Abortion - What do you think about it?

[Demetrias]

it is not a dusty defunct book writen by a bunch of nomads. At the time the majority of the old testament was wwriten they where the inhabitans of Isreal and Judiah. The book still has good princeples to go by it is the book i try to base my life off and it is the best book to follow if you are going to follow any book. I don't no why you would think it dysfunct because of its age. Books with real good ideas are unaging see voltaire, machivaille, Sun Tzu, and other great books. Why don't you read the book maybe it will change your mind.

 

[Hurricane]

Modern christianity has very little in common with the old testament. For every good principle, it has two bad.

...not to mention the exaggerated passages about Noa and his ark or Moses and all the perils in Egypt.

 

[Demetrias]

well i was just talking about the time when i could have been said to be writen by a nomadic people. The apostle sure where nomadic but they could not be classified as a people. And i ment the Whole bible has good principles. Psalms, Proverbs and Job are all good. New Testament Good. I will admit the Tora is long and wierd but it doesn't seem to have any bad principles.

 

[The Troquelet]

Deut. has a lot of stuff in it that would be considered a war crime today. So does Thessalonians. Somewhere in the Old Testament it recommends killing your family if they start worshiping other gods.

 

[Demetrias]

a yes the genocide. That was the kill all other worshipers so that you do not fall part. Is that what your after. If so read the rest of the old testament. The Jews did not so were punished for it. About every twenty years the jews would revert to the pagan religions of those people they were supposed to have killed and then got the Sh** beat out of them. Good principle learnt from this section LISSON TO GOD.

 

[The Troquelet]

Yeah, who cares about literacy?

 

[Brad]

"The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring
my people again from the depths of the sea: That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of
thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same” (Psalms 68:21-23)."

This is saying that their blood will be spilled out on the ground. God had on a few occations the dogs or other animals consume the bodies of those not deserving a decent burial (jesabele). Plus that is slightly besides the point .... whether blood is viewed sacred or not isn't a MAJOR factor... but consider this point, it was said by sombody in this thread that taking in blood and eating it are two different things, but it's not, if you inject yourself with alchohol or drink it it's the same thing. (boy this should be in another thread, eh?)

"The bible says all sorts of weird things, from how to clean your hands after a sh1t, through who a woman should marry if her husband dies, to what to do if a soldier jerks off in military camp. Some of it is mutually contradictory...

Still, that said, anyone who thinks the bible is the literal word of God is kidding themselves."
If you look at the BBL chronologically those rules were to be followed under what was the MOSAIC LAW... but this was done away with when Jesus gave us a new set of PRINCIPLES to guide our lives by (Love God + Love our neighbour as ourself)thta is why true christians don't have to follow those previous rules like that.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Akka
*SNIP*
Then conclusion I obtain from these constatation : if you can change all the part of the body BUT the brain without altering the personnality/mind/spirit, and you CAN'T alter the brain without altering the personnality/mind/spirit, it's plainly obvious that the personnality/mind/spirit of the person rest in the brain.
1)Hence a human without a brain is not a person.
2)Hence destroying it is not murder.
3)Hence destroying a fetus without nervous system is not murder.

Simple, plain logic. I still wait for anyone to counter it without resorting on blind belief.

I am adding numbers to your 'points' to avoid confusion.

1) Left to its own devices, will the fetus develop a brain? If yes, explain why it is still moral to kill it.

2) Would this also apply to smothering a patient in a coma ward?

3) Again this begs the question: "If the fetus is going to have a brain in a few weeks, why is it morally acceptable to kill it now?"

I will admit, I am resorting to the 'blind belief' that a fetus will emerge from its mother in nine months, post-conception, as a baby, assuming you don't get to it first.

 

[The Troquelet]

"
I will admit, I am resorting to the 'blind belief' that a fetus will emerge from its mother in nine months,
post-conception, as a baby, assuming you don't get to it first."

If we don't get to it, the mother certainly will.

Again, if the mother wants to have an abortion, she's going to get an abortion any way she can. It's useless to use morals in this argument - the argument should not be, is an abortion right or wrong, but, which is the safest way to have an abortion, by a clothes hanger or by a trained professional?

Ask yourself this and then try and justify outlawing abortion, or even declaring it immoral. People do immoral things - get used to it.

 

[monkeyman116]

Do not get me started on abortion. I'm utterly sick of anti-abortionists.

 

[allan2]

"Let's get this clear, abortion IS murder. But it is socially conscionable murder, so it's OK."

"Socially-conscionable murder?" Listen to yourself. Stalin's purges were "socially-conscionable" murder under the rationale of that society. Again, I'm not religious, but I DO believe that murder, by definition, is wrong. And there is a "right" and "wrong" that is self-evident and independent of the "societal" whims of the moment.

Again, I'm not sure abortion is murder, or where the line can be drawn. But if I WERE sure it was murder, I wouldn't try to rationalize it by saying, "well, we've been doing it anyway" or whatever.

 

[The Troquelet]

I believe that when one commits an atrocity, the best thing is to come out and acknowledge that one is commiting an atrocity.

Abortion is an atrocity. But if we stop it, there will be worse atrocities. That's what I mean by "socially conscionable murder". I'm NOT saying "we'e been doing at so that justifies it". NOTHING justifies murder, except society. Society justifies plenty of murder. The death penalty is murder, so is being a carnivore. If you're in the Army you're either a murderer or a murderer-in-training. Hunting for fun is not just murder, it's an atrocity upon atrocity.

Yet nobody seems to think of these things as murder. Why? Because their society justifies them.

*I* still think they're murder, even though I commit a few of them. If you want to be pure and lily white, go be a Jain. Otherwise, look at the first paragraph of this post.

Human beings are natural commiters of murder. Of the myriad species of the earth, only 7 ever go to war among their own species. That makes war more unusual than cannibalism. There are five species of ants, some other animal or two, and man.

People who oppose abortion are blind to the fact that their opposition makes women commit even larger atrocities. People who want society to be perfect are fools. The people who want abortions are largely fools as well, but they have a right to commit the LESSER atrocity if they can.

Again, better a doctor than a clothes hanger.

 

[Akka]

1) Left to its own devices, will the fetus develop a brain? If yes, explain why it is still moral to kill it.

Left alone in the uterus, a spermatozoid will become fetus and then a baby. Each sex act bring several millions spermatozoid. Only one is able to survive, though all the others could have become a man if "left alone". Hence, having sex is a genocide.

The hope of becoming a man is not the same as the fact to be a man.
I can't hurt an embryon, because it can't feel anything. It has no mind of its own, so by destroying it, I don't kill a mind or a spirit. So I don't see anything immoral in destroying it, if the mother and the father agree.

2) Would this also apply to smothering a patient in a coma ward?

A patient in coma is still with a brain. Some people can get out from it several months after. Killing them would hence destroy their mind => murder.

Just for your information : in the case of a true brain death (when the body is still alive, but the brain is proved to be utterly destroyed), the person IS considered as dead, and her relatives are asked to see if the organs of the dead can be used in transplantation.
As long as the mind is already dead, the body has only a symbolic moral value left (requiring to be buried/cremated/insert your own way to deal with the deads here according to your culture/religion).

3) Again this begs the question: "If the fetus is going to have a brain in a few weeks, why is it morally acceptable to kill it now?"

See as above : a hope is not a fact. As long as the mind has not appeared, the embryon is not a person, it's only a pack of cells.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Akka


Left alone in the uterus, a spermatozoid will become fetus and then a baby. Each sex act bring several millions spermatozoid. Only one is able to survive, though all the others could have become a man if "left alone". Hence, having sex is a genocide.

Wouldn't that only be if they were united with an egg?

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
I believe that when one commits an atrocity, the best thing is to come out and acknowledge that one is commiting an atrocity.

Abortion is an atrocity. But if we stop it, there will be worse atrocities. That's what I mean by "socially conscionable murder". I'm NOT saying "we'e been doing at so that justifies it". NOTHING justifies murder, except society. Society justifies plenty of murder. The death penalty is murder, so is being a carnivore. If you're in the Army you're either a murderer or a murderer-in-training. Hunting for fun is not just murder, it's an atrocity upon atrocity.

Yet nobody seems to think of these things as murder. Why? Because their society justifies them.

*I* still think they're murder, even though I commit a few of them. If you want to be pure and lily white, go be a Jain. Otherwise, look at the first paragraph of this post.

Human beings are natural commiters of murder. Of the myriad species of the earth, only 7 ever go to war among their own species. That makes war more unusual than cannibalism. There are five species of ants, some other animal or two, and man.

People who oppose abortion are blind to the fact that their opposition makes women commit even larger atrocities. People who want society to be perfect are fools. The people who want abortions are largely fools as well, but they have a right to commit the LESSER atrocity if they can.

Again, better a doctor than a clothes hanger.

Points taken. By paragraph:

1. Agreed.
2. Understand your definition of "socially conscionable" to some extent. But a PERSON decides to commit the greater atrocity, NOT society. What you said is a bit like, "if we don't let grown men take out their pent-up aggressions with simple assaults, they will (or, may) commit murders." I (and society agrees with me here) don't think they should be allowed to do either.

As for definition of murder, I use the definition "against another human (or otherwise sentient) being, and not in self-defense." I too oppose the death penalty, but war is largely self-defense (against a perceived threat, an aggressor, or in the case of footsoldiers, against those footsoldiers firing at you right now...). I don't like war--don't get me wrong--but it isn't the same thing (except that those who premeditate it for their own ends COULD be defined as murderers).

3. True.
4. True. People's definitions of murder differ in a few places--like what you said, as well as whether or not abortion is included in it. But what I included in my definition is pretty much consensual--i.e. everybody agrees that these acts ARE INCLUDED in the definition of murder, at least.
5. Depends on how you define "going to war with each other." Many animals are territorial.
6. Again, I don't buy the statement "their opposition makes women commit even larger atrocities." Nobody MAKES the woman do anything. Except maybe a boyfriend with a gun, in which case that would be a crime.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Becka


Wouldn't that only be if they were united with an egg?

A spermatozoid is supposed to find an egg and unite with it, and will try to do it.
Just like an embryon is supposed to be harbored by the mother and try to develop into a baby with this support.

 

[The Troquelet]

Allan2, can you name ONE self-defense war in the past 50 yrs?

 

[philippe]

the americans call it a self defense war in afghanistan

 

[The Troquelet]

And at the same time, they call it a war to eliminate terror. They're going out and killing people.

The only self defense war takes place on your own land.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Akka
Left alone in the uterus, a spermatozoid will become fetus and then a baby. Each sex act bring several millions spermatozoid. Only one is able to survive, though all the others could have become a man if "left alone". Hence, having sex is a genocide.

Left ALONE in the womb, a sperm will die in a few hours when it runs out of stored energy. Point the first, obliterated.

Originally posted by Akka
The hope of becoming a man is not the same as the fact to be a man.

Why?

Originally posted by Akka
I can't hurt an embryon, because it can't feel anything.

Neither can a coma patient.

Originally posted by Akka
It has no mind of its own,

YET

Originally posted by Akka
so by destroying it, I don't kill a mind or a spirit. So I don't see anything immoral in destroying it, if the mother and the father agree.

Maybe you should read a transcript of Roe vs. Wade...

Originally posted by Akka
A patient in coma is still with a brain. Some people can get out from it several months after. Killing them would hence destroy their mind => murder.

But they can't feel anything, and they're not conscious. Are you saying that just because they (your words) HOPE TO regain consciousness, we should treat them as if they will? Why not then give the embreyo the same benefit? Sounds a LOT like age discrimination to me.

Originally posted by Akka
See as above : a hope is not a fact. As long as the mind has not appeared, the embryon is not a person, it's only a pack of cells.

But you'll wait and see if the coma patient recovers, and that's only a chance. We KNOW, for a FACT, that nine months will produce a child, but you won't wait for it. Why do the born have more rights than the unborn?

I've totally got you by the short and curlies now...YANK!!