Yet Another Abortion Debate Thread

[warpus]

According to my knowledge the soul usualy enters the body when it is fairly developed sometimes at the actual birth.

According to *my* knowledge souls only enter horses.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

According to *my* knowledge souls only enter horses.

O.K. let me ask you where is your knowledge from? For my part I have red books on this topic by spiritual authorities such as spiritual masters. Glad I gave you good laugh btw.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Where do the souls come from? Do they appear out of nowhere and come into existence inside the body, or is there actual movement?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, for example, donating funding to research for that, and supporting laws that increase funding for research, or (short-medium-term) more social assistance (not just welfare cheques) to help those who have children with Down Syndrome and the adults who live with it.

I'm having a hard time finding research labs that are investigating preventing Down's Syndome.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Are we again 6 pages into yet another abortion thread with very little substance other than "it's murder" and "you can't murder a nonperson!" I suppose demographically this mostly makes sense, seeing as abortion to the largely young and male is merely an interesting mental exercise in morality.

Thats not too bad compare to the fact that we are 600 years into the human evolution since people have been burned for holding opinons which differed from those of church yet today we still hear the cry of religious followers for capital punisment for something which again they are absolutely certain about...

The root cause of this entire debate lies in attempting to determine when the core rights of one human must by necessity override core rights of another.

No we are not there just yet. Up till now the debate was mainly about when is the point where you can with certainty talk about two humans.

If you are pro-choice and busily attempting to rationalize at what dates a developing embryo has no ethical worth you are doing just that, rationalizing to make your position "cleaner."

From ethical perpective I would phrase it as: till what point is abortion ethicaly accaptable?

If you are pro-life and stamping your foot on the ground about the whole issue you are ignoring the fact that without some measure of final control over their own reproductive process you are seeking to shackle the value of a woman's personhood under her value as a broodmare. There is much ill to be done in curtailing humanity in both of these manners.

"Final control" seems to me like a big word. Abortion seems to me like a last resort rather then usual way how to deal with the problem. Also woman personhood is better served by her own responsible and controled behaviour then medical intervention.

I don't care which side of this issue people on, not really, because ultimately the call to action for both sides should roughly be the same. Go help, support, and show agape love to women who are in need of assistance. Why do women with unexpected pregnancies abort? It isn't an easy decision for most of them despite how one might be inclined to either call for their execution or blithely assume there are no emotional repercussions for terminating a "nonperson." It's a choice that is made and often followed up with a lifetime of uncertainty, doubt, and pain. They abort because they are unready or unable to parent. Society doesn't help by shaming pregnant women with neither intent nor ability to parent as loose, immoral, or stupid. If we would be willing to redirect our energy spent yammering at each other into restructuring our view of unplanned pregnancy from an inconvenience or curse into a rather remarkable opportunity, such as adoption, we would actually, not just theoretically, avoid some very real sorrow and allow for some very real good. Would this be a magic bullet? No, it wouldn't. But it would be a hell of a lot more effective than anything we seem to actually be doing now.

This also should be something to discuss in thread like this.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Where do the souls come from? Do they appear out of nowhere and come into existence inside the body, or is there actual movement?

They come from heaven - souls world. On the way to the Earth(physical level) the soul passes through different levels of existence/plains of consciousness picking up necessary instruments with it - mental and vital body and then finaly it connects with physical body. I am no expert on this. Its definetly much more complex then that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They come from heaven - souls world. On the way to the Earth(physical level) the soul passes throug different levels of existance/plains of consciousness picking up necessary instruments with it mental and vital body and then finaly it connect with physical body. I am no expert on this. Its definetly much more complex then that.

That's way more detail than is necessary to explain something that we all agree on doesn't exist in a tangible form. Or in our reality.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That's way more detail than is necessary to explain something that we all agree on doesn't exist in a tangible form. Or in our reality.

"our reality" huh...
I may never been in Australia and its not much of part of "my reality" but when I finaly go there thats all going to change. I will take Australia very seriously...

edit:but lets leave this for another thread

 

[hobbsyoyo]

"our reality" huh...
I may never been in Australia and its not much of part of "my reality" but when I finaly go there thats all going to change. I will take Australia very seriously...

I've never been to

different levels of existance/plains of consciousness picking up necessary instruments with it mental and vital body and then finaly it connect with physical body

either. But I'll give it a shot. I'll write a report on exactly which kind and how many drugs it takes me to get there.

Edit: I tried very hard to stay on topic and wrote what I thought was a good post relating to the OP one page back. Yet here we are.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Edit: I tried very hard to stay on topic and wrote what I thought was a good post relating to the OP one page back. Yet here we are.

Well, its tavern after all. So, cheers!

 

[Farm Boy]

No we are not there just yet. Up till now the debate was mainly about when is the point where you can with certainty talk about two humans.

You noticed already, but just in case anyone else was interested I gave a go at this in the rapist abortion thread for whatever it is worth.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I've heard this sentiment a couple of times, and yes, I do see the irony of me bringing this up in an Abortion thread, and to boot hypocritical since I remember at least one occasion today in which I did this myself, but is the fact that a thread exists in the Tavern a free pass to post whatever off-topicness that springs to mind?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I'm having a hard time finding research labs that are investigating preventing Down's Syndome.

Thats a bit of a problem, to be honest.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I've heard this sentiment a couple of times, and yes, I do see the irony of me bringing this up in an Abortion thread, and to boot hypocritical since I remember at least one occasion today in which I did this myself, but is the fact that a thread exists in the Tavern a free pass to post whatever off-topicness that springs to mind?

Partially. You have no idea how hard it is for me to not respond to some things.

 

[Borachio]

I have never met a person with Down's I didn't like. I think they are admirable people in every way. I cannot say the same of people who don't have this syndrome.

edit: I have heard that some women don't wish to test for Down's because they don't see it as a reason for abortion.

This brings me on to the topic of what handicap would be sufficient reason; and I honestly do not know. Though surely there are many valid reasons.

 

[El_Machinae]

Congenital depression?

 

[LucyDuke]

"HYPOCRICY, HYPOCRICY, HYPOCRICY!!" - To suggest that we pro-lifers are hypocrites if we are against abortion but don't happen to offer any alternative solution is like suggesting someone is a hypocrite because they are against shooting destitute old people without offering a solution to free nursing home care. An innocent life is an innocent life, regardless of the point in life they are at. I could go on about how I am all for shelters and homes to help pregnant women and whatnot, but I shouldn't have to justify being opposed to the taking of an innocent life.

...

"CONDOMS AND EDUCATION!!!" - What about them? Really, what about them? If I say I am all for that and yet some people still get pregnant, I doubt that's going to change anyone's position that is pro-choice just because, sure, I'll say let's give away condoms and teach people how to roll them down bananas. It's all about personal responsibility. IF you wanna go out and have fun, be prepared for the consequences and ready to accept them. Oh, and guys, yes, this goes for you as well. We really need to do something about deadbeat dads big time.

Your bad analogy shows you've missed the point. How many destitute old people are shot annually due to the absence of ample free nursing home care? I don't have the numbers, but I bet two bottles of whiskey that the percentage doesn't compare to that of unwanted pregnancies aborted. Won't even get into the other comparison because it's stupid in the first place.

("You" in this section is general you, not you personally.)

You don't have to justify opposition to abortion. You think it's wrong, fine.

But yeah, you're a hypocrite if "BAN IT ALL" is your only answer, because there are a whole lot of other ways that are more humane and politically viable to avoid the question in the first place. When you blow off the easy preventions in favor of "just don't do that or I'll punish you", you clearly value punishment over prevention. You're letting preventable abortions happen. When you suppress things that prevent abortions, you are promoting it. (Catholic problem.)

Personal responsibility, yeah, that's nice to talk about. I want people to take responsibility for their actions too. It's not policy that services your goals.

It is not acceptable to save the life of a mother, or because of rape, or because of incest, or whatever else. Why? For the same reason that taking a gun and shooting a random innocent person in the street is unacceptable if that would hypothetically somehow save the life of the mother. Murder is wrong no matter what. Really, it is just that simple. Sorted.

("You" in this section is you personally.)

I don't for a second believe that you believe that. It's an incredibly simple case of self-defense. It is not "a random innocent person on the street", it is "what is killing her".

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't for a second believe that you believe that. It's an incredibly simple case of self-defense. It is not "a random innocent person on the street", it is "what is killing her".

I might agree with the "Self-defense" aspect, but it is hardly simple. Normally in self-defense, the person who is trying to kill you is actually guilty and so deserves death or at least life imprisonment anyways. In this case we're talking about a fetus who has yet to do anything wrong.

More analogous would be, if your son was a decent person but suddenly had a ten second crazy streak and was about to shoot you unless you shot him, what would you do? Note: somehow you know that if you let him kill you, he'll be perfectly fine in ten seconds, and never kill anyone again.

Legally, you'd be allowed to shoot him. So I think legally you should be allowed to protect yourself. But morally should you? That's tricky.

I think math has to play a factor though. Simply a slightly higher than normal risk isn't enough. A "Danger" wouldn't be enough. If its "Someone's dying" then you should be able to make the decision. Otherwise, every effort should be made to save both (I think an ecoptic case would be the only one to strictly apply.)

 

[LucyDuke]

Normally in self-defense, the person who is trying to kill you is actually guilty and so deserves death or at least life imprisonment anyways.

Doesn't matter. Killing in self-defense is not about punishment, it's about self-defense.

Note: somehow you know that if you let him kill you, he'll be perfectly fine in ten seconds, and never kill anyone again.

You broke your comparison. In a significant number of abortions of pregnancies that would have been fatal, it wouldn't've been possible to recover a viable fetus from the dead woman. Somehow, in an appropriate comparison, you know that if you let your crazy son kill you that he's got solid odds of dying too.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Doesn't matter. Killing in self-defense is not about punishment, it's about self-defense.



You broke your comparison. In a significant number of abortions of pregnancies that would have been fatal, it wouldn't've been possible to recover a viable fetus from the dead woman. Somehow, in an appropriate comparison, you know that if you let your crazy son kill you that he's got solid odds of dying too.

That's very true in at least some cases.

I do agree with your argument in that case. I just disagree with the simplicity of it.