It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.

[1213]

So what happens to that dead unborn baby, which God kills?

If God kills, I think the next phase depends on is the person righteous or not. If one is righteous, he gets eternal life, if not, there will be eternal death.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If God kills, I think the next phase depends on is the person righteous or not. If one is righteous, he gets eternal life, if not, there will be eternal death.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

To how does God decide that for the unborn dead babies?

 

[1213]

To how does God decide that for the unborn dead babies?

Sorry, I don't know. But, I believe God sees the innermost of all people and can tell how it is.

 

[viole]

First of all, the issue here, and has been, who has the right. Does a baby have the right to live or does the mother have the right to terminate the life. (That being said, God loves both baby and mother and His mercy is for all). In our faith, He paid the price for forgiveness.

What right would you favor, if you did not believe in God? If it is still pro life, then please try to defend using secular arguments, since that would entail that your pro life stance is independent from Jesus. If not, then there is nothing I can do to debate that, apart from attacking the root of the problem, or pointing to Christians who are pro choice.

Secular argument... It has a different brain wave length, it has a different blood type, it has a different fingerprint, it has a different heart-beat, ergo a different person.

Ok, we are getting close. What about one hour old embryos? None of the things you mention are developed, yet. Apart from a sequence of bits, they are de-facto indistinguishable. So, why not terminating?

And what about the day after pill? Same thing. Just a bunch of cells, at time of termination. No heart, no brain, no nervous system, no nothing.

why not experiment with your life?

Because I make a difference between fully developed humans, and humans that only a microbiologist can distinguish from an amoeba. And that is also explained in my examples where all people see a difference between them. Whether they admit it or not.

which requires me to repeat the question: do you think that a one hour old embryo, consisting of just a few cells, and a three years old kid, are subject to the same exact moral considerations? Would you rather kill a three years old girl, if that is the only way to avoid the destruction of 100 petri dishes with human embryos consisting of just a few cells?

ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

Ok, we are getting close. What about one hour old embryos? None of the things you mention are developed, yet. Apart from a sequence of bits, they are de-facto indistinguishable. So, why not terminating?

And what about the day after pill? Same thing. Just a bunch of cells, at time of termination. No heart, no brain, no nervous system, no nothing.

what scientific evidence do you have that it isn't a person?

At what point do you scientifically determine it is a person?

 

[viole]

Eugenics?

I have more respect to life than that.

Your problem is that you use “life” as if the property of possessing “life” would make all the ones with that property equally deserving the same moral treatment. It is obvious it is not the case.

suppose you have a child with a terrible and rare disease. The cure for that disease costs 10,000,000 dollars. You don’t have that. However, a 99 years old also suddenly got that disease, too. He does not have the money, either. The hospital has that money, but no more than that, and it decides to throw a coin, to decide who gets it. Would you agree with the hospital policy? Life is life, right?

on a side note, it was not unusual, during the acute phases of the pandemics, reading vaccine skeptical Christians claiming that this pandemics is no issue. It kills only the old and weak.

So, back to your accusation of eugenics. We, in Scandinavia, actually practice it. Not mandated by state, but since women can choose to abort as they like, they usually do it, even if they want a child, if the embryo has been screened for genetical defects. That is also the reason why places like Iceland are virtually Down syndrome free.

I have no quarrel with that, since i attribute no moral value to organisms without a nervous system, but I sort of understand that people from other cultures might find that morally suboptimal.

But here I am not addressing that, I am addressing the knowledge that if the pregnancy is not interrupted, then the organism will have a very short, hopeless, pointless and painful life. So, i maintain that under these premises, it is a moral imperative to terminate before that pain is felt by a yet to come nervous system. If you do not agree, I would like to know why.

I noticed you didn't add "improve science to make the child whole". Why?
Or ask a mom whose child had a short life and tell her, "you shouldn't have had the baby". I can assure you that historical evidence say they were happy to have the baby even if it was 5 days.
Or tell a mentally handicapped child, "Isn't a shame you weren't aborted?" Or ask him "are you glad you are alive""

As horrible as it may be, let's help those people.

Well, since prayers are useless, I suppose science is the only possibility. Even if that science uses evolution theory, as it is often the case, to cure from some bad diseases

however, science is not God. And some of those problems are intractable. We have not managed to eradicate cancer yet, despite its huge economical impact for anyone finding a cure, that it should not be surprising we have no cure for some of the most terrible and rare genetic diseases an embryo can have.

so, cures for some of those terrible diseases can be decades away, if not centuries. Maybe we could not even find a cure, ever.

So, would you still condemn a woman for choosing her future child to not get through that pointless ordeal?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

what scientific evidence do you have that it isn't a person?

At what point do you scientifically determine it is a person?

I don’t have any. Just heuristics.
I know that two human cells are not a person, while a 9 months old is. So, maybe it is like asking: when is a set of stones a heap of stones?

But I am confident that two cells, not even 1000 cells, are a person.

do you agree? Would you call a two cells human embryo a person, subject therefore to the same moral considerations as a three years old girl?

yes or no? i am not sure i had a clear cut answer to that.

ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

Your problem is that you use “life” as if the property of possessing “life” would make all the ones with that property equally deserving the same moral treatment. It is obvious it is not the case.

I wouldn't say "problem is..." as it remains your personal perspective. For that matter, even your point doesn't seem to address anything other than a thought.

suppose you have a child with a terrible and rare disease. The cure for that disease costs 10,000,000 dollars. You don’t have that. However, a 99 years old also suddenly got that disease, too. He does not have the money, either. The hospital has that money, but no more than that, and it decides to throw a coin, to decide who gets it. Would you agree with the hospital policy? Life is life, right?

What happened with health care for all? Are you all of a sudden against it?

I know you are making a situation to prove a point and this is how I think it would pan out. The 99 year old will say, (much like my mother), I'm old, I'm tired and looking forward to the here-after. And I don't want to put a burden on anyone.

on a side note, it was not unusual, during the acute phases of the pandemics, reading vaccine skeptical Christians claiming that this pandemics is no issue. It kills only the old and weak.

Interesting thought. I am around a BIG amount of Christians and never heard of that. However, I believe I heard that from atheists who were looking to thinning out the herd for the benefit of the green earth.

So, back to your accusation of eugenics. We, in Scandinavia, actually practice it. Not mandated by state, but since women can choose to abort as they like, they usually do it, even if they want a child, if the embryo has been screened for genetical defects. That is also the reason why places like Iceland are virtually Down syndrome free.

Yes... there are different viewpoints. I just don't subscribe to that viewpoint.

I have no quarrel with that, since i attribute no moral value to organisms without a nervous system, but I sort of understand that people from other cultures might find that morally suboptimal.

Yes... there are different viewpoints. I just don't subscribe to that viewpoint.

But here I am not addressing that, I am addressing the knowledge that if the pregnancy is not interrupted, then the organism will have a very short, hopeless, pointless and painful life. So, i maintain that under these premises, it is a moral imperative to terminate before that pain is felt by a yet to come nervous system. If you do not agree, I would like to know why.

First, before I can answer that, how would you know that there is a problem if it is being created at 6 weeks gestation? It almost sounds like your are creating an impossible situation. If there is something as drastic from 0 - 6 weeks, the body will probably let the creation go on its own

Well, since prayers are useless, I suppose science is the only possibility. Even if that science, uses evolution theory, as it is often the case, to cure from some bad diseases

however, science is not God. And some of those problems are intractable. We have not managed to eradicate cancer yet, despite its huge economical impact for anyone finding a cure, that it should not be surprising we have no cure for some of the most terrible and rare genetic diseases an embryo can have.

so, cures for some of those terrible diseases can be decades away, if not centuries. Maybe we could not even find a cure, ever

So, would you still condemn a woman for choosing her future child to not get through that pointless ordeal?

LOL... we find prayer very useful. But science is good too.

So... as I mentioned before are these examples even real? Cancer in a 0 - 3 month baby? And you know this, how?

Question; When do they find a genetic disease?

I don’t have any. Just heuristics.
I know that two human cells are not a person, while a 9 months old is. So, maybe it is like asking: when is a set of stones a heap of stones?

But I am confident that two cells, not even 1000 cells, are a person.

do you agree? Would you call a two cells human embryo a person, subject therefore to the same moral considerations as a three years old girl?

yes or no? i am not sure i had a clear cut answer to that.

ciao

You may be confident but you have no scientific evidence. Again... what scientific evidence do you have that dictates when a zygote becomes a person?

 

[viole]

What happened with health care for all? Are you all of a sudden against it?

I know you are making a situation to prove a point and this is how I think it would pan out. The 99 year old will say, (much like my mother), I'm old, I'm tired and looking forward to the here-after. And I don't want to put a burden on anyone.

That is not my question. Suppose you have no healthcare for anyone. Like in your country, if you are American. And suppose the old man sticks to life as crazy, as many old timers do.

would you still find it acceptable to decide by throwing a coin? If not, why not?

First, before I can answer that, how would you know that there is a problem if it is being created at 6 weeks gestation? It almost sounds like your are creating an impossible situation. If there is something as drastic from 0 - 6 weeks, the body will probably let the creation go on its own

so, does that mean you are ok to terminate before 6 weeks? and where does the 6 weeks come from? most women do not even know to be pregnant by then. We are allowed to abort much later, obviously. 6 weeks max. Is de facto no right to abort.

LOL... we find prayer very useful. But science is good too.

So... as I mentioned before are these examples even real? Cancer in a 0 - 3 month baby? And you know this, how?

Question; When do they find a genetic disease?

Have you a better track record than science in that area? Ever succeeded in separating siamese twins just by praying?

when we can find a genetic disease? I don’t know. For sure before birth, since we have basicallly zero Down syndrome over here, and we are not allowed to terminate after birth.

but again, that is not the issue. In principle, genetic diseases can be found after the first two cells duplicated, since kaputt DNA is faithfully reproduced at every cell splitting.

so, if you can find them after 1 day of gestation, would you agree to abort? If not, why do you care when the genetic disease is found?

related question, I already asked but whose answer might have been lost. Would you also forbid abortion in case of pregnancy caused by rape? Would you force that girl to go through that additional 9 months ordeal, on top of having been violently abused? Really? Would you force your daughter to do that?

ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

That is not my question. Suppose you have no healthcare for anyone. Like in your country, if you are American. And suppose the old man sticks to life as crazy, as many old timers do.

would you still find it acceptable to decide by throwing a coin? If not, why not?




so, does that mean you are ok to terminate before 6 weeks? and where does the 6 weeks come from? most women do not even know to be pregnant by then. We are allowed to abort much later, obviously. 6 weeks max. Is de facto no right to abort.

Have you a better track record than science in that area? Ever succeeded in separating siamese twins just by praying?

when we can find a genetic disease? I don’t know. For sure before birth, since we have basicallly zero Down syndrome over here, and we are not allowed to terminate after birth.

but again, that is not the issue. In principle, genetic diseases can be found after the first two cells duplicated, since kaputt DNA is faithfully reproduced at every cell splitting.

so, if you can find them after 1 day of gestation, would you agree to abort? If not, why do you care when the genetic disease is found?

related question, I already asked but whose answer might have been lost. Would you also forbid abortion in case of pregnancy caused by rape? Would you force that girl to go through that additional 9 months ordeal, on top of having been violently abused? Really? Would you force your daughter to do that?

ciao

- viole

Viole,

The problem with your whole line of thinking (IMV) is the following:

1) First, try to create a scenario, any scenario, to make it OK to have an abortion.
2) Try to make it emotional enough where decisions are made based on emotions instead of logic (like making it MY daughter) - My sister had a child at 14 impregnated by an adult so you really don't have to go there.
3) Once we find one case that abortion would be OK, then simply say "all abortions should therefore be OK" which it doesn't translate to.

So you make up stories that are, quite frankly, illogical such as;

An old man who has a disease like a child. There is enough money to fix only one (so we minus universal care, we subtract the fact that a 99 year old probably wouldn't want to do anything much like my mother, and then you must just "throw a coin"). No logic

Then you throw in a conjoined twin (as if I was anti-science). So let me just throw it back into your lap. We know that cancer treatments aren't successful but we do it anyway because if it does work sometimes, it is better than not. We have two people which received a 3-6 months life sentence(one with an inoperable tumor and one with cancer).

Prayer went forth and both were healed and the doctors said "it was a miracle".

Do I throw out prayer just because it didn't work in some cases? If yes, do we throw out cancer treatments just because it didn't work in some cases?

I notice you have no idea when a baby becomes a person but you want to abort the person. Why?
You don't know when you can see when there is Down Syndrome. But because you don't have to deal with it (you just abort it) you don't care how old the baby was in the womb. Why not just kill a one year old Down Syndrome child so that it doesn't suffer too long?

So by just "in principle" you would approve of all babies being aborted because 1 in 700 can be born with it.

OK.. I get it. I just don't support it. (We support a ministry with people that have Down Syndrome. They are happy, joyous and filled with love.)

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
How does a foetus or a baby "change its ways" exactly, in the Noah flood myth, the biblical deity would have killed countless pregnant women indiscriminately aborting the pregnancies, and of course murdering countless babies and children as well. Luckily it is a myth, and no such global flood has ever occurred, but it still ironic that people who oppose abortion, cite the bible as a sound metric for morality.

When are you claiming a deity did this? Only the universe is 13.8 billion years old, whereas our solar system is 4.571 billion years, and humans in their current form evolved a mere 200k years ago. Now perhaps you deny those facts, but I cannot ignore the objective facts in favour of unevidenced claims. So can you explain the disparity between your claim and the facts, with anything beyond subjective belief?

If you call it a myth then there’s no point of discussion with you. Goodbye.

You have a poor grasp of debate if you believe that, and I doubt you know what myth means as well, but goodbye anyway, since it appears you have no credible answer, given you ignored my post entirely to focus on a single word you disagree with, but can't debate. One wonders why you you respond to a post in a debate forum?

 

[Sheldon]

People were called to joint Noah, and people didn't pay any attention, those people died.

End of the story.

Story being the operative word, but a pretty barbaric global genocidal story, that's the point you seem to be missing.

 

[Sheldon]

I agree 100% with that

Hardly a surprise, since you appear to be here to preach and not debate.

However, I will do you the courtesy you don't seem to want to extend to others, and ask you if you can explain how the Noah narrative is not a myth?

noun
1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
2, a widely held but false belief or idea.

 

[Sheldon]

Your point was that God in purpose caused the dead of unborn children with the flood.

Your point is invalid since people received a 120 years warning.

How does an insentient foetus do this?

 

[Sheldon]

The unborn received a 120 years warning? How long were gestation periods then?

The mother...

Of all non-sequiturs?

 

[Sheldon]

Jointing Noah sounds awfully painful for Noah. Have you ever jointed a chicken?

I have, and I have to say part of me feels bad for the chickens, since they were once real, unlike Noah who appears to be entirely fictional. Finger licking fictional....

 

[Sheldon]

That is what the Bible asserts as fact, yes? All those people were corrupt.
Do you have an argument that modern day fetuses are corrupt?

Most terminations involve a blastocyst or zygote, little more than a clump of cells. However I think the point is that the Noah flood myth would have cause abortions on a global scale, yet somehow they are now immoral?

 

[Sheldon]

The heart of your argument is that you can't imagine that the unborn of Noah's time were also corrupt. Really you just don't accept what the Bible has clearly stated: they were all corrupt.

Since it is an unevidenced myth, probably plagiarised from an earlier Babylonian flood myth, and the archaeological evidence demonstrate unequivocally that no global flood has occurred, then no I don't accept any aspect of the Noah flood myth, and I also find it hypocritical for people to claim abortion is immoral, while defending it on a global scale - even hypothetically.

 

[Sheldon]

By what I know, many who lose baby that they wanted get upset.

A miscarriage is not even remotely the same a s termination, and I challenge you to find anyone saying it isn't emotionally upsetting. You seem to be making up straw men.

But, I can believe you would not.

Who cares what you subjectively believe?

It is interesting that pro death group don't seem to understand that all arguments they use against the young children could be used as well against them.

Abortions involve an insentient balstocyst and zygote and less often an insentient foetus, it does not involve a child. Something the anti-choicers who want to enslave women don't seem able to grasp.

 

[Sheldon]

Do I throw out prayer just because it didn't work in some cases? If yes, do we throw out cancer treatments just because it didn't work in some cases?

Oncological treatments are evidence based, and are used because they have a demonstrable chance of successes, prayer has never been demonstrated as effective beyond post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, and when prayer has been objectively tested, it has been demonstrated to have no discernible effect.

The comparison is risible, do we throw out voodoo or astrology because it didn't work in some cases, how about witch doctors, how many corpses do they get to pile up before we become sceptical?