• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Mammals continually develop and become more and more "aware" even after birth, and any starting point for being "alive" is arbitrary.

Abortion is the murdering of a human life, but it should not be illegal.
Just like killing someone in self-defense is legal under most circumstances.

Although, if abortion ever does get fully considered as "legal murder", I think we should also be able to kill off our children before they become adults.
As long as both parents agree, why not?
If there is an afterlife, the kid will get there faster. If there isn't, then life is meaningless anyway, and nothing matters at all.

We "murder" non-humans all the time. (And even eat some of them) and it's totally legal.
What makes humans so special?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Because humans have souls that's what makes them special. We are superior to animals and to compare humans to animals isn't even right.
 

DeletedUser34

Because humans have souls that's what makes them special. We are superior to animals and to compare humans to animals isn't even right.
Just out of curiosity... Have you ever asked an animal if they have a soul? Or better yet asked a dead person if there are animals in heaven?

Biblically speaking I am pretty sure animals are in heaven, which begs the question, can embryos and infants have the same "soul" until the age of accountability?
 

DeletedUser

Unfortunately, debate on this issue will always be emotive. Pro life stance is a foetus must be allowed to go full term no matter what the circumstances, whether the mother's health is at risk (physically or mentally), or for any other reason and assumes life begins at conception. This belief is more to do with spiritual stance than a medical truism. The spirituality/sacred issue clouds judgement and doesn't allow for rational thinking about the consequences to those involved. Using the term murder is nonsense and inapplicable here, it's sensationalist and inappropriate and doesn't stand in law.
 

DeletedUser

... Using the term murder is nonsense and inapplicable here ...

You know... now that I've actually gone and read the definition of "murder", I'm going to have to agree with you.
"Murder" implies that it's a killing that is unlawful.

The word I should have been using is "homicide".

So.. Abortion would be an excusable homicide, and not premeditated murder, in my humble opinion.

It's important that the mother knows that she killed her child, so she'll avoid doing it again.
But we're not going to put her in jail for doing it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Mammals continually develop and become more and more "aware" even after birth, and any starting point for being "alive" is arbitrary.

Abortion is the murdering of a human life, but it should not be illegal.
Just like killing someone in self-defense is legal under most circumstances.

Although, if abortion ever does get fully considered as "legal murder", I think we should also be able to kill off our children before they become adults.
As long as both parents agree, why not?
If there is an afterlife, the kid will get there faster. If there isn't, then life is meaningless anyway, and nothing matters at all.

We "murder" non-humans all the time. (And even eat some of them) and it's totally legal.
What makes humans so special?You know...

Do you have any Fact based anything to back this up? This just sounds like something you grabbed out of the air. Mammals by it's very definition are air-breathing vertebrate animals characterized by the possession of endothermy, hair, three middle ear bones and mammary glands. But that's not the worst of it... Even with a thorough explanation of what life is, as I presented in an earlier post, you go on to compare an Abortion with killing your teenagers. While I have Teens and tweens and I'm not completely disagreeing here, the comparison is ridiculous. Please include some fact with your continued argument. It's the same thing I've been telling Liberty, you can't use murder, murder and murder again and again and not have any resemblance or shred of fact to back it up. And the bible is not fact or proof, you two.

Have fun.:laugh:
 

DeletedUser

Ahhh.... the abortion quagmire. Is there a soul present at conception? If so which one of identical twins(or clones) gets to keep it? Can you be pro-life if you don't give blood? Should there be a law requiring kidney donation? Nah, hording kidneys is passive and abortion is active... but is gestation and labor passive? If you're the religeous type then do you believe that both abortion and letting someone die of kidney failure are violations of the greatest commandment as prescribed by Christ? What do we do with all of those frozen embryo by-products of fertility clinics (snowflake babies)? If you're pro-life with rape, incest, and health of mom clauses, how do you practically legislate that (is there a burden of proof on the patient)? Who wants to pay for the life support costs of all the full term non-viable babies after the cord is cut? Would you let an abortion specialist baby sit your kids? Is it fair that Michael Vick's judge is an avid deer hunter? I digress...
 

DeletedUser2259

Meh, pro-life and pro-choice are overrated, kinda like fascism and communism. Allowing abortion for any reason at any stage during the pregnancy would be just as silly as banning abortion under all circumstances. (Gift from God, anyone?)

What distinguishes human beings, special and sacred, from all other animals is our brain capacity. The brain doesn't begin to form in a foetus until the fifth week, and doesn't reach full infant size until late in the pregnancy... roughly aligns with Roe vs Wade's increasing level of protection for the child as its mental capacity increases from that of a pea to a Japanese monkey.

Woo, moderate.

Faith does.
 

DeletedUser3

Faith does.
Ah perfect, I have no faith... so does that mean I'm not special and sacred? If your argument is that because we identify "faith" within other human beings, but do not have the "capacity" to identify "faith" within other animals, they must therefore not have faith, then you're falling on a fallacious argument.

You simply don't know if other animals (man is an animal too), some or even all, have faith. In fact, you don't even know if you have faith. No man on Earth knows. Faith is the belief in something, without question. Well, everyone has questions, has doubts, and we do not even "know" if there is something to believe in... therefore it could very well be delusion, not faith.

So, is your argument then that man has the capacity to be deluded and, if so, does that make him special and sacred? And we come back to other animals. Can some of them likewise be deluded? We are then tasked to examine the word, delusion, and we come to the hardship that delusion is either self-imposed or imposed by others. In this, we find the general tenet of faith is that a group of people agree to believe. It is then a cooperative process, and if there is nothing there to believe, it becomes a cooperative delusion.

Seeing as there are a multitude of religions, and of course not all of them can be right, particularly since many claim the others are not right, most (if not all) must be participating in a cooperative delusion. Right, a bit astray here, but the point is the definition of faith is self-imparted. I.e., "I am a person of faith."

And we return to, "and how do you know other animals do not likewise self-impart faith to their existence?"

And finally, we get to the real grit. Why do you think "anything" is special and sacred? We're all just a bunch of atomic particles intersecting and interconnecting to create a mass of ridiculous self-importance. *wink*
 

DeletedUser

I think he was suggesting that his particular brand of faith separates humans from animals. I think. Perhaps he is Christian and believes that the son of a carpenter proclaimed a mathematically perfect moral code was equal to loving the All Mighty with all of your being. Maybe, he finds it remarkable that he did this in the face of a mountain of contradictory bronze age scripture and at a time when slavery existed everywhere in the world that a ratio of population to resources allowed. Perhaps he sees how slavery has now been abolished worldwide in the spirit of that moral code and it adds to his belief.
Then he looks at nature and sees how it appears to function on a survival of the fittest principle, and he contrasts it with the society that has been fostered by Chritianity, so he derives that animals are godless.

It appears that Cro Magnon has advanced from hunting and gathering to particle colliding in a relatively short time on the evolutionary clock. I know it can't be quantified and graphed, but if it could I don't think it would fit a Fibonacci series. Whether it was caused by divine touch, alien virus, or mutated dna from a primate's sunburnt gonads, mankind's collective intellect has been expanding parabolically since at least as far back as the advent of agriculture. I wonder how advanced we will be in 100 years.... 1000 years? Just speculating makes me hungry for a hamburger. But an abortion burger!?! No thanks.

I think my cheese and horsehoes are ready. Sorry for rambling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser2259

I think he was suggesting that his particular brand of faith separates humans from animals. I think. Perhaps he is Christian and believes that the son of a carpenter proclaimed a mathematically perfect moral code was equal to loving the All Mighty with all of your being. Maybe, he finds it remarkable that he did this in the face of a mountain of contradictory bronze age scripture and at a time when slavery existed everywhere in the world that a ratio of population to resources allowed. Perhaps he sees how slavery has now been abolished worldwide in the spirit of that moral code and it adds to his belief.
Then he looks at nature and sees how it appears to function on a survival of the fittest principle, and he contrasts it with the society that has been fostered by Chritianity, so he derives that animals are godless.

It appears that Cro Magnon has advanced from hunting and gathering to particle colliding in a relatively short time on the evolutionary clock. I know it can't be quantified and graphed, but if it could I don't think it would fit a Fibonacci series. Whether it was caused by divine touch, alien virus, or mutated dna from a primate's sunburnt gonads, mankind's collective intellect has been expanding parabolically since at least as far back as the advent of agriculture. I wonder how advanced we will be in 100 years.... 1000 years? Just speculating makes me hungry for a hamburger. But an abortion burger!?! No thanks.

I think my cheese and horsehoes are ready. Sorry for rambling.

Ah perfect, I have no faith... so does that mean I'm not special and sacred? If your argument is that because we identify "faith" within other human beings, but do not have the "capacity" to identify "faith" within other animals, they must therefore not have faith, then you're falling on a fallacious argument.

You simply don't know if other animals (man is an animal too), some or even all, have faith. In fact, you don't even know if you have faith. No man on Earth knows. Faith is the belief in something, without question. Well, everyone has questions, has doubts, and we do not even "know" if there is something to believe in... therefore it could very well be delusion, not faith.

So, is your argument then that man has the capacity to be deluded and, if so, does that make him special and sacred? And we come back to other animals. Can some of them likewise be deluded? We are then tasked to examine the word, delusion, and we come to the hardship that delusion is either self-imposed or imposed by others. In this, we find the general tenet of faith is that a group of people agree to believe. It is then a cooperative process, and if there is nothing there to believe, it becomes a cooperative delusion.

Seeing as there are a multitude of religions, and of course not all of them can be right, particularly since many claim the others are not right, most (if not all) must be participating in a cooperative delusion. Right, a bit astray here, but the point is the definition of faith is self-imparted. I.e., "I am a person of faith."

And we return to, "and how do you know other animals do not likewise self-impart faith to their existence?"

And finally, we get to the real grit. Why do you think "anything" is special and sacred? We're all just a bunch of atomic particles intersecting and interconnecting to create a mass of ridiculous self-importance. *wink*


What I meant was that the belief in something greater than myself sets me aside from other animals.
It’s not my particular brand of faith.
In this several page mountain of babbling I said 2 words. “Faith does”.
Look at all that you guys assumed from those words and the immediate reaction proclaiming (“essentially”, please spare us all the variations of wordage showing me wrong because I know what the definition of “is”, is.) that my faith is not valid.
That kind of very human reaction is also part of what sets us apart from other animals.
We have the capacity to believe and love unconditionally even something that we don’t fully understand and cannot hope to approach and we also have the capacity to hate equally. The choice is always ours. In the case of the subject at hand we too choose, but we do so as a human community. Some of us believe in one thing and others differently. None of us is perfect or better.
Faith does not in any way make one special or perfect. To the very contrary, as a person of faith I am very much aware of my imperfections.
Faith gives me a sense of center. A balance in my life. Something to strive for.
We have all ben slaves at one time or another. Even people of faith.

Wanna know the truth. Look in the eyes of a child.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I stand corrected. Hellstromm was right about your use of the term "faith". Unless, you define faith it has little meaning. For example, many people of the Hindu faith believe certain animals are sacred. If you're using it to refer to any belief in a salvation then your argument does not stand. I appologize for my conjecturing in an attempt to reconcile your vague use of the term with the only religion that I am significantly familiar with.

I stand by my assertions that "true" Christianity has fostered the progression of mankind more than any other institution past or present, and that animals are not Christians by virtue of their behavior. Sure they demonstrate recipriocity, collaboration, and sentiment. But only in a self serving manner, rarely advancing up Maslow's hierarchy as they constantly give in to their natural urges at the expense of their fellow species. I realize that I am using my own judgment on this matter, but like faith, judgment (subjective reasoning) is only necessary in the abscence of that which is finite. If this hypothetical elaboration on your vague and unconvincing statement comes across as "babbling", well that's on you. This is after all a "debate", and your personal testimony adds little if any value.

Also, I'm going to go ahead and speculate that your definition of slavery is very different from mine, and it would probably make many people angry.
 

DeletedUser34

I stand corrected. Hellstromm was right about your use of the term "faith". Unless, you define faith it has little meaning. For example, many people of the Hindu faith believe certain animals are sacred. If you're using it to refer to any belief in a salvation then your argument does not stand. I appologize for my conjecturing in an attempt to reconcile your vague use of the term with the only religion that I am significantly familiar with.

I stand by my assertions that "true" Christianity has fostered the progression of mankind more than any other institution past or present, and that animals are not Christians by virtue of their behavior. Sure they demonstrate recipriocity, collaboration, and sentiment. But only in a self serving manner, rarely advancing up Maslow's hierarchy as they constantly give in to their natural urges at the expense of their fellow species. I realize that I am using my own judgment on this matter, but like faith, judgment (subjective reasoning) is only necessary in the abscence of that which is finite. If this hypothetical elaboration on your vague and unconvincing statement comes across as "babbling", well that's on you. This is after all a "debate", and your personal testimony adds little if any value.

Also, I'm going to go ahead and speculate that your definition of slavery is very different from mine, and it would probably make many people angry.
kinda dangerous lumping everyone into one pile of poop don't you think? You never know who might read this and take exception to being compared to an animal, and a "self serving, idiot type of animal at that" Some people have boundary issues and might decide to set the matter straight about this being a topic on abortion, not religion. And some people might do so and say "to hell with it" and take the spanking. And then what? you have derailed a thread to simply be a smuck? Some people might get a kick out of giving you a much needed set down for assuming and lumping. Some of us are uneducated, and sitting at the bottom of the insanity cliff....keep that in mind.
 

DeletedUser

Ahh... my bad. If I implied that non-Christians are the same as animals, then please forgive me. That was not my intention. True Chritians and non-Christians behave in a variety of ways and more often than not the behavior is indistinguishable. My observations of the behavior of animals, leads me to believe that they are non-christian. Perhaps they are non-other belief systems, too, but I don't know enough about those to answer that. In other words, the behavior of animals is non-christian, but all non-christians definitely do NOT behave as animals. Although, there are many people on this thread that liken us ALL to animals. Do you take exception to that?

I feel like I've stayed on topic here. Someone made an asertion about the equality or inequality of humans to nature. Arguments were made about how faith does/doesn't figure into the equation. I'm simply demonstrating that before any argument can be made about faith, faith must first be defined. Simply lumping all faiths into a collective dellusion is a fallacy. But it makes things easy for one side of the argument.

I welcome that set down from whomever, perhaps in another setting though, I don't want to be a smuck or made to look like one.
 

DeletedUser34

Absolutely....oh wait no I don't, I am generally compared to a certain sex of canine.

i still think this discussion always goes back to religious values which is dumb in my book because I know many secular people are against it for reasons other than religion. I have beliefs that don't mesh with mainstream society due 100% to my belief system. They will never change and those that choose to know me know this. But I would never debate using that as my backup.

The thing that is irking me, is the way this topic has come down to arguing the points of faith instead of tangible arguments about abortion. I'd love to argue religion, and it is hurting my tongue not to be able to do so. So I have to ask is this topic about abortion, or faith (religion)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser2259

Ahh... my bad. If I implied that non-Christians are the same as animals, then please forgive me. That was not my intention. True Chritians and non-Christians behave in a variety of ways and more often than not the behavior is indistinguishable. My observations of the behavior of animals, leads me to believe that they are non-christian. Perhaps they are non-other belief systems, too, but I don't know enough about those to answer that. In other words, the behavior of animals is non-christian, but all non-christians definitely do NOT behave as animals. Although, there are many people on this thread that liken us ALL to animals. Do you take exception to that?

I feel like I've stayed on topic here. Someone made an asertion about the equality or inequality of humans to nature. Arguments were made about how faith does/doesn't figure into the equation. I'm simply demonstrating that before any argument can be made about faith, faith must first be defined. Simply lumping all faiths into a collective dellusion is a fallacy. But it makes things easy for one side of the argument.

I welcome that set down from whomever, perhaps in another setting though, I don't want to be a smuck or made to look like one.


Never mind. Obviously you have complete faith in your total insight into what other people feel, care about or believe in.
Hence the problem that society has to grapple with. When deciding what is or is not in the best interest of any one individual or in the benefit of our collective good (sometimes these are opposed), your vote counts just as much as the rest of us “animals”.
I bet you think you know for sure what side of the question on abortion I come down on. That is faith too. Faith in your pre-conceived opinions.
I see things simply. DO onto other as you would have them do onto you. Do is the operative word there. Most people who would judge others are too busy judging to spend much time doing.
Simple. Be kind, help others, do the right thing for another human being, for our race, for our home even if it is the hardest thing.
If we look at it that way questions such as the one here become both more complex and much simpler.
Thank you for your insight and please do go on educating us all on what you think.
Cheers
 

DeletedUser3

(( This thread has strayed substantially from the original topic and is no longer about Abortion ))
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top