Abortion

[columbus]

I've read Judges, the entire book, multiple times.

But you don't want to talk about it, apparently.
The attitude towards women and children completely contradicts yours. They were not valued as people, only as chattels.

That is the attitude you will find throughout the Holy Bible, due to the primitive ethics of the culture. It is not possible to support a prolife world view with accurately represented Scripture.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Um, is there a fixed opinion in when the "thing" inside the womb is actually alive?

Yes.
The science is elementary and unambiguous.
The fetus is alive. And s/he is a unique human individual being.
If we were talking about porpoises there wouldn't be any misunderstanding about this.
Tom

 

[Smart_Guy]

No. Medical science has nothing to say on the issue. That's why this issue will never be resolved.

Life. Not "a" life. In almost any other conversation, most people would agree that being "a" life requires sentience and viability. Now that I've said that, cue up the comparison between an embryo, which has neither, and a comatose person which once possessed both (and whose organs cannot be harvested unless previously sanctioned by the patient, or the patient's duly appointed representative).

Thinking = good.

Yes.
The science is elementary and unambiguous.
The fetus is alive. And s/he is a unique human individual being.
If we were talking about porpoises there wouldn't be any misunderstanding about this.
Tom

Cool. Thank you for sharing your views, guys

 

[SomeRandom]

If elective late term abortions are not appropriate for you, how do you know where your line is? Example, your line is "not more than five months pregnant"? Did you come to that line via a gut instinct, prayer, science or a combination?

My line is "elective abortions are not appropriate after conception unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy".

Thanks.

PS. I agree about the fetus not trumping the mother's life. I just disagree with praying on the weak, which smacks of everything I dislike about social Darwinism and nothing I like about the Lord's teachings concerning helping the weak.

Well given my upbringing was a mixture of both Eastern and Western philosophy as well as numerous religious influences, with a healthy respect for Science due to my natural curiosity and skepticism, it's a little bit........"complicated."

But simplified version. Concept of Dharma. On the one hand, from a spiritual point of view, I do respect the right to life of any potential human. I do consider their right to go through the birth process as important.
On the other hand if a woman's Dharma is hurt by a pregnancy, (financial, emotional, physical and or mentally) then I cannot in good faith attempt to shame or talk her out of having an abortion. For the path of one's Dharma is nobody's business but theirs, I can merely try to help. Of course the concept of Samsara (reincarnation) perhaps explains why I don't have all the qualms the Abrahamics seem to have regarding the soul of said aborted fetus. As according to my understanding of the concept, the fetus may just go onto another life. Or even spend some time in Heaven. Who knows, right?

So personally speaking I do not find any elective abortion "appropriate." I do not like elective abortions at any time of pregnancy any more than the Pro Life crowd. I don't think anyone really "likes" abortion anyway, but I digress.

However, politically/socially speaking (which is a different "responsibility" to that of one's personal opinions) I also cannot force that choice onto other women. It would be adharmic in my view. An abortion is a medical procedure, I cannot and will not stand between a doctor and their adult patient. I mean if it was my kid, then I would of course be consulted, but even then I am not arrogant enough to presume to know better than a medical professional. (At least I hope not).

So I guess you can say I have three major influences on this view of mine. Spirituality as was taught to me by family and religious people in my life (multiple faiths.) Personal opinion, which is what I personally feel on the matter and based on nothing but emotions. And social/political, which is based on my meager knowledge of Science (specifically Biology.) If that makes sense?

"Preying on the weak." Sorry I just don't view abortion as that. It's a medical decision made by an adult. It would only be "Social Darwinism" if all the aborted fetus' (fetusi? fetuses?) were aborted due to a perceived weakness, like mild disability or the like. Whilst designer babies are a possibility, not all abortions, not even the majority, are like that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But you don't want to talk about it, apparently.
The attitude towards women and children completely contradicts yours. They were not valued as people, only as chattels.

That is the attitude you will find throughout the Holy Bible, due to the primitive ethics of the culture. It is not possible to support a prolife world view with accurately represented Scripture.
Tom

We can talk about it on another thread, but I think stating that all born again Christians should be pro choice because the Bible is anti-people, anti-women and anti-children is ridiculous on its face. Re: Judges, you are undoubtedly making several errors:

1. The Bible records all kinds of personal and corporate moral choices without always condoning those choices. Think of it as both history and religious teaching in one text.

2. Is it supposed to be "news" to me that God ordered Israel to wipe out entire people groups (which of necessity include women and children)? God made a Flood and killed everyone except eight people. Did you think I missed the Flood, or perhaps was unaware that in Revelation most of the world's population is killed?

Repeating, I've read Judges many times and I'm not open to the "argument" about a judging God ordering, say, capital punishment for capital crimes including sacrificing children to false gods, to make a pro-choice argument.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well given my upbringing was a mixture of both Eastern and Western philosophy as well as numerous religious influences, with a healthy respect for Science due to my natural curiosity and skepticism, it's a little bit........"complicated."

But simplified version. Concept of Dharma. On the one hand, from a spiritual point of view, I do respect the right to life of any potential human. I do consider their right to go through the birth process as important.
On the other hand if a woman's Dharma is hurt by a pregnancy, (financial, emotional, physical and or mentally) then I cannot in good faith attempt to shame or talk her out of having an abortion. For the path of one's Dharma is nobody's business but theirs, I can merely try to help. Of course the concept of Samsara (reincarnation) perhaps explains why I don't have all the qualms the Abrahamics seem to have regarding the soul of said aborted fetus. As according to my understanding of the concept, the fetus may just go onto another life. Or even spend some time in Heaven. Who knows, right?

So personally speaking I do not find any elective abortion "appropriate." I do not like elective abortions at any time of pregnancy any more than the Pro Life crowd. I don't think anyone really "likes" abortion anyway, but I digress.

However, politically/socially speaking (which is a different "responsibility" to that of one's personal opinions) I also cannot force that choice onto other women. It would be adharmic in my view. An abortion is a medical procedure, I cannot and will not stand between a doctor and their adult patient. I mean if it was my kid, then I would of course be consulted, but even then I am not arrogant enough to presume to know better than a medical professional. (At least I hope not).

So I guess you can say I have three major influences on this view of mine. Spirituality as was taught to me by family and religious people in my life (multiple faiths.) Personal opinion, which is what I personally feel on the matter and based on nothing but emotions. And social/political, which is based on my meager knowledge of Science (specifically Biology.) If that makes sense?

"Preying on the weak." Sorry I just don't view abortion as that. It's a medical decision made by an adult. It would only be "Social Darwinism" if all the aborted fetus' (fetusi? fetuses?) were aborted due to a perceived weakness, like mild disability or the like. Whilst designer babies are a possibility, not all abortions, not even the majority, are like that.

Thanks for your candor. Your concepts and information are very interesting. I mean that sincerely.

Let me please rephrase "preying on the weak" to "hurting a creature that feels intense hurt and is unable to defend itself". I do think lions eating gazelles--and they tend to go for the weak gazelles and the baby gazelles--does not requires intervention. It is the natural order. I also think since we are admitting the abortion is "elective", that is, a choice, it is something that goes beyond the natural order to cause a human or fetus intense pain, it requires child advocates. Who is a child's advocate regarding abortion, not adoption or child abuse? Not the State. Not the abortion providers. Who will rise up?

Again, most pro choice folks support the choices of others but would only rarely consider an abortion. My sister-in-law had a medical abortion to save her life and is a born again Christian. There, I'm grateful for the doctors and for having it in a safe hospital and that the child is in heaven, sure, but if most pro choice folks support the rights of others while not having abortions they remind me of:

Northerners who said, "I'd never actually own a slave, but I support the rights of Southerners to do so. It's what most Americans want and besides, the scientists tell us the Negro is not the full human being we white Northerners are."

So I guess we're okay, because apparently many of us on this thread know that the fetus at X weeks or X months, even though different children grow at different rates, even though different pregnancies end earlier than others, even though 1 one-pound baby can survive in the NICU, etc. is not the same kind of human we are--yet...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Possibly because inducing an abortion on someone else against their will is morally wrong? Speaking of potential trees, have you been saving your sperm at the bank? If you've masturbated once and didn't save it, you killed more potentials for life than the entirety of all abortions in American in a given year. Actually, even if you've never masturbated, you allowing millions of potential lives to die by not going to freeze them immediately. Step too it.



There's no such thing as a baby that size. A baby, be definition is birthed. There's are many, many, physiological differences between a new born infant, and a zygote. Makes sense to me to grieve the loss of a potential life. That doesn't make grieving over a zygote and grieving over someone who just lost their kid to SIDs functional equivalents of one another.

Of course, your "argument", which is actually a parody of the pro-choice and pro-life people on this forum who are careful, intelligent and sensitive, omits the obvious--that only one or two of billions and billions of sperm, can actually live long enough to fertilize one of many of the woman's eggs, and thus, miraculously, make a very rare and precious life. Of course, your argument, which is designed to arouse passions in otherwise reasonable adults, omits the obvious fact that its where you put your sperm that makes the difference, not whether most of it dies.

And if we're lucky you are not putting your sperm or eggs somewhere when you can make children to teach them the dumb parodies you make when presented with debates concerning human life and death. Please grow up before you have kids!

 

[viole]

Of course, your "argument", which is actually a parody of the pro-choice and pro-life people on this forum who are careful, intelligent and sensitive, omits the obvious--that only one or two of billions and billions of sperm, can actually live long enough to fertilize one of many of the woman's eggs, and thus, miraculously, make a very rare and precious life. Of course, your argument, which is designed to arouse passions in otherwise reasonable adults, omits the obvious fact that its where you put your sperm that makes the difference, not whether most of it dies.

It would be miracolous if there were only one sperm involved. Otherwise, it would be like saying that it is a miracle to win the lottery when you hold billions and billions of tickets.

And if we're lucky you are not putting your sperm or eggs somewhere when you can make children to teach them the dumb parodies you make when presented with debates concerning human life and death. Please grow up before you have kids!

That could be read as a pro-choice reccomendation

Ciao

- viole

 

[dust1n]

Of course, your "argument", which is actually a parody of the pro-choice and pro-life people on this forum who are careful, intelligent and sensitive, omits the obvious--that only one or two of billions and billions of sperm, can actually live long enough to fertilize one of many of the woman's eggs, and thus, miraculously, make a very rare and precious life.

Incorrect. But, since I assume your OB/GYN, I'd love to see your amazing research into how many actual sperms cell arrive at the egg. Hint: It isn't once an ejaculate. This doesn't address the fact that you could freeze your sperm and artificial inseminate eggs with a much better success rate than actual nature. Hop to it, all the potential life you are letting die hour by hour.

Of course, your argument, which is designed to arouse passions in otherwise reasonable adults, omits the obvious fact that its where you put your sperm that makes the difference, not whether most of it dies.

So, your objection to abortion really has nothing to do with the potentiality for life then.

And if we're lucky you are not putting your sperm or eggs somewhere when you can make children to teach them the dumb parodies you make when presented with debates concerning human life and death. Please grow up before you have kids!

Nice there buddy. Insulting people is a great way to make your argument look like a total failure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And the Bible doesn't prohibit killing, it prohibits murder, which is killing not permitted by law. Why don't more Christians know this?

"Forbidden killing is forbidden".

Redundant commandment is redundant.

 

[Cephus]

"Forbidden killing is forbidden".

Redundant commandment is redundant.

Doesn't change the reality of it though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I was just asking.

I would change my mind forever, despite my past, if someone can demonstrate how the Bible supports choice/allows for choice except for jeopardy to the life of the mother.

Go for it!

That would be hard, since I can't think of any passages that imply that women have rights in general.

However, if it helps, Numbers 3 does imply that God doesn't consider babies less than a month old to be people.

 

[SomeRandom]

Thanks for your candor. Your concepts and information are very interesting. I mean that sincerely.

Thank you.

Let me please rephrase "preying on the weak" to "hurting a creature that feels intense hurt and is unable to defend itself". I do think lions eating gazelles--and they tend to go for the weak gazelles and the baby gazelles--does not requires intervention. It is the natural order.

It's natural selection, actually. This actually makes the prey stronger in the long run and forces the predators to intensify themselves as well.

I also think since we are admitting the abortion is "elective", that is, a choice, it is something that goes beyond the natural order to cause a human or fetus intense pain,

Well I don't think anyone on this thread said abortion wasn't a choice, to be honest. But my attention span is pretty short, so......
Ehh, there are predators in the wild who choose to kill simply for "fun." Nature does not always serve a grandiose purpose, nor is it particularly friendly. It's pretty callous actually. So in that sense I don't think nature particularly cares one way or the other if we hurt a fetus or for that matter even a toddler. Humans do, though.

it requires child advocates

Strictly speaking, a child is not a fetus nor vice versa.

Northerners who said, "I'd never actually own a slave, but I support the rights of Southerners to do so. It's what most Americans want and besides, the scientists tell us the Negro is not the full human being we white Northerners are."

Slavery is not akin to abortion, it IS akin to forcing a woman to abort or to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, though. False equivocation is false.
Also that so called "Science" that said a negro wasn't human was based on rudimentary prejudice and rather faulty methodology, not legitimate research.
We have much much higher standards that Science has to meet nowadays anyway.

So I guess we're okay, because apparently many of us on this thread know that the fetus at X weeks or X months, even though different children grow at different rates, even though different pregnancies end earlier than others, even though 1 one-pound baby can survive in the NICU, etc. is not the same kind of human we are--yet...

No a fetus is NOT a child. It has the potential to become a child under the right circumstances and in some cases needs medical intervention to achieve that even. But not all potential is or has to be reached. That's just the way nature is.
If a woman consents to carrying a pregnancy to term, then that's her decision. Just as it's her decision to refuse usage of her uterus to a fetus. I really don't understand this disconnect you have happening.

Medical decisions are often worked out through percentage rates and risk assessment. It's not an exact science. But so what? You could regrow your tonsils and get tonsillitis a second time. Does that now mean we should reconsider the surgery to remove one's tonsils just because the results aren't always the same?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It would be miracolous if there were only one sperm involved. Otherwise, it would be like saying that it is a miracle to win the lottery when you hold billions and billions of tickets.



That could be read as a pro-choice reccomendation

Ciao

- viole

No, it was a desperate imprecation towards 1) abstinence 2) personal maturity 3) childbearing 4) child rearing and in that order. Elective abortion as birth control is horrifying--and doesn't always control the birthing process, either, as sometimes the woman must expel the dead fetus vaginally.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Incorrect. But, since I assume your OB/GYN, I'd love to see your amazing research into how many actual sperms cell arrive at the egg. Hint: It isn't once an ejaculate. This doesn't address the fact that you could freeze your sperm and artificial inseminate eggs with a much better success rate than actual nature. Hop to it, all the potential life you are letting die hour by hour.



So, your objection to abortion really has nothing to do with the potentiality for life then.



Nice there buddy. Insulting people is a great way to make your argument look like a total failure.

Really, a woman doesn't get pregnant every time there is ejaculate? Wow, how was I qualified to ever be the assistant director of a CPC?

But seriously, folks, I didn't insult you. I pointed out sternly that your "argument" was in poor taste. Let's have a grownup discussion, please?

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Forbidden killing is forbidden".

Redundant commandment is redundant.

I apologize. I should have written that killing in self-defense is biblically lawful and to be parsed from murder, since skeptics often misquote the Decalogue as "Don't kill anyone" against capital punishment. The Bible prohibits premeditated murder.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That would be hard, since I can't think of any passages that imply that women have rights in general.

However, if it helps, Numbers 3 does imply that God doesn't consider babies less than a month old to be people.

This is abortion thread and a ReligiousForums forum, not a "Bible sucks!" thread so/but let me help you/God help us all (why are you on ReligiousForums.com to ATTACK a religion):

The simple fact that women were less counted in the ANE yet also recorded as apostles, judges (leaders of the entire nation of Israel), saw the empty tomb first, saw the resurrected Jesus first, etc. - you are talking from sheer biblical ignorance. And if there is ONE person who did more than everyone else to aid the cause of women in the ANE it was Jesus Christ.

Numbers 3 babies less than what? Say what? Are you thinking of the Numbers "taxation"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thank you.



It's natural selection, actually. This actually makes the prey stronger in the long run and forces the predators to intensify themselves as well.



Well I don't think anyone on this thread said abortion wasn't a choice, to be honest. But my attention span is pretty short, so......
Ehh, there are predators in the wild who choose to kill simply for "fun." Nature does not always serve a grandiose purpose, nor is it particularly friendly. It's pretty callous actually. So in that sense I don't think nature particularly cares one way or the other if we hurt a fetus or for that matter even a toddler. Humans do, though.



Strictly speaking, a child is not a fetus nor vice versa.



Slavery is not akin to abortion, it IS akin to forcing a woman to abort or to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, though. False equivocation is false.
Also that so called "Science" that said a negro wasn't human was based on rudimentary prejudice and rather faulty methodology, not legitimate research.
We have much much higher standards that Science has to meet nowadays anyway.



No a fetus is NOT a child. It has the potential to become a child under the right circumstances and in some cases needs medical intervention to achieve that even. But not all potential is or has to be reached. That's just the way nature is.
If a woman consents to carrying a pregnancy to term, then that's her decision. Just as it's her decision to refuse usage of her uterus to a fetus. I really don't understand this disconnect you have happening.

Medical decisions are often worked out through percentage rates and risk assessment. It's not an exact science. But so what? You could regrow your tonsils and get tonsillitis a second time. Does that now mean we should reconsider the surgery to remove one's tonsils just because the results aren't always the same?

1. A fetus becomes a child at what time during gestation, please? That would end this whole debate, yes?

2. It's not false equivocation for me to express my opinion as an analogy:

a) Slavery (as practiced in the Americas, not biblical or legal indentured servitude, the payment of a debt without the whips and beatings and rapes and with kindness) disgusts me as well as most of the people I consider upright and moral.

b) Between the colonies and the Civil War, the argument went like this, "I'd never have a slave but a lot of Southerners do, and why not let them live as they wish and have states' autonomy to an extent and so on"?

c) Most pro-choice people would never/only extremely rarely have an elective abortion but wish to allow others to have freedom to do something which disgusts me and grieves me, as well as most of the people I consider upright and moral.

Perhaps I should leave this debate as it seems no one here is open to change (including me)!

 

[catch22]

Perhaps I should leave this debate as it seems no one here is open to change (including me)!

Hey now, I posted that like 20 pages ago! They didn't appreciate it then...

 

[viole]

No, it was a desperate imprecation towards 1) abstinence 2) personal maturity 3) childbearing 4) child rearing and in that order. Elective abortion as birth control is horrifying--and doesn't always control the birthing process, either, as sometimes the woman must expel the dead fetus vaginally.

But what about your claim of a miracle? Do you think it is a miracle that one of those several billions of sperms fertilizes an egg, and only during few particular days?

It appears, God does not want to take any chances and does not trust His aim too much

Ciao

- viole