and address your humanity question. Brad PS Vegetarians still kill to survive, don't they? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
This entire thread is a good example of why tolerance is a very important quality. I personally believe that everyone makes mistakes. I have empathy for murderers- I have empathy for women in difficult situations, too. Whether those two are one and the same... it's not my place to judge. I guess it is just one of those things... you just don't know unless you're in the situation. Serenity makes a good point about the woman's body being the vessel of pregnancy... it's not necessarily one I agree with, but I can definitely see where she's coming from. And... she's right, as long as there are coat hangers available, there will be abortion. And, on the other hand, Stephan's point is a very strong one. Why should pro-lifers have to prove that a fetus is human? Because it takes a freedom away from a woman? Because pro-choicers can't prove that it's not? Whose freedom is more important- that of the pregnant woman, or that of an unborn child? These questions are not likely to be answered anytime soon. Also- the world isn't likely to become a perfect place that supports women (including young and/or single mothers- you should hear how pregnant teens get badmouthed at my school- no wonder so many get abortions!) anytime soon, so showing a little understanding for a woman's position has got to be in everybody's best interest, right? Tolerance means sharing your point of view, and also accepting it when people have a different one. I don't believe in war- my boyfriend does (Not to say he's bloodthirsty, but he sees it as necessary in some instances; I disagree). I don't believe in anti-depressants- my mother's on them. So- if my boyfriend joins the Army reserves, should I break up with him as a matter of principle? Should I look down on my mother for not being able to maintain her mood naturally, or for not taking the approach I would? Of course not! And I certainly won't use scare tactics like "You're burning in hell if you don't... (insert righteous action here...)" to persuade anyone out of the lifestyle they choose. Sorry, Interloper, but I really think that if you are trying to spread the word of Christianity, you should start somewhere besides the eternal damnation bit.... it's not a very good selling point. And, maybe it's just because I'm young and stubborn, but when people ride in on an impossibly high horse and start barking threats at me, my instinctive reaction is rebellion. You can't break someone into believing, you can't scare the willfulness out of them, at least not if you want to call the faith pure. And I'll make this point again... If I were God, I wouldn't want dominance over a bunch of fearful servants who only professed love out of fear of hell... I don't need a bunch of opportunists kneeling at my feet to feel big... and if the true God really needs this kind of servility to make his... whatever feel big, I'd rather not be a party to it anyway. Yeah, I know, stupid human pride of mine... maybe I'll come around to realize how fruitless all this bucking against the system really is. It's becoming painfully obvious to me why Brad said this deserves its own thread. I'm done ranting. "we are all citizens of the womb before we subdivide |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay...Penance completed. Now Stephen, I would like to address your point regarding the point of conception as the origin of life. I did not address that, because it takes my mind even further off topic. Let's assume that you are correct. (nice start, eh? smile with me please...) Now do we go further to protect the QUALITY of life of the unborn child? Does the child have the right to a smoke-free environment? The issues of alcohol and drug abuse come into play here as well. Should a government monitor every pregnancy to ensure that unborn child is not subjected to various poisons of drug abuse? (By the way, in instances of substance abuse, substance abusers quite often are so physically screwed up, that they don't realize they are pregnant. Should ignorance be an excuse? What a legal can of worms that is!) Beyond the obvious, what about a child's right of proper nutrition? Should the diet of a woman ALSO be legislated? Assuming that is even practical, there is now medical evidence that EMOTIONS also play a part in the health of a child during pregnancy. Are you going to attempt to legislate HAPPINESS? You ask where does it all begin? I'm wondering where it will all end. An unwanted pregnancy, not always, but quite often produces an unwanted CHILD. In the instance of a drug abuser, that child quite often is born with birth defects. Who is going to adopt or care for SCORES of children who might be born with holes in their hearts, or the sometimes less obvious instances of sometimes subtle brain damage? (The rest of this is not necessarily directed to Stephan.) If you've read the entire thread, you may recall I said my story was a simple one. It is, until you get into the details. I had a friend with the same addiction as I who chose to have her child. That was, gratefully, the only funeral service I attended for a baby. (Joshuah was 8 months old when he died, from an irreparably damaged heart.) And no, I don't feel it justified my decision. My friend's pain haunts me as much as my own. Two women, in the same circumstances, chose two different options and STILL held hands that day and cried. Here is yet another true story. My thirteen year old cousin was a beautiful, intelligent girl. She was one who came into puberty early, however. She was an honor roll student and considered "a perfect child." She was SO perfect, that she apparently could not stand the idea of admitting a mistake to her parents. She was about to enter her second trimester of pregnancy when she blew her brains out. ON FATHER'S DAY, with her father's handgun. I can go on, too. I have held a man who wept inconsolably after learning that his girlfriend aborted his unborn child. So what is my point? I simply wished to underscore the fact already stated by myself and others, that this issue, has many fine lines of great dimension. It's extremely personal and painful. So I plead with you all to show sensitivity and discretion as you debate what may be purely hypotheses to you. (I said, MAY be, as I'm not presuming to know your life story any more than I presume that you know mine.) I simply ask, that we all be aware and type carefully, as we cannot assume to know another's personal pain. Oh...came back to add that I know that I repeated myself here. tsk...it's just a habit of mine---I repeat myself until I receive some acknowledgement of being understood, or at the very least, HEARD. and? Interloper, I respect your work, and I'd like to add that I hope nothing I said made you feel victimized, as that was not my intent. Trust me, as a practitioner of an "alternative" religion, I do know what persecution feels like. [This message has been edited by serenity (12-18-2001 11:53 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Serenity, You're being heard. I agree with much of what you say, not all of it but the part I disagree with involves a tangent that can be better expressed in another thread (You still want to privilege experience over theory and I want to argue that they're so intricately intertwined that it is better to scrap the distinction altogether -- there are good and bad arguments, persuasive and unpersuasive, but they shouldn't be judged in terms of where they come from). Stephen, The question of 'humanity' kind of misses the point. The question that this revolves around is whether a foetus has rights or not. I think you're right that the pro-choice movement has, to a large extent, pinned their hopes around this question, the assumption being that if someone is human they have rights. That's just not true. If someone has rights, they can lose them. If they can't lose them, they don't have rights. How can a foetus, through its own action, lose its rights? A criminal loses his or her rights by not accepting the responsibility of abiding by the law, by not respecting the rights of others. In order to have rights, you have to have responsibilities. What responsibility does a foetus have? I don't see how we can separate rights and responsibilites for that would mean that when someone abrogates their responsibilites we can't infringe upon their rights. And that's exactly what we do. Brad |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
What responsibilities do the mentally infirm, the elderly (alzheimer patient) and a two day old baby have? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
That's exactly where I'm going, Tim. If they cannot maintain a reciprocal responsibility, they have no rights. Does that mean we shouldn't care? Of course not. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, you're vascillating here. 2 day old babies and the mentally infirm do have rights. And laws are set in place with intent to protect those rights. If we are to go with your theory about rights being inexorably bound to responsibilities, then we have to say that the laws are wrong which protect the "rights" of newborns (since they don't really have any, due to their lack of responsiblity ). The genial "We should care" idea, isn't enough to protect those newborns, and neither is it enough to protect the rights of pre-born human beings. You've only replaced the measure of "humanity or not" with "responsible or not"... which is not presently our standard for many other classes of people who are not capable of being "responsible", but indeed have rights... so much so that anyone violating them is subject to criminal prosecution. If your criterion isn't accepted in those areas why should it be accepted with a fetus? Another great oversight in my opinion is presuming to know when and what level at which anyone has valid "responsibility" or not. How many are in such conditions that the smallest tasks (unconsious to you and I) are their formidable responsiblities for the day... if not to someone else, then to themselves, their loved ones, or to God. For example, chewing food spoon-fed by a caretaker for some elderly persons with organic brain disorder is something that quite possibly takes more determination than you or I can know. And even if you don't concede that such things entail "responsibility", what about the kindred stock from which it springs, "responsiveness"? . . .a much better (and safer) litmus test by far. Fetuses kick and suck their thumbs in utero. They are very active and responsive... and who are we to set the event horizon of 'responsibility' and most of all, of humanity, or the rights thereof? And where you said "If they can't lose them (rights) they don't have rights"... Though rights are taken away through one's own actions or in the case of the helpless through someone else's, those rights were never granted based on any action, or lack of. Those rights were granted on the basis of being. "Inalienable rights endowed by the Creator". How responsible did you have to become before you had rights? I agree that rights are always bound to responsiblity, but in many cases that responsiblity is proxy. The preborn is one (among several) of those instances. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-19-2001 11:47 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Don't have time at the moment to engage this discussion but I would like to acknowledge Serenity's input and suggest that yes -- this debate has gone on, and will go on ad infinitum.... but there is one difference between what has gone before and this discussion and that is that WE are having this one! Much thanks to all who are participating and may I add my Holiday wishes to all... |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Serenity, Nothing you said offended me, personally All was said with tongue firmly in cheek.Happy holidays to all. CU next year. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Why is abortion a political issue? It shouldn't be. It should be be a private matter between a doctor and her patient. So, why is it? Because of religion. Why should religious people care about what is not their business? Yet, there has been religious wars for ages where many innocent people have been killed because their philosophy, their religious beliefs differed from those whom had a bigger and more terrible swift sword. Hypocracy, indeed. Let each woman choose for herself. If abortion is not for you, then don't ever have one, but don't try to save others from themselves. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Why should non-religous people care about what other people do? Perhaps the question is, should people attempt to impose their morality on others? Or perhaps, should people attempt to impose their laws on others? Hypocrisy is not limited to the religous, no matter what the religion. As the quote goes, there is nothing wrong with religion, it's just those practice it; or going to church makes you no more a Christian than going to a garage makes you a mechanic. I realize this is getting somewhat from the point, but why is it an accepted fact that your position on abortion is dependent on your views on religion? It is easy to pigeonhole the pro-life by characterizing them as religous fanatics as easily as it is to pigeonhole the pro-choice as atheistic murderers. Perhaps we should not focus on hypocrisy, but human beings attempting to deal with a issue in which there is no discernible solution within our meager capabilities. Drawing a line in the sand is not the answer for either side, although unfortunately, that seems to be the inevitable solution to a majority of our problems. Tragedy and unfairness visit us all without regard to deserving the consequences. Unfortunately, whether you are religous or not, you have to suffer those consequences. In a utopian world, maybe all our decisions could be our own, but in our world, we must interact and realize the effect of our actions on others. Has there been hypocrisy on both sides of the abortion issue? Is religion the only determinate in arriving at your position? Is abortion a consequence of our human weaknesses, both male and female? What is the answer? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Pretty much agree with everything Tim just said but thought I'd add my own thoughts. It's kind of funny, if as Tim says, we always seem to draw lines in the sand, one would think I'm on Opeth's 'side' but I'm not. I think the issue is far more complex than that. "Why is abortion a political issue?" --Because it involves more than one person. But since I think a person always already involves more than one person, it's always already political. "It shouldn't be. It should be be a private matter between a doctor and her patient." --Which you already admit. So, why is it? Because of religion. --If you scan this thread, you'll see that's only part of the issue. Why should religious people care about what is not their business? --I don't know, why should anybody care about the World Trade Center? "Yet, there has been religious wars for ages where many innocent people have been killed because their philosophy, their religious beliefs differed from those whom had a bigger and more terrible swift sword." --And wars have been fought over slavery, islands, ships, gold, love, pride, money, cod, and (almost) over a pig. Hypocracy, indeed. --But isn't this a political statement? Aren't you making a judgement here? We all do this all the time, not just religious folks. Let each woman choose for herself. --Does that give a woman the choice to kill an infant? Ever looked at infanticide rates in Victorian Britain (or anywhere else)? If abortion is not for you, then don't ever have one, but don't try to save others from themselves. --Why not? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't try to help people in times of famine (even a self-generated one like in North Korea)? --Things are just a little more complex than this. Thanks, Brad PS Not trying to cut off your opinion, Opeth, in any way, but it does seem you want to cut off the opinions of others. Rarely are things so cut and dry. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"PS Not trying to cut off your opinion, Opeth, in any way, but it does seem you want to cut off the opinions of others. Rarely are things so cut and dry. - Your disclaimer, placed at the end of your "cutting" does no service to me or yourself and I found it to be quite superficial. "Why should non-religous people care about what other people do? Perhaps the question is, should people attempt to impose their morality on others? Or perhaps, should people attempt to impose their laws on others?" - Are these rhetorical type questions or do you really want an answer to each one? "Hypocrisy is not limited to the religous, no matter what the religion." - I never said otherwise. "As the quote goes, there is nothing wrong with religion, it's just those practice it; or going to church makes you no more a Christian than going to a garage makes you a mechanic." - I disagree...going to a garage could also make one a very bad mechanic. "I realize this is getting somewhat from the point, but why is it an accepted fact that your position on abortion is dependent on your views on religion?" - That is too easy to answer. Because it is, i repeat, it is the religious right wingers of this country who have made it a political issue. Now, don't infer, that I either agree or disagree with those right-wingers. I am merely stating a fact. "It is easy to pigeonhole the pro-life by characterizing them as religous fanatics as easily as it is to pigeonhole the pro-choice as atheistic murderers." - You are taking this issue into other areas of different issues. Once again, without inference, all I am saying is that the abortion isssue is an issue only because of the pro-life religious people who make it an issue. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, I am merely stating a fact. "Perhaps we should not focus on hypocrisy, but human beings attempting to deal with a issue in which there is no discernible solution within our meager capabilities." - But there is a discernable solution...worry about your own self and family and don't interfere between the woman and her doctor...very simple, to me, whether I agree with abortion, which at least two of you have already inferred, (and I never said, nor do you know if "I" am a pro-lifer or not), or not. "Drawing a line in the sand is not the answer for either side, although unfortunately, that seems to be the inevitable solution to a majority of our problems..." - You lost me here, honestly. "Has there been hypocrisy on both sides of the abortion issue?" - Rhetorical? You tell me and expound on your answer with logical and sound reasoning. "Is religion the only determinate in arriving at your position?" - What position is that? That I believe that abortion is an issue due to religion - based upon - Yes. "Is abortion a consequence of our human weaknesses, both male and female? What is the answer?" - Again, the question you pose sounds rhetorical, but I will say this...you need to learn to separate issues. I am not talking, nor have I talked about "human weaknesses" with regards to the "consequences" of abortion. Read my previous replies to understand. I made a comment about the fact as to why abortion is an "issue." That was all I did. I never said that I agreed or disagreed. I did say that I believe it to be hypoctrical, and that I know to be so - when viewing religion as its leaders throughout their history. Don't take it personal. [This message has been edited by Opeth (12-26-2001 09:57 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Opeth "Why is abortion a political issue? It shouldn't be. It should be be a private matter between a doctor and her patient." Abortion is political for many more reasons than just the religious aspect. The Christian viewpoint is the strongest because most people in America are Christians. The thing is, I think that most pro-lifers think abortion is wrong for more than just religious reasons, it's just that their faith in God is their strongest driving point- they believe in that more strongly than the other pro-life arguments, so that's their soap-box. Unfortunately, a lot of us have your reaction to that. Now, in the beginning of this thread, I pointed out to Local Rebel that focusing on just the scientific and religious aspects isn't enough, and that's true. His thread, which originally was to compare these two focal points of the issue, has mushroomed into something much bigger. What about feminism? This, I think, definitely has a stronger pull than anything else- in this debate and in politics- it's the reason we have legal abortions in the first place- the woman's freedom of choice. You seem to fully support that. On the other hand, there is a very strong feminist pro-life viewpoint that is purely political, and I really don't see how we can escape the politics of this situation. A lot of women believe that abortion is actually supported (consciously or unconsciously) because of society's bias against mothers. A lot of career women face great discrimination when they become pregnant- employers want employees who can be fully devoted to their careers- they don't want their performance to be compromised. At my high school, there used to be a rule that girls on the cheerleading squad would be kicked off and not allowed back if they had a baby... what's the unspoked alternative there? Nobody said anything about pregnancy, just the baby. It's not a morality thing, it's a devotion to the squad thing. Mothers, especially young single mothers, are highly discriminated against. A very strongly Christian girl I know had to give a presentation about why she thinks abortion is wrong- she concluded by saying that although she doesn't believe in premarital sex, if she was raped, she would probably have an abortion because she couldn't face the mar to her reputation- nobody would ask if she'd gotten raped, but assume that she is promiscuous. What about the girl earlier in this thread who killed herself because she was scared of the consequences of her pregnancy? Pro-life feminists think that abortions allow these prejudices to exist. Without abortion, women would either have to prevent themselves from getting pregnant or fight for their rights not only as women, but as mothers. It's a nice way to look at things, but I don't think it's very likely to happen. We're not all hard-headed enough to shoulder that kind of responsibility, and that's not something a few civil rights speakers can acheive. It would take a nation-wide effort from women everywhere, and there are too many conditionals to foster that kind of resolve. You did kind of present things in a very cut and dry manner... you did seem to try to draw a line in the sand. This topic is obviously not very cut and dry, because look at the response it has generated. Maybe it seems to you that this would ideally be kept a private matter, untouched by the opinions of others- but it is the termination of life. Look at all topics covered by that subject- mercy killing, capital punishment, suicide, murder in self-defense, war- and look at all the controversy those topics also generate. Nothing so fundamental to human life- that being, life itself- could ever be cut and dry. Nobody can brush their hands off and walk away from something like this. "I'm thinking about leaving tomorrow |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I have no problems being called superficial but it should be pointed out that I said this: "PS Not trying to cut off your opinion, Opeth, in any way, but it does seem you want to cut off the opinions of others. Rarely are things so cut and dry. - Your disclaimer, placed at the end of your "cutting" does no service to me or yourself and I found it to be quite superficial." --Not Tim. The rest of your comment, Opeth, is directed at Tim. As for your point. I'm curious. While I agree with what Hush has said (and it deserves its own thread), I want to know what approach you would use to persuade the rest of us that your 'fact' is accurate. Historical, comparative, logical, counter-factual, common sensical, or what? At the moment, it's an assertion. Thanks, Brad [This message has been edited by Brad (12-26-2001 05:14 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
How do I know that what I stated was indeed factual? This is how... Through experience. In my entire life, whenever the topic of abortion becomes an "issue" - the "religious-right" has always been the instigator. Whether I have read, viewed, personally witnessed, etc... Now let's look at what I stated, starting with a predication that is sound and valid... 1. Abortion IS a political issue - that cannot be denied. 2. Abortion should NOT be a political issue - that is my opinion, not factual. 3. Why is abortion a political issue? - Because of religion, here in the states, it is mainly driven by christianity. That is true. The so-called feminist groups merely react to Christianity's instigation. Therefore... if the religious right would cease their actions, it would no longer be a politcal issue because then the so-called feminist groups would have nothing to react to - FACT. My last point of my original post was this... 4. thousands, possibly millions of people have suffered torturings and death in the name of religion and its dogma throughout history...and that the religious leaders of our day now cry about abortion, to me, and logically so, is hypocritical. I never said that I was either pro-life or pro-abortion...and I still haven't. I never said that I agree with or disagree with much of what was written here on this thread either. [This message has been edited by Opeth (12-27-2001 12:07 PM).] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
"If abortion is not for you, then don't ever have one, but don't try and save others from themselves." Most pro-lifers that I am acquainted with would not see it as a issue of someone saving themselves, but rather saving the unborn baby. Most pro-choicers I am acquainted with would be more inclined to agree with the statement. So I do have to admit, I made what I believed to be a logical assumption. I apologize for making that assumption. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Excellent point, I concur. However, in my quote that you quoted, I didn't intend on explaining my position in its entirity. You did prove my point. If you read my last reply above yours, you will see that you did, possibly untintentionaly, prove it. That fetus is not in your womb. That fetus is not in your wife's or girlfriend's womb. Whether you disagree or not, the law says that the woman who has that fetus growing in her can have an abortion. I do believe that Jesus once commented about obeying the laws of the land, even if unjust. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Just because you obey a law, does not mean you agree with the law. Civil disobedience? Why do you assume I am a male? I never said. I also never said what my views on abortion were; I just indicated we ought to recognize the complexity of the problem and attempt to arrive at some sort of a solution to what is an insolveable problem until someone can arrive at an answer of when life begins. Finally, as to your last comments, I am afraid I am totally unable to follow your logic and as such, will bow to your point of view and take my adieu. One should cede to superior logic. [This message has been edited by Tim (12-27-2001 06:20 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Opeth said: "if the religious right would cease their actions, it would no longer be a political issue because then the so-called feminist groups would have nothing to react to - FACT." --That's not a fact, that's a prediction. If the religious right ceased their actions, the debate would certainly be different, but I don't think it would disappear as a political issue. It would still be a moral/ethical issue and there are plenty of other moral/ethical issues that are political issues -- issues that the religious right doesn't take part in. --You can have a debate about abortion where religion is not mentioned. Because this is possible, in order for your assertion to be true, you'd have to argue that any secular debate is a ruse hiding the truly religious motives of the speakers (sometimes true, sometimes not). Human dignity is often used on the political left to justify actions and that can be used here as well. --Or that those who argue for illegalization from a different point of view are being duped into supporting a group they shouldn't be supporting. Interestingly, you call that a 'reaction'. --I don't support the right of a teen to commit suicide, neither does the religious right, I don't think that makes me a supporter of the religious right. --You're certainly correct to say the religious right is big part of the whole debate and I also think you're right to argue that they are the most vocal group for illegalization, but I fail to see what pinning the political issue on a single group gives you. --The religious right, for many people, is a term of derision, an extremist group that one should be weary of, and to label any particular issue as intrinsically intertwined with a political group seems more a strategy to avoid the issue than to address it. It's much the same strategy that the right uses with their successful redescription of 'liberal' (not completely their doing though) and the phrase 'the looney left.' The left also does the same thing when describing an historian as a conservative -- we don't have to take the argument seriously because the source is suspect. --It all comes down to who we should listen to. --The religious right is also a muddy concept. Can someone who doesn't consider him or herself a member of that group still think abortion should be illegal? Or is it the determining factor in deciding who is and who is not a member of the religious right? --If this thread has shown anything, it's shown a wide spectrum of views. Stephen is for illegalization but also agrees with Hush, Serenity, and myself that there's something wrong with a culture that stigmatizes pregnancy (Isn't it fair to say that the religious right wants both illegalization and stigmatization?). Local Rebel and myself are both pro-choice but we disagree on the issue of parental consent (I think it's necessary; LR sees it as an obstacle). The question of abortion as birth control is also an issue that has been barely touched. Many who are pro-choice recoil at that idea so does that mean there should be a legal limit to the number of abortions a woman can have? --Given this diversity and more, I don't see what saying, "It's the religious right's fault" really contributes. Brad |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Brad said most of what I was going to say. There is one thing that he touched on that I'd like to expand on a bit. Opeth said: "if the religious right would cease their actions, it would no longer be a political issue because then the so-called feminist groups would have nothing to react to - FACT." so-called? What is that supposed to mean? Anyway- did you read anything at all that I had to say, or did you see the word feminism and skip the rest? I mean, for someone who seems to be so anti-right-wing Christian, I'd think you'd be right there with the feminists complaining about the repressed patriarchal society Christianity has fostered, and so on. But that's also a snap judgement (and sarcastic reaction) to the little bit that you've revealed in this thread. So now I'll get on with my point. The feminist argument against abortion is in no way a reaction to the Christian aregument against abortion. It's a totally seperate thing (unless, of course, you believe that Christianity is what caused this sort of environment to begin with, or that by demanding rights women are trying to topple the age-old religious and societal custom of "Father knows best," but that's an issue before abortion even comes in...) My point is that the feminist platform is much more stable than the Christian one, because it is rooted in politics in the first place, instead of in religion, which is never a stable platform when you get into politics. You are trying to lump it all together, and it doesn't work that way. There are other arguments, too. Atheists believe a number of things, but at the top of the abortion no-no list is that atheists believe that this life is all we have, and aborting a fetus ends that before it begins. I don't think this argument is persuasive, because it's religion (or lack thereof) based. Some anarchists sort of feel the same way feminists do about government oppression, except that their argument is that rebuking abortion will help topple government in some way... but their point is obviously moot unless they fenagle their ways into office and topple the system from the inside out. There is the science-based argument that details a baby's development. I can't remember the stages of development, but it was a pretty convincing point of view.Anyway, I don't see how you can possibly throw any or all of these things together and write them off as a reaction to the bullhorn of Christian resistence. There are points of view completely seperate form the Christian line of thought... and to be frankly honest, it seems to me that your point of view is more a reaction to religion than that of anyone else in this thread.... maybe if you should try seperating religion from the issue at hand. "I'm thinking about leaving tomorrow |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
