• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I notice you have no idea when a baby becomes a person but you want to abort the person. Why?
Not wanting to enslave a woman, by taking away her bodily autonomy is not the same as wanting an abortion. Also abortions do not involve babies or people, most often they involve a clump of insentient cells, called a balstocyst or zygote. This is what that looks like:
Zygote1.jpg


So not a child or a baby, and not something one would reasonably want to grant rights to that caused a sentient woman to suffer in any way. You can pretend it is in there writing poetry if you want, but facts are facts.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
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.)


Once they are born, and no one is suggesting they are not happy, or content, this is irrelevant to a woman seeking a termination, for any reason. It is about bodily autonomy and suffering that a pregnant woman can suffer if you enslave her by taking this away, and not about what might happen, to an insentient clump of cells that is part of her body.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
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?
That is your viewpoint. Billions disagree.

The trials of "objective prayer" hasn't convinced me they actually knew how to set parameters.

Those who have witnessed the power of prayer would also disagree with you.

Are you not happy that prayer worked?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Not wanting to enslave a woman, by taking away her bodily autonomy is not the same as wanting an abortion. Also abortions do not involve babies or people, most often they involve a clump of insentient cells, called a balstocyst or zygote. This is what that looks like:
Zygote1.jpg


So not a child or a baby, and not something one would reasonably want to grant rights to that caused a sentient woman to suffer in any way. You can pretend it is in there writing poetry if you want, but facts are facts.
Again, since you missed it (probably)

Different heartbeat, different brain waves, different blood type, different finger prints = different person. They also have autonomy. IMV
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Once they are born, and no one is suggesting they are not happy, or content, this is irrelevant to a woman seeking a termination, for any reason. It is about bodily autonomy and suffering that a pregnant woman can suffer if you enslave her by taking this away, and not about what might happen, to an insentient clump of cells that is part of her body.
Yes, I understand you are pro-abortion. I just view life differently. maybe the difference is in the "theistic" vs "non-theistic" belief systems?
 
Last edited:

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Not wanting to enslave a woman, by taking away her bodily autonomy is not the same as wanting an abortion. Also abortions do not involve babies or people, most often they involve a clump of insentient cells, called a balstocyst or zygote. This is what that looks like:
Zygote1.jpg


So not a child or a baby, and not something one would reasonably want to grant rights to that caused a sentient woman to suffer in any way. You can pretend it is in there writing poetry if you want, but facts are facts.

Aw, he looks just like his mom!
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
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.
Not at all. I am just asking simple questions, under the assumption that you will never accept general abortion. I know that. I am not challenging that. What I am challenging the strange idea that having (human) life, automatically entails that all moral considerations are equally applicable. I challenge that, but I should not need to, since it is obvious it is not the case, even if we do not admit it. The fact that you seem reluctant to answer them, despite my questions being very easy, is just evidence of that.

So, again:

1) Would you accept early termination (before a nervous system has developed) if the embryo has been screened with a very serious genetic problem that will cause it to live a very short and painful life, possibly as a demented human with very reduced brain matter? These cases happen, so I am not asking the impossible.

2) Would you accept termination of an embryo caused by rape? Or would you rather force the victim of the rape to go through that 9. months ordeal, on top of the violence she suffered?

Your opinion.

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?
Well, isn't it strange that God responds to prayers mainly for issues of internal medicine? You know, cancers and such? Very well hidden from view?
While He seems very reluctant to answer to prayers in case of serious issues, but not hidden from view? Like a genetic disease. Being born without arms. Eyes. You name it.

Why is that? Does God hate amputees, or people with tragic genetic diseases, while He seems more prone to help cancer patients?

So, let us be rational about it. What is more likely: that God cures only diseases that are sort of hidden to us, internal medicine, like cancer, or other diseases that are, at least in principle, reversible, while ignoring all patients with other serious and irreversible problems .... or that those diseases, like cancer, sometimes go into remissions, for reasons that we do not yet, (or could even been misdiagnosed) since many things are still unknown to science?

And by the way, my Muslim and Hindu friends have similar stories. Apparently, praying to Allah and to Shiva seems to provide the same response (to the same category of diseases, of course, no God seems to perform better than the other in this area). Do you you think they are lying, or they are simply mistaken, deluded? Or do maybe those deities also perform such "miracles"?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Sheldon said:
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?
That is your viewpoint.

No that is disingenuous, there is sufficient objective evidence that oncological treatments work. No one has been able to demonstrate any objective evidence for prayer, let alone anything comparable to the medical evidence for oncological treatments. The research that demonstrate intercessory prayer had no discernible effect is well known, it was a double blind test on post op heart patients. None of that is just my opinion.

Billions disagree.

With objective evidence, yes, though you seem to think this lends some credence to their denials, which is bizarre, and it is an argumentum ad populm fallacy as well of course.

The trials of "objective prayer" hasn't convinced me they actually knew how to set parameters.

Well it wouldn't would it, that's now how superstitious beliefs work, though I'd bet my house that if the double blind clinical trials had demonstrate intercessory prayer had an effect you'd have accepted it immediately, that just demonstrates selection bias, which of course is what theists use when they claim prayers work, they only cite the results when they match the prayer, then when they fail, god is simply mysterious.

Those who have witnessed the power of prayer would also disagree with you.

So what, they can't demonstrate any objective evidence for their belief, and when tested in properly conducted double blind trials, it was demonstrated to have no discernible effect. In Lourdes, the odds on spontaneous remission from cancers are lower than in those who don't go there and pray, what does that infer?

"Out of a set of 10 million cancer victims, we should normally expect between 10 and 100 cases of spontaneous remission of the disease, statistically speaking.

However, only 5 cases of "cancer miracles" are reported from Lourdes, making the healing powers of Lourdes statistically insignificant over pure chance."

Selection bias is what is being demonstrated here again.

Are you not happy that prayer worked?

I don't believe prayer works, so that's a rather odd question, I thought that was clear enough from my posts?
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Again, since you missed it (probably)

Different heartbeat, different brain waves, different blood type, different finger prints = different person. They also have autonomy. IMV

Topologically connected, uses the woman's immune system, uses the woman's metabolism, uses the nutrients in the woman's blood, uses the oxygen in the woman's blood etc etc etc

I also just posted an image of a blastocyst, and it has no heart or fingers, you seem to have just ignore this. The idea a balstocyst or zygote has autonomy is too ludicrous to fathom? Also the foetus remains insentient and topologically connected to a woman's body until birth, so again it is a ludicrous claim that they are autonomous individuals, and heart beat and finger prints would not change this.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Yes, I understand you are pro-abortion. I just view life differently. maybe the difference is in the "theistic" vs "non-theistic" belief systems?


I am not pro abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I am against enslaving women by removing their bodily autonomy. While there is little doubt theists hold a different world view to those who are atheistic, I always say that if anyone does not want an abortion they don't have to have one, or help anyone else have one, it's just a shame many people who hold such views, won't reciprocate, and let a woman choose for herself, as they may choose for themselves.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Abortion is not natural. It is a manmade or synthetic procedure. If we take way science, the tools of the doctor and the money of the bean counters, abortion would become very limited.

Abortion does not grow on trees. It is a choice to act in a way that is not natural, but rather needs synthetic help based on a range of free market goods and services.

There is a certain level of hypocrisy in the sense many who wish abortion to remain unfettered, also want green energy and the preservation of nature. They wish to go natural, but not all the way. At times they also wish to treat natural like it is a curse and violation of their right to be unnatural and synthetic.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Not at all. I am just asking simple questions, under the assumption that you will never accept general abortion. I know that. I am not challenging that. What I am challenging the strange idea that having (human) life, automatically entails that all moral considerations are equally applicable. I challenge that, but I should not need to, since it is obvious it is not the case, even if we do not admit it. The fact that you seem reluctant to answer them, despite my questions being very easy, is just evidence of that.

As I pointed out, it is because of the absurdity of your propositions.

As far as "never", let's use a more realistic proposition. A woman has a fallopian tube pregnancy with where both baby and mother will loose their lives. Removing the child would become necessary.

So, again:

1) Would you accept early termination (before a nervous system has developed) if the embryo has been screened with a very serious genetic problem that will cause it to live a very short and painful life, possibly as a demented human with very reduced brain matter? These cases happen, so I am not asking the impossible.

Again... ridiculous proposition and impossible to answer. An embryo would not be screened for genetic problems at that stage.

Not that I wouldn't answer it, it CAN'T be answered. Big difference.

Prenatal screening starts at 10 weeks - 4 weeks after the nervous system has developed.

2) Would you accept termination of an embryo caused by rape? Or would you rather force the victim of the rape to go through that 9. months ordeal, on top of the violence she suffered?

Why do you think it would be an "ordeal"? Why do you use the word "force"? Or do you support the manipulation of emotions to "manipulate" a person into an abortion! In essence "forcing" them by manipulation as it has been shown so many times?

Ever thought of lovingly support your family member through a horrible ordeal and providing a home for the new person about to be born as so many people have already shown as feasible and possible and produced people of impact and influence.



Your opinion.

Well, isn't it strange that God responds to prayers mainly for issues of internal medicine? You know, cancers and such? Very well hidden from view?
While He seems very reluctant to answer to prayers in case of serious issues, but not hidden from view? Like a genetic disease. Being born without arms. Eyes. You name it.

You need to widen your circle and also read the scriptures. My friend Candi was born without an eardrum, ear or earhole as per X-rays. On an evening where an evangelist prayed for her had a new eardrum as confirmed by the doctors.

Perhaps not as much as He would like because people come to God like you demonstrate? How many people get a gold medal by saying "It will never happen" like you are sharing?

When we were in Lakeland, my friend and I prayed for a young man whose leg was shorter than the other. As we prayed we felt muscles undulate and watched the leg grow until it was the same size as the other. You may not believe it but the young man and ourselves believe it.

So, let us be rational about it. What is more likely: that God cures only diseases that are sort of hidden to us, internal medicine, like cancer, or other diseases that are, at least in principle, reversible, while ignoring all patients with other serious and irreversible problems .... or that those diseases, like cancer, sometimes go into remissions, for reasons that we do not yet, (or could even been misdiagnosed) since many things are still unknown to science?

And by the way, my Muslim and Hindu friends have similar stories. Apparently, praying to Allah and to Shiva seems to provide the same response (to the same category of diseases, of course, no God seems to perform better than the other in this area). Do you you think they are lying, or they are simply mistaken, deluded? Or do maybe those deities also perform such "miracles"?

Is this a strawman? Are you trying to move the goal post? Do you have a real desire to know or are you simply providing all the excuses that are so often shared by those who don't want to believe.

You remind me of the parable by Jesus:

16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.


The good food is for everyone but not everyone is thirsty or hungry enough to come.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
As I pointed out, it is because of the absurdity of your propositions.

As far as "never", let's use a more realistic proposition. A woman has a fallopian tube pregnancy with where both baby and mother will loose their lives. Removing the child would become necessary.

Absurd arises when we have a logical contradiction. I am not aware of being guilty of that, unless you point men where I have been,

Of course, it is possible to answer. There is no barrier against being able to answer to counterfactual questions. For instance, if you ask me: would you kill Hitler when he was 3, if you your could travel back in time? then I would give you an answer. I would not conveniently hide behind the counterfactual state of affair that we cannot travel back in time.

And prenatal screening is vastly more possible than travel in time. The fact that we do not screen that early, does not entail that we will not be able to do that in the future. After all, genetic issues are necessarily present from the start.

So, what would be your answer if that was possible after one week of gestation?

And if you insist to not answer, let me ask you: even if we can only screen for those horrible diseases after 12 weeks, would you still insist in letting the pregnancy to finish, and the child to die after a few months of suffering?


Why do you think it would be an "ordeal"? Why do you use the word "force"? Or do you support the manipulation of emotions to "manipulate" a person into an abortion! In essence "forcing" them by manipulation as it has been shown so many times?

Ever thought of lovingly support your family member through a horrible ordeal and providing a home for the new person about to be born as so many people have already shown as feasible and possible and produced people of impact and influence.
I don't know what you mean. I am pro choice. She can do whatever she wants. But you are pro life, and probably would support a law that bans abortion. Then she will be forced to carry the pregnancy, or else go to prison on account of murder. Or sit on an electrical chair, after delivery of course, like you do over there.

Why I would think it would be an ordeal? Are you a woman? I am, so I can tell you with a lot of confidence that carrying a pregnancy is not easy business at all. You have no idea of the physical, psychological stress involved. Someone said here that if men became pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than Starbucks. I could not agree more. You have no idea what it means to carry a child.

Ever thought of lovingly support your family member through a horrible ordeal and providing a home for the new person about to be born as so many people have already shown as feasible and possible and produced people of impact and influence.
Aww. the loving family! What about if you have no loving family? Or it is poor, and cannot help you sustaining you when your employee fired you for carrying the pregnancy of your rapist's foetus?

You are white middle class, right? Are you aware that there are people who are not in your favourable social position?

What if you are 13, or younger, like that 9 year old child who aborted the embryo of her rapist? Would you also condemn that, like the Catholic Church, which excommunicated the doctors performing the abortion?

And if you do, like the Catholics did, what prevents us from claiming that Christianity is just pure evil, a wolf wearing sheep clothes, and should be therefore ruthlessly eradicated from the face of the earth?

So, we have a 9 year old child carrying a pregnancy on account of rape. Would you allow aborting that, or not? Simple real case.

You need to widen your circle and also read the scriptures. My friend Candi was born without an eardrum, ear or earhole as per X-rays. On an evening where an evangelist prayed for her had a new eardrum as confirmed by the doctors.

Perhaps not as much as He would like because people come to God like you demonstrate? How many people get a gold medal by saying "It will never happen" like you are sharing?

When we were in Lakeland, my friend and I prayed for a young man whose leg was shorter than the other. As we prayed we felt muscles undulate and watched the leg grow until it was the same size as the other. You may not believe it but the young man and ourselves believe it.
Without an eardrum? LOL. that is also quite hidden, isn't it?

And your friend has been lucky with that shorter leg thing. I have a friend who had a similar problem, prayed to have legs of the same length, just to get the longer leg get as short as the other. Now he looks like a midget. Real story, believe me.

You have to be precise with God. He cannot read your mind. If He could, you would not need to pray, would you? :)

Fact is: we have no record of macroscopic miracles. Like growing a new leg. A new arm. Or undo Down Syndrome, or similar genetic issues.

Why is that? Does God hate people with Down syndrome, Siamese twins and amputees?

Is this a strawman? Are you trying to move the goal post? Do you have a real desire to know or are you simply providing all the excuses that are so often shared by those who don't want to believe.

You remind me of the parable by Jesus:

16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.


The good food is for everyone but not everyone is thirsty or hungry enough to come.
Oh dear, you are using Jesus to make a point for Christianity. Great. I am sure my Muslim friend is also able to quote Mohammed to make a point about Islam.
So, unless you are into circular reasoning, I see no rational point in using the tenets of your religion to defend your particular version of God. Especially to a rational skeptic that considers claims about the God of the Bible as credible as claims about Pinocchio.

Fact is: Jesus competitors, for instance Allah and Shiva, have also an amazing record of miracles, answers to prayers and all. My Indian friend stops 5 times on the way to the office to pray to some divinity altars placed on the highway, every day, and he tells me it works. Every time. Whatever he asks, it is answered. It is quite annoying actually when I am on business trip in India, since we always get late at meeting because if that. So, I asked him to pray one of the divinities on the way to get punctual at meetings, and I have to admit that it works, lol.

Now, I have two alternatives. Either I rationally conclude that you are all equally deluded about this miracle thing, or you show me some evidence that Jesus miracles are true, while Allah/Shiva are not. Not to speak of all supernatural events that basically belong to the thousands of religious beliefs in the history of humanity.

Your call

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Those who want to ban abortions are in the minority in the USA. Trying to persuade them that they're wrong is a waste of time. The correctable problem is that, in the USA, the Supreme Court, as it stands, allows the minority to obstruct the will of the majority. Democracies can't allow that. I think we should be focused on that problem.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Again, since you missed it (probably)

Different heartbeat, different brain waves, different blood type, different finger prints = different person. They also have autonomy. IMV
Is that applicable also when they are one hour old?

Caio

- viole
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Absurd arises when we have a logical contradiction. I am not aware of being guilty of that, unless you point men where I have been,

Of course, it is possible to answer. There is no barrier against being able to answer to counterfactual questions. For instance, if you ask me: would you kill Hitler when he was 3, if you your could travel back in time? then I would give you an answer. I would not conveniently hide behind the counterfactual state of affair that we cannot travel back in time.

And prenatal screening is vastly more possible than travel in time. The fact that we do not screen that early, does not entail that we will not be able to do that in the future. After all, genetic issues are necessarily present from the start.

So, what would be your answer if that was possible after one week of gestation?

And if you insist to not answer, let me ask you: even if we can only screen for those horrible diseases after 12 weeks, would you still insist in letting the pregnancy to finish, and the child to die after a few months of suffering?

Using your progression... :) If we can pre-screen that early we will also have the capacity to fix the genes.

:) -- so let's save the children. :)

I don't know what you mean. I am pro choice. She can do whatever she wants. But you are pro life, and probably would support a law that bans abortion. Then she will be forced to carry the pregnancy, or else go to prison on account of murder. Or sit on an electrical chair, after delivery of course, like you do over there.

Why I would think it would be an ordeal? Are you a woman? I am, so I can tell you with a lot of confidence that carrying a pregnancy is not easy business at all. You have no idea of the physical, psychological stress involved. Someone said here that if men became pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than Starbucks. I could not agree more. You have no idea what it means to carry a child.

Is there an argument here?

Do you think I don't have a wife or sisters who can share? Do you think my perspective is a "male only" perspective?

Aww. the loving family! What about if you have no loving family? Or it is poor, and cannot help you sustaining you when your employee fired you for carrying the pregnancy of your rapist's foetus?

You are white middle class, right? Are you aware that there are people who are not in your favourable social position?

What if you are 13, or younger, like that 9 year old child who aborted the embryo of her rapist? Would you also condemn that, like the Catholic Church, which excommunicated the doctors performing the abortion?

And if you do, like the Catholics did, what prevents us from claiming that Christianity is just pure evil, a wolf wearing sheep clothes, and should be therefore ruthlessly eradicated from the face of the earth?

So, we have a 9 year old child carrying a pregnancy on account of rape. Would you allow aborting that, or not? Simple real case.

Hmmmm... when I had children, I was poor... you know, food stamps, WIC coupons, eggs, eggs more eggs and salisbury steaks. Next?

What is the youngest person to have a baby?

Without an eardrum? LOL. that is also quite hidden, isn't it?

And your friend has been lucky with that shorter leg thing. I have a friend who had a similar problem, prayed to have legs of the same length, just to get the longer leg get as short as the other. Now he looks like a midget. Real story, believe me.

You have to be precise with God. He cannot read your mind. If He could, you would not need to pray, would you? :)

Fact is: we have no record of macroscopic miracles. Like growing a new leg. A new arm. Or undo Down Syndrome, or similar genetic issues.

Why is that? Does God hate people with Down syndrome, Siamese twins and amputees?

LOL not hidden when you have an Xray to show it.

Using your standard, don't treat cancer with radiation... I know someone who died after using it.

You are REALLY digging yourself in a deep hole :)

And we do have records... you just come up with great stories how it can't be true :)

maybe you should try googling. :)

Oh dear, you are using Jesus to make a point for Christianity. Great. I am sure my Muslim friend is also able to quote Mohammed to make a point about Islam.
So, unless you are into circular reasoning, I see no rational point in using the tenets of your religion to defend your particular version of God. Especially to a rational skeptic that considers claims about the God of the Bible as credible as claims about Pinocchio.

Hmmm.. so you denying of a God isn't circular?

:D oh, wait a minute "rational skeptic that considers claims about the God of the Bible as credible as claims about Pinocchio." is so scientific :facepalm:

Listen, you don't have to believe in my God, someone else's God or many gods. You are a free-will spiritual agent and I support your right to not believe. But you haven't given me any scientific proof there isn't one and my relationship with God is too real for you to convince me I'm wrong.

Adios
:)
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
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?

A proper consideration of morality doesn't ignore context.

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.

That's a reasoned argument, but it doesn't resolve the question of how people today can or should judge the unborn.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Is that applicable also when they are one hour old?

Caio

- viole
point? I thought you were the one who suggested it was a matter of time before we could detect gene problems before the nervous system was created.

Does the DNA already have the information of heartbeat, brainwaves, fingerprints, at one hour old?
 
Top