NationStates Jolt Archive

You absolute dumbshit. I knew someone would jump on that. The death sentence involves killing somebody because they can't be integrated into normal society. It's terminating life to remove a dangerous criminal. Abortion is not even in the same league, as it is terminating life solely for the mother's convenience.

Dumbshit yourself. (Look, when someone starts calling me names, expect to get it back). A dangerous criminal can just as easily be removed from society by putting him in prison for the rest of his life. If you're pro death penalty, find some other arguments.

And abortion is not always solely for the mother's convenience.

( And abortion is not always solely for the mother's convenience.))


Just as the Death penalty and any other number of laws and rules in society are not based SOLELY on any one factor....

It does not give cover for the fact that many (and IMO ) abortions are for the sole convenience of the mother....

Does the man have the same protections under the law???

Ignorant people should not breed………..I am changing my position to pro choice
:headbang:

( And abortion is not always solely for the mother's convenience.))


Just as the Death penalty and any other number of laws and rules in society are not based SOLELY on any one factor....

It does not give cover for the fact that many (and IMO ) abortions are for the sole convenience of the mother....

Does the man have the same protections under the law???

Please get my point: maybe many abortions are for the sole convenience of the mother, but many doesn't equal all. People should be careful with these kinds of generalisations. (Same goes for the "all women gossip" discussion that was going on)
How about all those young women through the centuries who were reduced to poverty and worse because they couldn't abort they unwanted pregnancy?
And even if it were solely for the mother's convenience, so what?
Legal abortion and anti-conception are two major factors in the emancipation of women. Would you send us back in history instead of forward?

And what do you mean with "Does the man have the same protections under the law???"

Actually... it doesnt.
Read this if you will:


I read the passage your source had provided, and I have 2 things to say.

1) Whoever the person was, hasn't read their bible! They talk about Exodus 27... but Exodus 27 is a 'chapter' describing the construction and dimension of altars, etc for the tabernacle.... so, the person is not so hot on scripture for a start. The fact that they claim they showed this section to Hebrew scholars who agreed with their version of the story, means they are not just wrong, but also lying.

Not a great way to start.

They probably meant Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

Exodus 21:23 "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life"
Exodus 21:24 "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"
and Exodus 21:25 "Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

b) Which clearly states that the punishment is at the discretion of the 'husband', and even then, only if mischeif ensue. The phrasing of the possible mischiefs make it obvious that it is the woman being referred to, not the foetus... "tooth for tooth", for example - which doesn't follow if the foetus is being discussed... or "stripe for stripe", which only works if the foetus is first aborted, then beaten...

Obviously, according to this passage, the "fruit" departing and "mischief" following are two different things... and the text implies that the loss of the foetus is far secondary to the injury to the wife.

You should look for a more reliable source, I fear.

( And abortion is not always solely for the mother's convenience.))


Just as the Death penalty and any other number of laws and rules in society are not based SOLELY on any one factor....

It does not give cover for the fact that many (and IMO ) abortions are for the sole convenience of the mother....

Does the man have the same protections under the law???

Abortion is not solely for the 'mother's' convenience any more than getting your car repaired when it breaks down is solely for the motorist's convenience.

When a pregnancy comes along that is not wanted (for whatever reason), it is an inconvenience, yes, but it is much more than that. It is risk. It is pain. It is sickness. It is losing your job. It is humiliation. It is stigma.

Not to mention all the rest... the fact that you might KNOW you are not ready for this... the fact that you might be still desperately trying to get a foot in the door, and this is going to screw your chances of making something of your life... etc etc etc.

When something breaks, you fix it.

When a problem occurs, you solve it.

Men don't get the same 'protection' under the law because they don't have to carry a foetus for nine months, and because they aren't the one's automatically 'stuck' with an unwanted child.

Personally, I think that that is for the best. A woman is automatically stuck with a baby, whether she wants to 'opt out' or not... a guy can coerce, persuade, inveigle, etc... until he gets his way, and SHE is still stuck with the result. Men are protected by being able to run away... and I think they SHOULD have to account for their offspring... nobody MAKES them have sex.

(And I know the same argument is used against women, but women are ALREADY stuck in that situation, aren't they, by virtue of the fact that the foetus will be IN them... and the fact that men WILL try to get sex, JUST BECAUSE they know that it isn't going to be them that is 'inconvenienced'.)

It has nothing to do with Feminism. A person can be completely unaware of Feminism and still recognize an individual's right to choice.

Yes, but it was Feminism in the last thirty years, that made this 'acceptable'.

Yes, but it was Feminism in the last thirty years, that made this 'acceptable'.

People (of both genders) have ALWAYS deserved equality in rights.... even the right to choose.... but I am not surprised that you feel otherwise.

=Bottle]actually, i never said anything about the women and their faults. you made that assumption all by yourself.

They sound a bit dull.

if you don't believe that "tough guys" get laughed at and spend Friday nights alone, then feel free to come visit...we LOVE watching the posing of insecure boys, and we've pretty much weeded out most of our own native population of these creatures :).

what if the 'tough guy' is also a hunk, don't tell me he's spending the

night alone, he will get a girl sooner or later, or are the women where you live

all frigid bookreading prudes?

Your answer, no of course not, their highly intelligent, self empowered,

beautiful women with great sex lives, but the only guys they will make with,

are good looking intellectual geeks whos chief form of wit revolves around

running down with sarcasm, to cover up for their own physical insecuritys,

poor unsuspecting mechanics and lumberjacks whos only crime, is to do

manual labour?

People (of both genders) have ALWAYS deserved equality in rights.... even the right to choose.... but I am not surprised that you feel otherwise.

Trust you to make out what I said as sexism, but this is always your angle

isnt it, twist something around to present it as something its not, why am I

not surprised? :rolleyes:

Do men get the right to choose, no sorry I dont want you to abort, so much

for the equality you mentioned.

=Shaed]Bragging tough guys get plenty of attention.
Unfortunately for them, it's of the "ahahaha! Look at the poor fool with too much time on his hands" category.

Do you think this is some kind of view only intellectuals have?



Seriously, I find muscles a complete turn off, because normally they're acquired at the expense of the mind.


A truly ignorant statement.

Im sure six hours a week in the gym, would sharpen your mind up if anything,

and still give you plenty of time to aquire knowledge in intellectual fields.

The Gym will give you quicker reflexes, improved blood circulation, and of

course, better toned muscles, not to mention a nicer physique.

A healthy body = a healthy mind.

Whats so wrong with having some balance, burying your head in a

book everyday for ten hours and having hardly any physical exercise, would

be very unbalanced, and not healthy.

There is more to life than just being a brain.

I dont know why the hell i'm here, this bar terrible. ive been IDed 9 times. :headbang:

i spend probably an hour on the riding machine twice/3 times a week in my gym sessions. and i read while I'm on it.

Of course I can't read when I'm swimming or playing tennis, but you get that :P

But then, I have no interest in gaining muscles, per se as I have in having a trimmed physique for racquet sports.

I dont know why the hell i'm here, this bar terrible. ive been IDed 9 times. :headbang:

Er the name.. mighten be helping you much either. :)

A truly ignorant statement.
Im sure six hours a week in the gym, would sharpen your mind up if anything,
and still give you plenty of time to aquire knowledge in intellectual fields.
The Gym will give you quicker reflexes, improved blood circulation, and of
course, better toned muscles, not to mention a nicer physique.
A healthy body = a healthy mind.
Whats so wrong with having some balance, burying your head in a
book everyday for ten hours and having hardly any physical exercise, would
be very unbalanced, and not healthy.
There is more to life than just being a brain.

I assume you are deliberately misreading what is being said, because you obviously take it as some kind of attack....

I think the point that is being made is that an evolved mind is an attractive feature... and I think that that is true regardless of gender.

You seem to draw the distinction yourself that you can either spend time in the gym OR "burying your head in a book for ten hours"... and, since you have repeatedly demonstrated how important physical strength is to you, one can only assume that you have gone for the 'gym' option.

This does seem consonant with your debating aptitudes...

I believe Bottle already indicated that there is a cut-off point... and those that are so unexercised as to be sickly probably aren't going to be attracting anyone with their diseased bodies... the same as those who extoll cro-magnon philosophy aren't going to be drawing crowds with their sparkling wits.

There IS more to life than being a brain, you are correct... but that doesn't mean you have to live your life in DENIAL of your brain.

i spend probably an hour on the riding machine twice/3 times a week in my gym sessions. and i read while I'm on it.


lol I call those people on the bikes reading books and listening to music, while

they limpedly push the pedals around extremely wimpish, I like to grab that

bike and pedal it flatout for three straight minutes, and I'm talking sweat

flying everywhere, huge grunts, loud whirring noise, yelling, then ten minutes

of taking it easy on the bike, chatting to the person next to me, watching

the video clips, drinking my gatorade, then another three minutes full on

attack as before but even more intense, then another ten minutes relaxing

bike peddaling then the ultimate three minutes attack, so intense now that

my calf muscles are screaming at me to stop, my eyes are bulging out of

their sockets, and the bolts holding the bike to the floor are nearly getting

shaken loose, then a five minute warm down on the bike, a chocolate

megamax muscle shake and I go do some stretching.

Followed by an intense three hour heavy weights session, then some more

stretching, then I have a shower and go home.

All up from start to finish, roughly four and a half hours.

Also guys watch it with the gatorade/powerade drinks, although they are

refreshing and replace the salt in your body, they also ruin your teeth, as the

saline will strip the enamel off them, if overused during along period.

lol I call those people on the bikes reading books and listening to music, while

they limpedly push the pedals around extremely wimpish, I like to grab that

bike and pedal it flatout for three straight minutes, and I'm talking sweat

flying everywhere, huge grunts, loud whirring noise, yelling, then ten minutes

of taking it easy on the bike, chatting to the person next to me, watching

the video clips, drinking my gatorade, then another three minutes full on

attack as before but even more intense, then another ten minutes relaxing

bike peddaling then the ultimate three minutes attack, so intense now that

my calf muscles are screaming at me to stop, my eyes are bulging out of

their sockets, and the bolts holding the bike to the floor are nearly getting

shaken loose, then a five minute warm down on the bike, a chocolate

megamax muscle shake and I go do some stretching.

Followed by an intense three hour heavy weights session, then some more

stretching, then I have a shower and go home.

All up from start to finish, roughly four and a half hours.

Also guys watch it with the gatorade/powerade drinks, although they are

refreshing and replace the salt in your body, they also ruin your teeth, as the

saline will strip the enamel off them, if overused during along period.

Sounds very 'attractive'. Especially the bulging out eyes. Mmm. (and /sarcasm, for the unobservant)

And may I also remark: 'Megamax muscle shake'? hehehe :D. Sounds like the triumph of advertising over common sense to me.

I don't mind exercise itself. But done on its own annoys me (personally). I don't mind walking (because I can read or talk while walking), don't mind swimming (or, well, splashing around randomly in the water), because I can talk during that. Bike riding is toerable in pleasant weather... But... going to gym?... and just sitting there?... Not doing anything but exercising? Maybe it's just that I don't need the exercise too badly (fast teenage metabolism :p), but it just sounds dull to me. Heck, I tend to skip meals because I get frustrated with being unable to read or debate or DO something during that time, so I guess it makes sense that random repetitive exercise bores me.

Plus I'd still always choose the person who would rather debate than exercise, because that's the type of person I have something in common with. Anyone who tries the whole peppy 'come on, exercise is FUN!' bollocks with me just gets stonewalled until they go away (they scare me). Guess this is just another of the cases where my opinion is pretty much the polar opposite of Terminalia's. Such is life, I guess.

=Grave_n_idle]I assume you are deliberately misreading what is being said, because you obviously take it as some kind of attack....

Not at all.


I think the point that is being made is that an evolved mind is an attractive feature... and I think that that is true regardless of gender.

An evolved mind... that is a pretty open statement.

You seem to draw the distinction yourself that you can either spend time in the gym OR "burying your head in a book for ten hours"... and, since you have repeatedly demonstrated how important physical strength is to you, one can only assume that you have gone for the 'gym' option.

I didnt draw on it at all, someone else did, by saying first they thought

muscles were a waste of time, it was comments like this I was referring to

most.


This does seem consonant with your debating aptitudes...

Why the attack on my debating skills, they mighten be as sharp as others on

here, but I dont consider them in anyway dull.

I believe Bottle already indicated that there is a cut-off point... and those that are so unexercised as to be sickly probably aren't going to be attracting anyone with their diseased bodies... the same as those who extoll cro-magnon philosophy aren't going to be drawing crowds with their sparkling wits.

Well humour comes in all genre, the main thing is being able to appreciate it.

There IS more to life than being a brain, you are correct... but that doesn't mean you have to live your life in DENIAL of your brain.

Who does, honestly?

[QUOTE=Shaed] And may I also remark: 'Megamax muscle shake'? hehehe :D. Sounds like the triumph of advertising over common sense to me.

Dont knock it until you try it, they take half an hour to get you going, but

thats when you really need it the most, your exhausted, starting to feel flat,

trying to get inspired, then suddenly it kicks in, and you have a new energy

lease, that carries you, with added water consumption for over an hour and a

half, then I go get another one.

But going to gym and just sitting there, not doing anything but exercising? Maybe it's just that I don't need exercise too badly (fast teenage metabolism :p), but it just sounds dull.


Your right it is dull sometimes, but you have to overcome that by

concentrating on the work you are doing, a few hours of this is not the end

of the world and certainly wont kill you.

Also in the stretching parts I like to drift off and meditate.



Plus I'd still always choose the person who would rather debate than exercise.

Its only for at most, twelve hours a week, its not something going on 24/7

Shaed, you still have plenty of time to debate.

haha term, one of my friends from childhood etc used to be rank #4 in the world at the 60km time trial, got me to the stage where gears need to be pretty damn high to trouble me unless I've been ill and my fitness has dropped :P

My swimming i generally need to concentrate so as to not get lazy, having size 14 very wide feet, I can often just start cruising on foot power which isn't overly useful for the rehabilitation of my shoulder.

Been really annoying, usually i play a mixture of tennis, squash, badminton, table tennis other than the gym, but a shoulder injury that was probably about -> <- far from needing a full reconstruction (surgery though) kept me pretty much down for 4 months

Sounds very 'attractive'. Especially the bulging out eyes. Mmm. (and /sarcasm, for the unobservant)

And may I also remark: 'Megamax muscle shake'? hehehe :D. Sounds like the triumph of advertising over common sense to me.

I don't mind exercise itself. But done on its own annoys me (personally). I don't mind walking (because I can read or talk while walking), don't mind swimming (or, well, splashing around randomly in the water), because I can talk during that. Bike riding is toerable in pleasant weather... But... going to gym?... and just sitting there?... Not doing anything but exercising? Maybe it's just that I don't need the exercise too badly (fast teenage metabolism :p), but it just sounds dull to me. Heck, I tend to skip meals because I get frustrated with being unable to read or debate or DO something during that time, so I guess it makes sense that random repetitive exercise bores me.

Plus I'd still always choose the person who would rather debate than exercise, because that's the type of person I have something in common with. Anyone who tries the whole peppy 'come on, exercise is FUN!' bollocks with me just gets stonewalled until they go away (they scare me). Guess this is just another of the cases where my opinion is pretty much the polar opposite of Terminalia's. Such is life, I guess.

Megamax Muscle Shakes... yes, this truly does sound like someone buying into merchandising as if it were real science... sad, really.

Not to mention the fact that nobody cared to mention to the poor boy that it takes 30 minutes of exercise to even start a proper aerobic reaction... so the whole time he spends on the bike is wasted... especially the '3 minute bursts', which don't have any aerobic benefit, and could cause muscular or tendon damage....

Unfortunately, some people are just uninformed as to what constitutes 'good' exercise, and just assume that more is better, and if you drink the 'magic drinks' they'll make you strong.

Dont knock it until you try it, they take half an hour to get you going, but

thats when you really need it the most, your exhausted, starting to feel flat,

trying to get inspired, then suddenly it kicks in, and you have a new energy

lease, that carries you, with added water consumption for over an hour and a

half, then I go get another one.

To be honest, I'm normally exhausted from school anyway. And no, I don't mean the mental strain. I mean ALL THE DAMN STAIRS! RARG.

Ahem, sorry. One of my pet peeves. I have to walk up and down 6 flights of stairs, three times a day. In fact, I normally have to run, since I'm perpetually late since I get absorbed in silly things like, you know, reading. Couple that with the fact I eat one meal a day (it's not a diet thing or an anorexic thing... I've just never been big on eating. *shrugs*), and I tend to have zero energy left by the end of a school day. But I'll still avoid muscle drinks, simply because muscles on girls scare me (totally personal preference here; I just have strange tastes I think).


Your right it is dull sometimes, but you have to overcome that by

concentrating on the work you are doing, a few hours of this is not the end

of the world and certainly wont kill you.

Also in the stretching parts I like to drift off and meditate.


I think a few hours could probably kill me... I have low blood pressure, low blood sugar (both to do with hormones, not something easily fixed until I get out of my teens); if I overheat, I faint. Something I like to avoid in public places :p. Plus, I have a tendancy to be thinking "grrgrrgrr, such a waste of time" whenever I'm forced to actively exercise. It's fine when I'm doing it by choice, because then I'm usually thinking about something else (for example, if I'm walking with friends, I'll be focussed on the discussion, not the walking).

Its only for at most, twelve hours a week, its not something going on 24/7

Shaed, you still have plenty of time to debate.

Gack, 12 hours? I could rework most of my old fantasy novel in that amount of time... or finish my super artistic and creepy (++) version of a couple of H.P Lovecraft's stories... or work on my comic... or finish all my holiday homework... or stage a huge, complex (and highly political) war between my Lego castles and my Lego pirates... or do some artwork to sell on ebay, or a custom pony to sell on one of the pony board I frequent... or think of an entire dictionary-volume of curse words to address my evil, evil Oriental Siamese cat with.

For me personally, exercise comes *wayyyyy* down on the list of things I'm interested in doing... for guys (from an 'interested in persuing a relationship' point of view, anyway)... well, some exercise is alright, as long as I don't have to hear about it. The body still comes pretty low on the list though, well after general intelligence, sense of humour, personality, accent (English = added points, you see :p), and, well, a whole bunch of random stuff.

But I still stand by my opinion that random jutting muscles (over-developed pectorals anyone?) are scary. :p

And woah, off topic ++. Maybe we've just already debated everything there is to debate about abortion?

My swimming i generally need to concentrate so as to not get lazy, having size 14 very wide feet, I can often just start cruising on foot power which isn't overly useful for the rehabilitation of my shoulder.
Been really annoying, usually i play a mixture of tennis, squash, badminton, table tennis other than the gym, but a shoulder injury that was probably about -> <- far from needing a full reconstruction (surgery though) kept me pretty much down for 4 months

Yeah my left shoulder got smashed in footy last year, and it still clicks around

abit, my arm got completely dislocated out of the shoulder socket tackling a

guy, and i could see the shape of the bone sticking out of my arm, it was

horrible lol

I have to play with it strapped now.

For me personally, exercise comes *wayyyyy* down on the list of things I'm interested in doing... for guys (from my point of view)... well, some exercise is alright, as long as I don't have to hear about it.

You said you were a teenager still?

I hear you there, but I'm 27 now, not 18 anymore, I don't have the luxury anymore, and being a broker doesn't exactly present the greatest exercise opportunities, lol :)

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Megamax Muscle Shakes... yes, this truly does sound like someone buying into merchandising as if it were real science... sad, really.

It works for me, and other people that drink them, try one yourself.


Not to mention the fact that nobody cared to mention to the poor boy that it takes 30 minutes of exercise to even start a proper aerobic reaction... so the whole time he spends on the bike is wasted... especially the '3 minute bursts', which don't have any aerobic benefit, and could cause muscular or tendon damage....

There to build up stamina and twitch muscles.

And there has been no damage beyond the normal muscular damage that

naturally occurs when smaller muscle structures break down and rejoin, to

form larger ones.


Unfortunately, some people are just uninformed as to what constitutes 'good' exercise, and just assume that more is better, and if you drink the 'magic drinks' they'll make you strong.

No pain no gain mate, simple really.

And the magic drinks do work and their delicious.

They are not a placebo.

It works for me, and other people that drink them, try one yourself.


It seems to be part of your personality that; if someone says something in convincing enough voice, you'll reshape the world to fit their story.


There to build up stamina and twitch muscles.
And there has been no damage beyond the normal muscular damage that
naturally occurs when smaller muscle structures break down and rejoin, to
form larger ones.


I'd question the stamina building effects of a three minute cycle ride, personally.

And, I think you have been lucky so far, not to have sustained any damage.


No pain no gain mate, simple really.
And the magic drinks do work and their delicious.
They are not a placebo.

Matter of opinion. You are paying extra for what basically boils down to a whey extract, probably some protein, maybe a stimulant, and some sugar.

But hey, I don't know specifically the product you use... maybe yours really DOES have some magic in it...

*ahem*

0 divided by 0 is not 0%. Even you should know that. I mean it's alright to say that the argument should not be religious, but religion is an important, real issue. You can't disregard something as important as someone suffering for all eternity. Even if there is no scientific proof, it is still not worth the risk.

Any number divided by 0 is either infinity or a non-real number, depending on which mathmatician you ask. It doesn't change the fact that it's statistically insignificant. Calling it 0 on my part was simply easier to read than the mathmatically correct term. Also, I find it quite easy to disregard something as 'important' as someone suffering for all eternity. Don't tell me that I can't. All I have to do is ask myself if there is any evidence, to which the answer is no, and suddenly the concern disappears entirely.

I'm pro life for the simple reason that I don't know what the hell I would do in a situation where I saw abortion as an option (if I was raped/baby was ill etc), and therefore I see that I have no right to lecture other women in what to do.
The only time I see it as "wrong" or, in a way distasteful, is when the abortion is because she wants to get on with her career. If you care that much about it, and dont believe yourself capable of doing the two effectively at once, then you shouldn't be 'doing the act' as it were.
Hope I make sense :S

That's right. Get back in the kitchen, cause it's the only place you can contribute. You're to dumb and/or fragile to do anything else. Wanting anything more or just different is putting on airs you don't deserve. It's always your fault if you get pregnent, because you were the hussy that decided to sleep around. Raising kids is the most important thing you could ever do, so you have to 'choose' it.

Welcome to the 21st century. Here's your sign.

This is completely undermining the sanctity of human life.

There is no sanctity of human life.

But is this Gods plan?

To condone mass slaughter of innocent and defenceless human life?

Sorry, but I don't think it is.

Several times in the book you so vehemently espouse as god's word, god not only condoned but encouraged the wholesale slaughter of people. In many, if not most cases, up to and including the women, children, and even the pregnant ewes and cows.

He has a track record of mass slaughter of innocent life. Obviously, it must be his plan.

Also, if you truly believe that he is omnipotent. Then he has the power to change what is going on directly if it doesn't fit his will. As we have yet to see the holy throne float down and the fire and brimstone shower to destroy all of us heathen pro-choice people, I can't see how you can justify telling him (or the rest of us) he isn't following his plan, when he has done nothing to change it.

Does the man have the same protections under the law???

Yes, by default he doesn't have to risk his own life to carry and birth the child. By defualt he doesn't gain weight, increase his risk of certain diseases, and possibly deal with long term/permanent body changes. By default, he is at no risk of losing his job because he got pregnent. He is also at no risk of being forced to take time off work to deliver said child, and if necessary give said child up for adoption.

Wow, I take that back. Us guys have it pretty lucky in the protections department. I don't have to ever worry about anyone cutting my taint. Sounds like a good deal to me.

There is no sanctity of human life.



Good point, well made.

Pithica, take a bow. *Applause for Pithica*.

Originally Posted by Pithica
There is no sanctity of human life.
Good point, well made.

Pithica, take a bow. *Applause for Pithica*.
Not from me, I disagree with it.

To sanctify something is to hold it sacred, and humans do that. So, of necessity, it is a subjective process, which makes Pithica's attempt to discredit it as some sort of universal truth invalid.

=PithicaThere is no sanctity of human life.

Yes, there is... really.



Several times in the book you so vehemently espouse as god's word, god not only condoned but encouraged the wholesale slaughter of people. In many, if not most cases, up to and including the women, children, and even the pregnant ewes and cows.
He has a track record of mass slaughter of innocent life. Obviously, it must be his plan.

Well believing in no sancity for human life, you must hold his actions in high

regard then, right?


Also, if you truly believe that he is omnipotent. Then he has the power to change what is going on directly if it doesn't fit his will.


He doesn't but.

He could end it I believe if he wanted to, by just not thinking about it briefly,

but never, ever change it.

Things must follow their natural order, or there is no point to them even

existing.

And yes, if you want to get trivial and split hairs, if he did end it, that would I

guess, change it. :rolleyes:

As we have yet to see the holy throne float down and the fire and brimstone shower to destroy all of us heathen pro-choice people, I can't see how you can justify telling him (or the rest of us) he isn't following his plan, when he has done nothing to change it.

Well would you believe it even if you saw it happen?

I somehow doupt it, with all the modern technology available now, you would

probably think its some kind of world wide Christian conspiracy made up by

George Bush, to convert you lol

Not from me, I disagree with it.

To sanctify something is to hold it sacred, and humans do that. So, of necessity, it is a subjective process, which makes Pithica's attempt to discredit it as some sort of universal truth invalid.


Okay, let me rephrase. There is no objective sanctity of human life.

:p

Yes, there is... really.

Already corrected myself...see above.

Well believing in no sancity for human life, you must hold his actions in high regard then, right?

Sure, why not. It makes for much better literature than the Buddhist texts. Trying not to kill anything get's boring quickly.

He doesn't but. He could end it I believe if he wanted to, by just not thinking about it briefly, but never, ever change it.

If you really believe that he could end it if he wanted to, then he obviously must not want to, ergo he obviously doesn't care about it as much as you make him out to. It's like this, if I really want a new car (something that is within my power), I will get a new car (because I will work extra, save up, cut back on spending, etc. until I can afford it and will buy it). If god really wanted us to stop aborting zygotes, we'd stop aborting them (because he would wave his hands, chant, and pull some god mojo out his ass, etc until we changed to fit his will).

Well would you believe it even if you saw it happen?

Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the circumstances. It might prove to me that he didn't exist, a la babel fish example. It won't happn though, so the hypothetical is moot.

I somehow doupt it, with all the modern technology available now, you would probably think its some kind of world wide Christian conspiracy made up by George Bush, to convert you lol

I am afraid I don't give W that much credit. Unlike some of my more vehement compatriots on the anti-W side, I don't need conspiracy theories or machiavellian schemes to dislike the guy. To me, it's as simple as, he broke his word to me, he was inept at following through on that breakage, and then he tried to cover it up by pointing the finger at other people.

I'm not a Pro-Choice in most cases,but in some I am. I support abortion in cases of rape and only rape. Any other reason such as teens and adults getting pregnant by there own choice is voided. They were dumb enough to bring a baby in this world when they didn't want one so they should be made to keep their baby.

I'm not a Pro-Choice in most cases,but in some I am. I support abortion in cases of rape and only rape. Any other reason such as teens and adults getting pregnant by there own choice is voided. They were dumb enough to bring a baby in this world when they didn't want one so they should be made to keep their baby.

I take it you didn't bother to read the thread.

To sum up, your assertion is like saying, if someone is dumb enough to go 5 miles over the speed limit, or their safety belt breaks, they should be forced to spend the rest of their life in prison.

=Pithica Already corrected myself...see above.

Yes, big difference...



Sure, why not. It makes for much better literature than the Buddhist texts. Trying not to kill anything get's boring quickly.

Right...tiptoes away...


If you really believe that he could end it if he wanted to, then he obviously must not want to, ergo he obviously doesn't care about it as much as you make him out to. It's like this, if I really want a new car (something that is within my power), I will get a new car (because I will work extra, save up, cut back on spending, etc. until I can afford it and will buy it). If god really wanted us to stop aborting zygotes, we'd stop aborting them (because he would wave his hands, chant, and pull some god mojo out his ass, etc until we changed to fit his will).

Your arguement makes no sense.


Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the circumstances. It might prove to me that he didn't exist, a la babel fish example. It won't happn though, so the hypothetical is moot.

You have no proof that it wont happen.


I am afraid I don't give W that much credit. Unlike some of my more vehement compatriots on the anti-W side, I don't need conspiracy theories or machiavellian schemes to dislike the guy. To me, it's as simple as, he broke his word to me, he was inept at following through on that breakage, and then he tried to cover it up by pointing the finger at other people.

And what promise was that, break a date?

No when you have sex you should expect to have a baby. The five miles over the speed limit thing is a crappy example. It isn't a punishment to take care of what you brought into the world. It is what you should do if you have any moral values at all.

That's right. Get back in the kitchen, cause it's the only place you can contribute. You're to dumb and/or fragile to do anything else. Wanting anything more or just different is putting on airs you don't deserve. It's always your fault if you get pregnent, because you were the hussy that decided to sleep around. Raising kids is the most important thing you could ever do, so you have to 'choose' it.
Welcome to the 21st century. Here's your sign.

This is a typical stinging feminist attack on another woman, who doesnt

share or probably even want to, their 'evolved' sense of granduer, of viewing

themselves only as corperate lawyers, doctors, chief executives etc

anything less or heaven forbid- blue collar, is seen as a bit of a failure by

them.


And whatever you do, do not walk into the kitchen without shoes on, or god

no... the ultimate crime- cook something for your husband!!

No when you have sex you should expect to have a baby. The five miles over the speed limit thing is a crappy example. It isn't a punishment to take care of what you brought into the world. It is what you should do if you have any moral values at all.

lol morality is a dirty word to them.

Wonder why.

Okay, let me rephrase. There is no objective sanctity of human life.

:p
Okay, but then you're agreeing with Terminalia. Are you sure you want to go down this slippery slope? *lol**lol*

Right...tiptoes away...

Trying to imply that I am crazy because I prefer an exciting myth over a boring one?

Your arguement makes no sense.

I got carried away with the example. Let me see if I can break it down.

There are things within my power. If I truly want to do one of those things, whether I feel a 'wrong' must be 'righted' or because I just want it, I am capable of doing those things. If I do not, it is because I do not want to.

You believe that god is omnipotent (at least, If I read you right and you are a Judeo-Christian you do, forgive/ignore me if I am wrong), therefore all things are in his power. If god wants something to be a certain way, because he says it's 'wrong' or because he just wants to, he is capable of doing those things. If he does not do it, it is because he doesn't want to.

Ergo, god doesn't really care about abortion, and shouldn't be used in an argument about it. If he did, he would have stopped us, or at the very least, put something in one of the many text attributed to him about not doing it.


You have no proof that it wont happen.

It is an assumption based off of history. I don't have proof, I am playing the odds.

And what promise was that, break a date?

Off topic, but since you asked...

In the last election, I based my candidate choice off of three issues that I thought were truly important (because the differences were severe).

1. Their stances on gun control. (I am totally against it)
2. Their stances on using our troops for nation building. (I am still totally against it, even after 9/11.)
3. Their stances on fiscal responsibility in the federal budget. (I am for it)

In two of those three stances Bush not only failed me, but went totally opposite of what he said he would do. So far opposite, that I came to believe that his opponent would have been more inline with my own beliefs even though initially the appearence was contrary. Not only did he break those promises, he carried them out in the most inept way imaginable, and now I and my children, and my grandchildren are stuck with the mess.

No when you have sex you should expect to have a baby. The five miles over the speed limit thing is a crappy example. It isn't a punishment to take care of what you brought into the world. It is what you should do if you have any moral values at all.

As has also been said. In complex social animals, sex is about much more than procreation. Driving five miles over the speed limit is a small mistake, on the same lines of not using the right/enough birth control (and I through in the seatbelt breaking for those times when birth control fails).

It is a punisment to someone who doesn't want to have a child. It is especially a punishment to a young girl, who may or may not be capable, physically, financially, or emotionally, of taking care of that child (or giving it up for adoption). Morality is too subjective an idea to try and legislate it.

Well then if they don't want to risk having a baby then they shouldn't have sex. They bring it on themselves so they should take care of the baby. It isn't a accident if you have sex and a baby is born. After all,that is what sex is for in teh first place.

This is a typical stinging feminist attack on another woman, who doesnt share or probably even want to, their 'evolved' sense of granduer, of viewing themselves only as corperate lawyers, doctors, chief executives etc anything less or heaven forbid- blue collar, is seen as a bit of a failure by them.

And whatever you do, do not walk into the kitchen without shoes on, or god no... the ultimate crime- cook something for your husband!!

Uh, not to be sarcastic, but I am a guy. And certainly not a feminist. My wife is currently a 'stay-at-home' (between blue collar jobs), and I don't think any less of her for it. She has every plan to stay home and raise the kids whenever we get around to that, and I support her there too.

However, she also has the right to decide for herself what she wants out of her life. It isn't my place to make those decisions for her. And it certainly as all hell isn't yours, the person I was originally responding to, or some worthless hick 3 states over. If she chooses a carreer over childbirth, you have no right to sit in judgement of her, or to make it out like she is less of a person for doing so.

lol morality is a dirty word to them.

Wonder why.

Simple answer. Because your morality isn't the same is mine (or anyone else's). Because you would be very upset if I tried to pass a law that held you up to my standards of morality, and likely couldn't cut it. It would be wrong of me to try and do so, according to my own standards of morality, therefore I believe it is wrong for you to do so.

Well then if they don't want to risk having a baby then they shouldn't have sex. They bring it on themselves so they should take care of the baby. It isn't a accident if you have sex and a baby is born. After all,that is what sex is for in teh first place.

Ah, argument from ignorance. Very refreshing. I haven't seen it in 6 or 7 pages. Sex among social animals is about more than reproduction. It certainly serves more purpose than procreation. If you don't believe compare how many times you've had sex with how many children you have had. Or compare the same thing among your friends, or parents, or coworkers. People have sex alot more often than they procreate.

Not everyone who has sex knows what they are doing, or that what they are doing may result in a kid. Not everyone that has sex chooses to have sex. Not everyone knows how to use birth control properly. Not everyone that does use birth control properly gets a condom that doesn't break or a pill that has too little or too much of a hormone in it.

You can't legislate from a position of assuming that everyone should be 'perfect'.

There are things within my power. If I truly want to do one of those things, whether I feel a 'wrong' must be 'righted' or because I just want it, I am capable of doing those things. If I do not, it is because I do not want to.

You believe that god is omnipotent (at least, If I read you right and you are a Judeo-Christian you do, forgive/ignore me if I am wrong), therefore all things are in his power. If god wants something to be a certain way, because he says it's 'wrong' or because he just wants to, he is capable of doing those things. If he does not do it, it is because he doesn't want to.

Ergo, god doesn't really care about abortion, and shouldn't be used in an argument about it. If he did, he would have stopped us, or at the very least, put something in one of the many text attributed to him about not doing it.
Ooh! Let's play "name that logical fallacy (http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm)!" I think it's 'False Analogy', using yourself as an example of how god must behave? or maybe 'Affirming the Consequent'? Well, it's certainly not one of the causal or categorical ones.

You are attributing to god motivational reasons that are your own for your own actions, as if it was they were his reasons, too. Other reasons for why god does not act have been offered, in this thread and others, that are more reasonable arguments.

If you don't know the risks then you sure as hell shouldn't be doing it. Which brings us to the point of sex-ed. it should be taught more. It isn't ignorant to say you shouldn't have sex if you don't know or accept the risks. It is ignorant to say that you should have sex when you don't know or take the risks. With all of these STDs around you think that people would learn not to have sex with every person you hook up with. I noticed you said that not everyone chooses to have sex. I am obviously talking about people who DO choose to have sex. Please read my posts. If everyone doesn't know how to have controllled sex then they should not take the risk. In my opinion you really shouldn't have sex before your married anyway. It causes way to many problems.

No when you have sex you should expect to have a baby. The five miles over the speed limit thing is a crappy example. It isn't a punishment to take care of what you brought into the world. It is what you should do if you have any moral values at all.
And if they happy young couple are 11 years old...?

11? Then to hell with them. It is foolish and I doubt that many 11 year olds have sex. While there have been cases for the most part let's be realistic. What decnt 11 year old would have sex anyway?

You can't legislate from a position of assuming that everyone should be 'perfect'.
I don't know if this argument's been stated before here, but it's the first time I've seen it. This is probably the best argument I've seen yet, and, I think, the most soundly defendable.

Another one occurs to me. In Canadian environmental law, regulations are put in place in an attempt to present standards with the intent that companies involved in environmental projects will develop their own professional behaviour (due diligence) that will meet those standards and prevent accidental spills. The laws regarding environmental issues are in place to punish those who fail to meet the standards or deliberately infringe on them. This puts the responsibility for moral behaviour on the people, but does not go so far as to legislate the morality by preventing environmental spills.

I'm not familiar with the text or theme of the legislation being proposed by Pro-Life, but it would seem to me that something similar to the above describes a sensible and rational alternative to banning abortion outright?

11? Then to hell with them. It is foolish and I doubt that many 11 year olds have sex. While there have been cases for the most part let's be realistic. What decnt 11 year old would have sex anyway?
Let's be realistic, then. It does happen. Our children are reaching puberty at a younger age (http://eces.org/archive/ec/health/prematurepuberty.shtml) every generation. And considering that sex education is not a part of the curriculum for people so young, "accidents" would seem to be inevitable. Must they raise their child, too?

Not from me, I disagree with it.

To sanctify something is to hold it sacred, and humans do that. So, of necessity, it is a subjective process, which makes Pithica's attempt to discredit it as some sort of universal truth invalid.

Indeed not.

As you state, it is a subjective thing.

There is a constant trend on this thread, and others, to make a point about execution, abortion, etc... based on the 'sanctity of human life' or 'basic human rights'.

Conventionally, this 'sanctity' answer is taken as siome kind of trump card... who can argue it? But, as you say, it is subjective.

I agree that there is no 'sanctity' of human life... other than that that we accord to it... the same as I agree with others that the only 'basic human rights' we have are those we obtain, or that others obtain for us.

And, while people present 'sanctity of human life' as though it WERE a universal truth, it will always be open to challenge.

So, once again, 'hats off' to Pithica.

But hey, as always, that's just my thinking on the matter.

He doesn't but.
He could end it I believe if he wanted to, by just not thinking about it briefly,
but never, ever change it.
Things must follow their natural order, or there is no point to them even
existing.
And yes, if you want to get trivial and split hairs, if he did end it, that would I
guess, change it. :rolleyes:


Sorry, Terminalia, but this is another case where your own scripture is against you.

God can't change the world, things must follow their natural order or there is no point in their even existing?

How about the flood? No 'natural order' there.... he didn't like it, he changed it.

How about Babel? He didn't like the tower, letting people try to peak through the clouds into his house, so he blasted it. Where is 'natural order'? Where is god NOT changing the world?

What about Sodom? It is surely unusual in the 'natural order' for fire and brimstone to rain from the skies and destroy cities? And Lot's wife, of course, might present something of an argument against 'natural order' or god's pattern of 'non-interference'.

I think Job might have a question or two about that policy, too.

Indeed not.

As you state, it is a subjective thing.

There is a constant trend on this thread, and others, to make a point about execution, abortion, etc... based on the 'sanctity of human life' or 'basic human rights'.

Conventionally, this 'sanctity' answer is taken as siome kind of trump card... who can argue it? But, as you say, it is subjective.

I agree that there is no 'sanctity' of human life... other than that that we accord to it... the same as I agree with others that the only 'basic human rights' we have are those we obtain, or that others obtain for us.

And, while people present 'sanctity of human life' as though it WERE a universal truth, it will always be open to challenge.

So, once again, 'hats off' to Pithica.

But hey, as always, that's just my thinking on the matter.
I think you will find, on closer examination of the statements of those who argue this idea, that the sanctity of human life they refer to is that which they accord to it, and therefore very real. Not a universal truth, but a subjective one.

I think you will find, on closer examination of the statements of those who argue this idea, that the sanctity of human life they refer to is that which they accord to it, and therefore very real. Not a universal truth, but a subjective one.

Right... but when we have someone like (and I hate to have to use him as an example again, but he just fits the bill) Terminalia, who would argue, perhaps, that abortion should be illegal because it violates the 'sanctity of human life'... we once again have it presented as though it were a thing real, objective and universal.... and certainly not 'up for debate'.

I disagree with this conception, and so do others... and so, I think, do you... in a 'universal truth' scenario.

But maybe I am wrong.

I'll try to keep it material, so:

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot.

What good friends will you never have? Perhaps someone killed your one soulmate. How much are you missing out on? We'll never know - and won't ever know, unless abortion is stopped.

Besides, why should anyone have the right to say, arbitrarily, they will not allow their fetus to grow to adulthood? Seems to me, they're saying their possible Einstein or Ghandi is utterly without worth and unimportant to the world. Unless you know exactly what will happen in the future (which no one can, and possibly never will), you cannot have that right to say 'I want an abortion'. And even if you could, why would you give up the happiness that comes with a baby?
And what about all the responsibility and sacrifice? I don't defend abortion as a form of birth control but I certianly DO defend my right to not have to raise and pay for someone else's unwanted baby. As far as some of us are missing out, (due to abortions), I believe that the human mind is a tool of natural selection. Because humans are control hungry and curious by nature, it is only natural that we would figure out how to do away with an unwanted foetus. See what I mean? And yes, i do have a kid. He's 8 and he's very loved and very well provided for because I was fortuante enough to have the choice of having him. He is not resented or neglected in any fashion because I wasn't forced to have him. **climbs off soapbox** thank you!

Right... but when we have someone like (and I hate to have to use him as an example again, but he just fits the bill) Terminalia, who would argue, perhaps, that abortion should be illegal because it violates the 'sanctity of human life'... we once again have it presented as though it were a thing real, objective and universal.... and certainly not 'up for debate'.

I disagree with this conception, and so do others... and so, I think, do you... in a 'universal truth' scenario.

But maybe I am wrong.
Glad you brought up that particular example :-) because I do think Terminalia recognizes the realty and truth as subjective, from many things he has said, here and on other threads, and that, perhaps, his position is being assumed. That is also, I think, why he stressed that some counter arguments made no sense to him.

But I could be wrong, too. ;-)

As Bottle is so fond of (rightly) pointing out, you can't have equal rights without equal responsibility.

Hey! That's my line! hehe Ok, Bottle might use it to I suppose, but it is my line. =)

Contrary to what has been noted above, I do happen to be a pro-choice sort who DEFINITELY believes that a huge segment of the population is in need of abortion, post-birth.

Some of them even need killin' twice, just to make sure (and perhaps an iron stake, you never know...)-- but all of that aside, the aspect of this debate that does, and always has amused me is that legality isn't really an issue. People are going to choose to abort, and doctors will continue to abort, and people in strange places will continue to fund abortions until there cease to be people running around.

In point of fact, the days of the coathanger are long-gone (unless you're too mentally challenged to operate a telephone, or read a book, in which case, you're universally screwed anyway.) Over fifteen years ago, some "good-with-tools" sort managed to think up a DIY solution to abortion that resembled a shoebox-sized vacuum-cleaner. They were mass-produced, but never deployed in the 'States, because Clinton won the election, around that time.

Like it or not, there's some of us who'll continue to have sex as we please, continue to deny any form of God (if only for the sake of the fact that spending eternity with a bunch of cult-members, X-tian or otherwise, sounds less-appealing than burning in a lake of fire for all-time), and continure to absolutely refuse to breed.

You breeders ought to take solace in the fact that the bloodlines on our end will surely die out before you'll ever manage to legislate us out. On the other hand, the energy and resources it takes to produce just ONE of you in a First-World Economy costs the lives of several people in Underdeveloped Nations (so, your morality is a load of toss.)

Do the math.

11? Then to hell with them. It is foolish and I doubt that many 11 year olds have sex. While there have been cases for the most part let's be realistic. What decnt 11 year old would have sex anyway?

As Willamena has pointed out, the youth of today are growing more mature (physically) than those of previous generations. (Probably as a result of all the growth hormones that are in modern foods). However, let's not forget that the current age of majority is a much higher age than at any previous time in history... in the middle ages, as in ancient Rome, Jerusalem, etc... women were old enough to marry, AT THE VERY LATEST, when they first menstruated. The rather crude "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" is the unfortunate rule under which most 'civilisation' has controlled civilisation.

The difference now is that we don't TELL our children what to expect. People like George W Bush hark back to an imaginary day where children never knew about sex till they were married. Those days never happened. But, by perpetuating their 'abstinence' sexual education program, they are fostering naivity on a generation of children. STD's are barely mentioned, birth control is barely mentioned, and why? The idea is that kids will abstain.

What they miss is the fact that: if you don't EDUCATE the children as to what sex IS, they won't even know they are DOING it, until too late.

Abstinence might work for a person, but it is ridiculous to try to imply it to an entire society, especially when you refuse to educate that society as to what they are ABSTAINING from.

As a direct result of George W Bush's proposals, there will be MORE abortions in the next few years.

Glad you brought up that particular example :-) because I do think Terminalia recognizes the realty and truth as subjective, from many things he has said, here and on other threads, and that, perhaps, his position is being assumed. That is also, I think, why he stressed that some counter arguments made no sense to him.

But I could be wrong, too. ;-)

For the sake of women the whole world over, that already have to deal with realities like the philosophy Terminalia speaks... I really, really hope you are right....

[QUOTE=Pithica]Uh, not to be sarcastic, but I am a guy. And certainly not a feminist. My wife is currently a 'stay-at-home' (between blue collar jobs), and I don't think any less of her for it. She has every plan to stay home and raise the kids whenever we get around to that, and I support her there too.

lol sorry then.

However, she also has the right to decide for herself what she wants out of her life. It isn't my place to make those decisions for her. And it certainly as all hell isn't yours, the person I was originally responding to, or some worthless hick 3 states over. If she chooses a carreer over childbirth, you have no right to sit in judgement of her, or to make it out like she is less of a person for doing so.

Fair call, I just dont believe women should choose a career over child birth.

If your going to have a career, then get your tubes tied up.

And its not nice to call someone a worthless hick, that makes you look

snobbish, their a human being just like you are.

Simple answer. Because your morality isn't the same is mine (or anyone else's). Because you would be very upset if I tried to pass a law that held you up to my standards of morality, and likely couldn't cut it. It would be wrong of me to try and do so, according to my own standards of morality, therefore I believe it is wrong for you to do so.

I dont believe in morality as an issue thats decided by the individual as a

personal standard, that holds up and equals everybody elses, morality is

objective.

I am anti-abortion, I don't say pro-life because i'm not going to be all preachy about a fetus being a baby. All I can say is that I don't believe that having an abortion is anyone's right nor are they needed at all. I understand the issues of rape and incest, but outside of that I have to be harsh and say don't have sex if you're not prepared for the consequence, period. Don't eat something you are illergic to and be surprised when your throat closes up and don't get wasted and be surprised when you feel sick the next day. It is legal to have an abortion so have one if you must, but if I could wave a magic wand and end it, I would. :rolleyes:

Grave_n_idle[/B]]

[QUOTE]How about the flood? No 'natural order' there.... he didn't like it, he changed it.

The flood was always going to happen.


How about Babel? He didn't like the tower, letting people try to peak through the clouds into his house, so he blasted it. Where is 'natural order'? Where is god NOT changing the world?

He did not blast it, he made it so no one could understand each other, thus

bringing the work to a halt, which is why its called the tower of babel.


What about Sodom? It is surely unusual in the 'natural order' for fire and brimstone to rain from the skies and destroy cities? And Lot's wife, of course, might present something of an argument against 'natural order' or god's pattern of 'non-interference'.


God destroyed it mainly because of the evil that was rampant in the cities,

which was pretty unnatural, how he did it is debated alot.

Lots wife was warned not to look back, but curiosity made her do it, not God,

so she paid the price.

I think Job might have a question or two about that policy, too.

The Devil afflicted him not God.

The Devil afflicted him not God.

So if I tell someone to go do bad stuff to people, and they follow my orders and do it, I can still blame it all on them?

What's to explain? Life begins at conception. And the act of stopping this growth is murder, pure and simple.

I am anti-abortion, I don't say pro-life because i'm not going to be all preachy about a fetus being a baby. All I can say is that I don't believe that having an abortion is anyone's right nor are they needed at all. I understand the issues of rape and incest, but outside of that I have to be harsh and say don't have sex if you're not prepared for the consequence, period. Don't eat something you are illergic to and be surprised when your throat closes up and don't get wasted and be surprised when you feel sick the next day. It is legal to have an abortion so have one if you must, but if I could wave a magic wand and end it, I would. :rolleyes:

I agree with you to a point. I think abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, but yes I think in cases of rape and incest, exceptions must be made. I think it is too wishy washy to try and make a law with so many exceptions and terms.

Also, in terms of religion and faith... If there is a God and He is willing to give us the freedom of choice, then who are we to say "sorry God, they don't deserve a choice here" and take away God's given right?

Anttar,
I am just curious as to your views if it is discovered in the very beginning stages that having the child puts the mothers life as well as the babies at risk?

The flood was always going to happen.

God destroyed it mainly because of the evil that was rampant in the cities,
which was pretty unnatural, how he did it is debated alot.
Lots wife was warned not to look back, but curiosity made her do it, not God,
so she paid the price.

The Devil afflicted him not God.

The flood was 'always going to happen'? Seems unlikely, since god originally created two perfect persons who were without sin... and the flood was to punish a world of sin.

You are right, god destroyed Sodom because of the evil run rampant. However, that still means he denied the natural order of things.

Same applies for Lot's wife. It doesn't matter if she was 'warned' first... the natural order still was not observed. Unless people turn into pillars of salt a lot, down your way.

Finally... re: Job. Read your bible, my friend.

Job 1:12 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

Firstly, the agent is HaSatan, not 'the devil'... but you are naive to the distinction, so we'll let it pass...

Secondly: Satan can only tease Job because Jehovah ORDERS him to.

So, in very real terms, god afflicted Job. And that, my friend, is...once again... interference with the natural order.

So, in very real terms, god afflicted Job. And that, my friend, is...once again... interference with the natural order.

That's being misread, you are implying active participation as opposed to passive interference.

If you are going to use Ha-Satan and hence Torah observance, then you need to rationalise with God having created both good and evil, and hence an agent in the form of the Angel of Death (Ha-Satan) to undertake evil so as to allow humans the right to decide their journey for them. If he wished to make us fully subservient to his preferred will, then he would have not needed another race apart from the Angels.

However you must disassociate guilt, ie, Ha-Satan is not the responsible party for the actions afflicted upon Job, as they chose for themself. Ergo, his subservience to God and his mission IS part of the natural order.

So if I tell someone to go do bad stuff to people, and they follow my orders and do it, I can still blame it all on them?

God allowed Satan to do 'bad stuff' he didnt tell him to, nor did he come up

with it as a sugestion in the first place.

It was more :

God; Job is my faithful servant, and will never curse me.

Satan; Well Im just gonna go ram a snake up his butt, and see what he says

then!

God; go for it, he will not curse me.

I believe the story of Job is basically about, no matter what happens to you,

dont blame God for it.

And what about all the responsibility and sacrifice? I don't defend abortion as a form of birth control but I certianly DO defend my right to not have to raise and pay for someone else's unwanted baby. As far as some of us are missing out, (due to abortions), I believe that the human mind is a tool of natural selection. Because humans are control hungry and curious by nature, it is only natural that we would figure out how to do away with an unwanted foetus. See what I mean? And yes, i do have a kid. He's 8 and he's very loved and very well provided for because I was fortuante enough to have the choice of having him. He is not resented or neglected in any fashion because I wasn't forced to have him. **climbs off soapbox** thank you!I didn't say anyone would be forced to have children...merely that anyone who already decided to by their actions should be forced to take responsibility for them.

I am anti-abortion, I don't say pro-life because i'm not going to be all preachy about a fetus being a baby. All I can say is that I don't believe that having an abortion is anyone's right nor are they needed at all. I understand the issues of rape and incest, but outside of that I have to be harsh and say don't have sex if you're not prepared for the consequence, period. Don't eat something you are illergic to and be surprised when your throat closes up and don't get wasted and be surprised when you feel sick the next day. It is legal to have an abortion so have one if you must, but if I could wave a magic wand and end it, I would. :rolleyes:
I am anti-abortion, too. I agree with you: having an abortion is not a right. But being able to choose for yourself whether to have one, if you are a responsible adult, is a right. Given good information, sensible alternatives and the opportunity to exercise free will, most rational people will choose well.

PS: I don't "understand the issues of rape and incest" at all. Why are those pre-borns so special, that they don't deserve to live? What's up with that?

I am unable to understand why it is that people, rather than at least putting the child up for adoption after it is born, choose to kill it. I am myself adopted, and I kind of like life. I could just be an asshole, but it seems to me that if a woman chooses to have sex, and obviously a guy is always willing to have sex, then it stands to reason that if they fuck up and she gets pregnant that they must take responsibility for their actions. Of course, in the world today parents don't take responsibility for their kids even when they are teenagers, so I reckon that the idea of "responsibility" has probably been deemed politically incorrect by now.

I agree with you to a point. I think abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, but yes I think in cases of rape and incest, exceptions must be made. I think it is too wishy washy to try and make a law with so many exceptions and terms.
This is terribly nit-picky, but.. abortion could never be any sort of 'birth control' even if it's regarded that way by the person doing it. That's an incorrect use of the term 'birth control', which applies to methods used to prevent pregnancy.

Also, in terms of religion and faith... If there is a God and He is willing to give us the freedom of choice, then who are we to say "sorry God, they don't deserve a choice here" and take away God's given right?

Anttar,
I am just curious as to your views if it is discovered in the very beginning stages that having the child puts the mothers life as well as the babies at risk?
Good point, about free will. But the counter would be that God put it to us to make laws to govern ourselves. For instance, the person who robs a bank exercises free will, but we (society) would still attempt to stop him at all costs, if we could, by calling out law enforcement. Making abortions illegal would not prevent them from happening, it would just necessitate law enforcement.

Of course, in the world today parents don't take responsibility for their kids even when they are teenagers, so I reckon that the idea of "responsibility" has probably been deemed politically incorrect by now.It may not yet be politically incorrect, but it sure seems like no one wants to take it as a valid arguement. :D

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]The flood was 'always going to happen'? Seems unlikely, since god originally created two perfect persons who were without sin... and the flood was to punish a world of sin.

I believe God always knew we would fail the test of Eden.

You are right, god destroyed Sodom because of the evil run rampant. However, that still means he denied the natural order of things.

He destroyed something that wasnt natural, so he wasnt interferring with the

natural order of things, and how many times did Abraham beg God not to

destroy the Citys if righteous men could be found, but not even ten were

found, in effect God knew there were not even that many before Abraham

asked, note Abraham did not ask if less than ten could be found.


Same applies for Lot's wife. It doesn't matter if she was 'warned' first... the natural order still was not observed. Unless people turn into pillars of salt a lot, down your way.

Whatever it was that destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah could be something


that does turn you to salt if you look at it, calling something unnatural in this

case could just be a case of not knowing what exactly this method of

destruction is.

Salt is natural after all, and alot of it will kill you and destroy land.


Finally... re: Job. Read your bible, my friend.

I do, I read it nearly every night.


God is allowing Satan to torment Job, and also gives strict instruction for the

devil to not touch him himself, which Satan obeys, that should tell you alot

about who is in authority.


Secondly: Satan can only tease Job because Jehovah ORDERS him to.
So, in very real terms, god afflicted Job. And that, my friend, is...once again... interference with the natural order.

Satan asked if he could, and God allowed it.

And what natural order did it interfere with?

I am unable to understand why it is that people, rather than at least putting the child up for adoption after it is born, choose to kill it. I am myself adopted, and I kind of like life. I could just be an asshole, but it seems to me that if a woman chooses to have sex, and obviously a guy is always willing to have sex, then it stands to reason that if they fuck up and she gets pregnant that they must take responsibility for their actions. Of course, in the world today parents don't take responsibility for their kids even when they are teenagers, so I reckon that the idea of "responsibility" has probably been deemed politically incorrect by now.
Abortion carries with it a tremendous amount of stigma, for the parents. The stigma says, "We didn't want you so we gave you away!" even if it's not true, even if they did want the child but couldn't keep it for other reasons. The parents are embarassed, the neighbours whisper in dark corners.. it may all seem silly, but there are many situations in which adoption is simply not acceptable. Some parts of the U.S. are very class-conscious, for instance, and in some classes these things do matter. It can matter even moreso in a religious society where family is exonerated as sacred, even more so than life. Moreso again for a first-born son. Moreso again for nobility.

Abortion carries with it a tremendous amount of stigma, for the parents. The stigma says, "We didn't want you so we gave you away!" even if it's not true, even if they did want the child but couldn't keep it for other reasons. The parents are embarassed, the neighbours whisper in dark corners.. it may all seem silly, but there are many situations in which adoption is simply not acceptable. Some parts of the U.S. are very class-conscious, and in some classes these things do matter. It can matter even moreso in a religious society where family is exonerated as sacred, even more so than life. Moreso again for a first-born son. Moreso again for nobility.I don't see how that effects the morality of the act, which is what the entire discussion was about, right?

I don't see how that effects the morality of the act, which is what the entire discussion was about, right?
It's not about morality, per se. It does directly effect inhibitions and decisions.

EDIT: a moral code is what is judged right and wrong. Morality is both objective (laid down by society/religion) and subjective (observed by individuals). People will do things they may deem wrong even though it is against the moral code (immoral) because of other considerations that move them as much.

Oh. I was talking about the morality of the actual act, not the decisions that might lead people to disregard it.

Oh. I was talking about the morality of the actual act, not the decisions that might lead people to disregard it.
And I didn't intend to butt in to your conversation, just offer a possible explanation for what was asked... :)
Originally Posted by HadesRulesMuch
I am unable to understand why it is that people, rather than at least putting the child up for adoption after it is born, choose to kill it.

What's to explain? Life begins at conception. And the act of stopping this growth is murder, pure and simple.

What about the 50% of life (fertilised eggs) that never implants in the womb, and gets flushed out of the mothers body? Should we set up a system to save these lives? Surely, if we don't, we as society are dealing with mass murder through negligence?

What about the 50% of life (fertilised eggs) that never implants in the womb, and gets flushed out of the mothers body? Should we set up a system to save these lives? Surely, if we don't, we as society are dealing with mass murder through negligence?

Oh come now Shaed, I'd expect better of you :p

There's a difference between natural (unassisted) death and premeditated death.

Hey! That's my line! hehe Ok, Bottle might use it to I suppose, but it is my line. =)

GASP! Sorrysorrysorrysorrysorry! (yep, too much sugar for me again)

I was too lazy to go back and check who mentioned it first.

*offers complimentary slice of cake*

That'll learn me for not using actual quotes :p.

I am anti-abortion, I don't say pro-life because i'm not going to be all preachy about a fetus being a baby. All I can say is that I don't believe that having an abortion is anyone's right nor are they needed at all. I understand the issues of rape and incest, but outside of that I have to be harsh and say don't have sex if you're not prepared for the consequence, period. Don't eat something you are illergic to and be surprised when your throat closes up and don't get wasted and be surprised when you feel sick the next day. It is legal to have an abortion so have one if you must, but if I could wave a magic wand and end it, I would. :rolleyes:

So if you *do* eat something you're allergic to and your throat *does* close up, and you get carted of to the emergency room for an injection to take down the swelling... the doctor should be able to say "Whoop, this happened because you did something stupid. No life-saving injection for you. Don't things if you don't want the consequences. Enjoy the last few minutes of your life."

And if you *do* get wasted, and *do* wake up sick... should the chemist down the street be able to say "Whoop, no vitamin C tablets for you. You brought this on yourself, and now deal with the consequences. Nevermind that taking a vitamin C tablet WOULD BE a way of dealing with the consequences. My morals say you should have to suffer for making a mistake, and so suffer you shall."

The point is, having an abortion is a way to deal with the consequences. It is no more 'not dealing' than giving away a child for adoption is. I'm constantly amazed that those that are anti-abortion completely fail to see this *shakes head in bafflement*

hehe please no more red herrings, he was simply referring to action consequence.

Once you start rationalising away human life too deeply as inanimate objects (ie vitamin C) for the sake of comparison, you're starting to tread a very fine line.

I suppose my question is do you consider a foetus human life?

The point is, having an abortion is a way to deal with the consequences. It is no more 'not dealing' than giving away a child for adoption is. I'm constantly amazed that those that are anti-abortion completely fail to see this *shakes head in bafflement*

There are a lot of circumstances where I think the efficient method of dealing with a problem wouldn't exactly be considered Kosher.

On an offtopic, ever read Machiavelli's The Prince ? It would probably give a good incite into what I mean by just because it's a method of dealing with a consequence, doesn't exactly make it the right thing to do.

Oh come now Shaed, I'd expect better of you :p

There's a difference between natural (unassisted) death and premeditated death.

You missed my other point, about death caused by society sanctioned negligence.

If life begins at conception, we are causing the deaths of millions by not saving these living beings and getting them safely implanted into a womb.

We know it occurs, but we don't stop it from happening... that's negligence, a crime punishable by law (especially when it results in death of a living human... or maybe only in that case, I'm not sure, but one or the other).

ok, I'm going to try and explain this from a secular perspective.

There ais really only 1 assumption here, and that is that an unborn foetus is human life from the moment of conception.

So taking the first assumption, it moves onto the view that no person should ever be a slave, ie that there should be no human life whose existece and right to life is the subject of an individual/organisation without due process for a crime convicted (job contracts don't count, you could choose not to do a job I'm paying you for, though the government would rule that you would need to reimburse me financially, I can't make you do the job). So reducing the foetus to mere property is in-effect labelling it a slave until some arbitrary period that it changes from property to human. (?)

It also takes the stance that human life shouldn't be dismissed as an invonvenience, so that when dealing with the consequences of pregnancy, the termination of the life is not an ethical viable alternative.

However I also fiund the concept of pushing for murder charges against someone killing a "wanted" unborn child as hypocritical, the charge is aggravated assault, either it is, or it isn't a human, it can't be both depending on how you feel.

hehe please no more red herrings, he was simply referring to action consequence.

I don't mean them as red herrings. I'm trying to point out that an abortion is a way of dealing with your actions. I wouldn't have a problem with ant-abortioners saying it's not, if they weren't so entirerly hypocritical, re: adoption. Both actions are abandoning your child, but one occurs before that child is able to comprehend its own existance, while one gives it the chance to live life. Neither are wrong in my view, and I don't have a problem with people who think both are wrong... but people who try to separate the two in terms of 'dealing with actions' annoy me greatly. Its the same as the "All life is sacred, but we'll let you kill babies concieved by rape... they're... less sacred". If people want to force their morals on others, they should at least be bloody consistent.

Once you start rationalising away human life too deeply as inanimate objects (ie vitamin C) for the sake of comparison, you're starting to tread a very fine line.

I was working with the examples given, and showing that if there's a way to avoid suffering, people should be allowed the choice to take it, even if their own actions led to their suffering. He was trying to argue that, because sex can lead to pregnancy, if you have sex and get pregnant, you should not be allowed to deal with that in a way that would prevent your own suffering.

In essence, the "let's use embyros to punish women! yay!" argument, which I frankly find sickening.

I suppose my question is do you consider a foetus human life?.

No, I don't. Nor do I consider an embryo (which is actually the stage when most abortions occur) a human life.

But even IF I did... it would be irrelevent to the matter of making abortion illegal. The only thing that should matter in that case is what can be proven objectively. And, to be honest, science doesn't agree that an embryo is human life. Not if you understand it. To me, that is what matters. If it can't be objectively proven that an embryo is human, I believe my own opinions should be kept to myself and not pushed (through law) on other woman.

Which is, get this, pro-choice, no matter whether I am for or against abortion.

There are a lot of circumstances where I think the efficient method of dealing with a problem wouldn't exactly be considered Kosher.

I agree. But until I can provide a subjective reason behind my beliefs, I will never EVER try to force those beliefs into the legal system.

On an offtopic, ever read Machiavelli's The Prince ? It would probably give a good incite into what I mean by just because it's a method of dealing with a consequence, doesn't exactly make it the right thing to do.

I've started it, but I've only got a version on my computer, so I can't really read it (staring at computer for long time = fried eyeballs, and all that). And I do agree that just because you *can* do something doesn't make it *right*.

My issue is with anti-abortioners flat out claiming that ABORTION is not a way of dealing with consequences but ADOPTION is. I not only disagree, but I think it's an incredibly worrying point of view to take.

That's what I was trying to point out :p.

You missed my other point, about death caused by society sanctioned negligence.

If life begins at conception, we are causing the deaths of millions by not saving these living beings and getting them safely implanted into a womb.

Miscarriages are a red herring (it's a miscarriage whether it's at 3 hours or 3 months, right?), it's not negligent behaviour. Negligence implies lack of reasonable due care, you can't expect someone to tale care of an unborn child they are completely unaware of on the first day and still consider that "reasonable". In fact, I've never heard nor seen one person claim that anywhere. (but I'm sure there's probably a few who do, there always is..)

ok, I'm going to try and explain this from a secular perspective.

There ais really only 1 assumption here, and that is that an unborn foetus is human life from the moment of conception.

So taking the first assumption, it moves onto the view that no person should ever be a slave, ie that there should be no human life whose existece and right to life is the subject of an individual/organisation without due process for a crime convicted (job contracts don't count, you could choose not to do a job I'm paying you for, though the government would rule that you would need to reimburse me financially, I can't make you do the job). So reducing the foetus to mere property is in-effect labelling it a slave until some arbitrary period that it changes from property to human. (?)

It also takes the stance that human life shouldn't be dismissed as an invonvenience, so that when dealing with the consequences of pregnancy, the termination of the life is not an ethical viable alternative.

However I also fiund the concept of pushing for murder charges against someone killing a "wanted" unborn child as hypocritical, the charge is aggravated assault, either it is, or it isn't a human, it can't be both depending on how you feel.

(I've quoted this because this is what lead me to think of my post, but I'm not addressing anything in it... just so you don't think I completely missed your point).

I don't even view the issue of the embryos 'humanity' as an issue. I view it as the woman be legally able to remove an organ from the use of another being.

Every other human is afforded this right. I cannot attach myself to you in order to use your blood, even if I will die otherwise. I cannot attach myself TO MY MOTHER for that purpose, even if I will die without doing so.

Not without her consent. When a woman has an abortion, all she is doing is removing her body and resources from the use of another. Legally, she is allowed to. Not just because abortions are legal, but because every human being has the right to choose whether they will donate an organ (even if it's their own child who will die if they don't).

If anti-abortioners don't like this, we should set up a system where a zygote can be removed from the natural mother, and implanted directly into the womb of a willing mother. Oh wait, we already know how to do that.

So why isn't it being done? Just like you can donate blood, or donate and organ, to save a life... you can donate your womb.

But to legally force anyone to donate any part of themself, against their wishes, is wrong. If I were inclined to be overly emotional (which I am occasionally), I'd call it disgusting. No matter the 'human' status of the other person, no matter if the other person dies due to their refusal, every person has a right to say "No, I don't want this person using a part of my body".

Miscarriages are a red herring (it's a miscarriage whether it's at 3 hours or 3 months, right?), it's not negligent behaviour. Negligence implies lack of reasonable due care, you can't expect someone to tale care of an unborn child they are completely unaware of on the first day and still consider that "reasonable". In fact, I've never heard nor seen one person claim that anywhere. (but I'm sure there's probably a few who do, there always is..)

I'm talking about the negligence of the society, since a system could be put in place to stop these lives from ceasing to be. We know for a fact that about 50% of fertilised eggs don't implant in the womb... why aren't we putting a system in place to collect the lives that miss their chance, and then implanting them into wombs manually?

Is it too much hassle?

I thought life was sacred?

Oh wait, is it ok to let someone die if it's too much trouble to prevent their death now?

But yeah, mine is a stupid point. But that's because the original point was stupid also. The fact that you consider this a red herring makes me wonder why you don't denounce the original comment as foolish and irrelevant also.

I agree. But until I can provide a subjective reason behind my beliefs, I will never EVER try to force those beliefs into the legal system.

They have to be someone's beliefs don't they? else you'd never have any laws ;)

In our *cough* democracies *cough* they are effectively rationalised down to the views of a few hundred people, all the way to an autocracy where it's basically one person's, either way it's still based on someone's beliefs.

Oh btw, I think you mean objective, not subjective, but it's almost impossible to reach a non subjective stance.

In essence, the "let's use embyros to punish women! yay!" argument, which I frankly find sickening.

Allow abortion, less left wingers that way ;)

And, to be honest, science doesn't agree that an embryo is human life.

Science doesn't have an opinion, scientists do, and if history is much of a lesson, ethics and science haven't exactly been intertwined in the most positive fashion (almost as bad as politics and ethics, hehe), a majority of ethicists seem to question the motives of so called "medical ethicists".

........
Science doesn't have an opinion, scientists do, and if history is much of a lesson, ethics and science haven't exactly been intertwined in the most positive fashion (almost as bad as politics and ethics, hehe), a majority of ethicists seem to question the motives of so called "medical ethicists".

tsktsk, I did fail with that wording, didn't I. I think I may have to stop debating and go eat something and get some sleep...

I meant something along the lines of 'science doesn't offer anything to back up the claim that a zygote or embryo is deserving of the right to life'.

But then, I'll fully admit that while my opinion is that something lacking a nervous system/brain at the point of death is not a loss, I can't claim science supports that. It just provides the fact that a zygote/embryo has no brain/nervous system.

And dear lord, I can't believe how totally out of it I am currently. I can only apologise for the poor quality of my discourse, and promise to refrain until I get some sleep. I'll probably come back to this debate later tonight and be all "OMG, was I drunk???. Oh well.

*leaves to make good on promise of getting some sleep*

Science doesn't have an opinion, scientists do
not precisely true. sceince cannot define for us what it means to be a human person, but it most certainly can test any definitions we generate to see if they are factually applicable to fetuses. so far, there is no definition of human personhood that can be accurately applied to pre-viable fetuses but which does not also include many higher primates or other organisms. this is largely because people recognize that the feature which defines a human person is their personality, their mind; you can transplant somebody's heart and it won't make them a different person, but if you tranplanted brains it would. since our unique consciousness is what defines us as the person we are, it is consciousness that holds the key to our concept of what it means to be human.

It is quite simple, really. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has its own DNA, separate from its mother's or father's. That makes it a person, and therefore, illegal to kill.

However, the fetus cannot survive without nutrients supplied directly from the mother's body. Half of the baby's genetic makeup is from the father, half from the mother, so by your reasoning, if both parents agreed to abort, that would be OK. In my view, however, the decision should be left up to the mother.

I didn't say anyone would be forced to have children...merely that anyone who already decided to by their actions should be forced to take responsibility for them.
consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy, any more than consenting to ski is consenting to falling and getting a broken arm. we can no more deny a woman the right to choose than we can deny a skier the right to have a broken arm set...they both require medical care to correct an accident that they incurred while engaging in a voluntary activity, and it would be inhumane of us to say, "you chose to go skiing, so you can just live with that broken arm."

However, the fetus cannot survive without nutrients supplied directly from the mother's body. Half of the baby's genetic makeup is from the father, half from the mother, so by your reasoning, if both parents agreed to abort, that would be OK. In my view, however, the decision should be left up to the mother.
playing devil's advocate:

that's not solid reasoning; you can't give people the right to kill their children if both parents agree upon it, so the simple fact that the fetus shares DNA with both parents isn't enough to give them property rights over it. if the fetus is indeed a "child" then you would set a precident by allowing parents to kill their children by virtue of their DNA. also, keep in mind that all people will have genetic mutations, and therefore have genetic coding not inherited directly from either parent.

That's being misread, you are implying active participation as opposed to passive interference.

If you are going to use Ha-Satan and hence Torah observance, then you need to rationalise with God having created both good and evil, and hence an agent in the form of the Angel of Death (Ha-Satan) to undertake evil so as to allow humans the right to decide their journey for them. If he wished to make us fully subservient to his preferred will, then he would have not needed another race apart from the Angels.

However you must disassociate guilt, ie, Ha-Satan is not the responsible party for the actions afflicted upon Job, as they chose for themself. Ergo, his subservience to God and his mission IS part of the natural order.

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at... HaSatan is the 'adversary' of men in the 'courts' (if you will) of god. He is, for want of better analogy, the case for the prosecution. That position, one assumes (since I do not recall reading anywhere that 'heaven' is democratic) must have been appointed by god, with the express purpose of perverting the natural order - in order to 'try' the unfaithfulness of man.

I'm not sure why you refer to HaSatan as the Angel of Death, either... perhaps you are confusing him with Sammael?

The fact is, god orders HaSatan to persecute Job, thereby perverting natural order.

not precisely true. sceince cannot define for us what it means to be a human person, but it most certainly can test any definitions we generate to see if they are factually applicable to fetuses.

It generally turns into an argument of maths vs science.

Maths, ie logic will tell you that foetuses are humans, an Ethicist will follow the following logical pattern.

If I am human life, and I was a foetus, then a foetus is human life.

The same is said for us in embryonic form.

So the question comes down to whose right (or more right), the ethicist applying logic or the scientist applying science.

It generally turns into an argument of maths vs science.

Maths, ie logic will tell you that foetuses are humans, an Ethicist will follow the following logical pattern.

If I am human life, and I was a foetus, then a foetus is human life.

The same is said for us in embryonic form.

So the question comes down to whose right (or more right), the ethicist applying logic or the scientist applying science.
erm, no, logic will not tell us that fetuses are human persons, because we would first need to define certain premeses to procede with the mathematical proof. those premeses cannot be logically tested without assuming them, and therefore the question cannot be resolved.

science confirms that fetuses are living human tissue. that is not up for debate, because it is established beyond any reasonable doubt. however, neither science nor math can establish if fetuses are human persons, which is the real issue; living human tissues are destroyed everyday, by every living person, so if fetuses are ONLY living human tissues then there is no need for any debate about abortion. the only reason people debate is because they believe that fetuses should be recognized as human persons, and, as i have said, no empirical study can answer that by itself...you must first define human personhood before math or science can give you any reply.

of course, it is all moot for me, because the personhood of the fetus is not relavent to my conclusion about abortion. :)

The fact is, god orders HaSatan to persecute Job, thereby perverting natural order.

If we're going to take Torah observance, who defines the natural order exactly? you? me? God?

Well the answer is obvious, how exactly does him exercising his infallible will pervert a natural order that is the result of his infallible will?

God is as responsible for the creation of evil is as he is good, or at least so he claims.

you do understand that story isn't just the story of 1 man right? it's to describe the tests that we all go through using 1 man's tests as an example? there is another story very similar later in the Torah. (the book eludes me)

It's the story of 1 man's triumph over adversity as an example to us all.

You are trying to associate natural order with your definition, which completely defeats the point of your argument.

erm, no, logic will not tell us that fetuses are human persons, because we would first need to define certain premeses to procede with the mathematical proof. those premeses cannot be logically tested without assuming them, and therefore the question cannot be resolved.

If I am human life, and I was a foetus, then a foetus is human life.

You do understand it is from the syllogism Aristotle created that all logic is based upon, right?

Am I human life? yes
Was I a foetus? yes

Unless you would like to claim these assumptions to be wrong?

Then a foetus is human life.

I believe God always knew we would fail the test of Eden.


Then why 'punish' the two for succumbing to temptation? If he knew in advance, then it is just revenge to punish them... especially since he didn't warn them of the presence of the serpent. If you think about it, by NOT mentioning the serpent.. to two people who have absolute innocence (and therefore, unblemished trust), god ensured that they would believe what the serpent said (since, surely, he would have warned them if there were something to DISBELIEVE in the garden)... and is, therefore, the ARCHITECT of their fall.

Hardly seems like a fair test to me.


He destroyed something that wasnt natural, so he wasnt interferring with the
natural order of things, and how many times did Abraham beg God not to
destroy the Citys if righteous men could be found, but not even ten were
found, in effect God knew there were not even that many before Abraham
asked, note Abraham did not ask if less than ten could be found.


A city isn't 'natural'. By your definition, god can happily make wastelands of all cities.

By destroying a city for it's 'sin', he goes directly against the 'natural order', something which YOU claimed he was incapable of doing.


Whatever it was that destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah could be something
that does turn you to salt if you look at it, calling something unnatural in this
case could just be a case of not knowing what exactly this method of
destruction is.
Salt is natural after all, and alot of it will kill you and destroy land.


I take it you are not much of a chemist.

I seriously doubt the existence of any real reaction, no matter how 'mystical', that could turn you into salt.

Especially a reaction that only turned you into salt if you looked at it.


I do, I read it nearly every night.
God is allowing Satan to torment Job, and also gives strict instruction for the
devil to not touch him himself, which Satan obeys, that should tell you alot
about who is in authority.
Satan asked if he could, and God allowed it.
And what natural order did it interfere with?

No. Read it again.

God says... "look how cool and groovy Job is... he thinks I'm great".

Satan says... "He thinks you're silly really... he thinks you're a big wuss... be mean, and see if you stay friends".

God says... "Go kick his shiny metal ass".

Satan doesn't ask. God doesn't allow. God instructs, and Satan obeys.

It interferes with the natural order in all the ways that the natural order is interfered with in the text... read it, Terminalia.

You do understand it is from the syllogism Aristotle created that all logic is based upon, right?

Am I human life? yes
Was I a foetus? yes

Unless you would like to claim these assumptions to be wrong?

Then a foetus is human life.

Am I 30 years old? Yes
Was I a child? Yes
Does this mean that a child is 30 years old or that a 30-year-old is a child? Let me get back to you on that one...

Oh come now Shaed, I'd expect better of you :p

There's a difference between natural (unassisted) death and premeditated death.

It is, however, a precise, concise and elegant response to the previous point, which was:

"What's to explain? Life begins at conception. And the act of stopping this growth is murder, pure and simple".

As you yourself have pointed out, there is a difference, and that means that the 'act' of stopping the growth (and that 'act' can be intentional or just circumstantial) cannot be automatically and conclusively labelled as murder.

Shaed could doubtless have gone into much more detail... citing all kinds of possible reasons for miscarriage, accidents, etc that might cause a foetus not to grow... but decided instead, to leave it a short sharp mention of the most obvious flaw... the fact that half of fertilised ova simply fail to implant.

Hats off to Shaed.

Does this mean that a child is 30 years old or that a 30-year-old is a child? Let me get back to you on that one...

Umm, the human life was using the present tense instead of the past tense, since well, it's daft to say that something still living ceases to be human life. (I didn't think someone would be ermm, pedantic enough to enforce a time model when one of the assumptions it to be irrelevant)

If we are going to use 2 time based suppositions.

Since Am I is now, and was is past, then the solution is

Therefore a 30 year old was once a child.

Would you prefer me to say "Therefore a foetus was human life" ?

playing devil's advocate:

that's not solid reasoning; you can't give people the right to kill their children if both parents agree upon it, so the simple fact that the fetus shares DNA with both parents isn't enough to give them property rights over it. if the fetus is indeed a "child" then you would set a precident by allowing parents to kill their children by virtue of their DNA. also, keep in mind that all people will have genetic mutations, and therefore have genetic coding not inherited directly from either parent.

I was trying to point out a flaw in his argument. And even if mutations occur, the DNA of the fetus is still made up almost completely by the parents' DNA. In addition to this, the fetus is physically dependent on the woman, and causes many toxic effects, such as morning sickness.

ok, I'm going to try and explain this from a secular perspective.

There ais really only 1 assumption here, and that is that an unborn foetus is human life from the moment of conception.

So taking the first assumption, it moves onto the view that no person should ever be a slave, ie that there should be no human life whose existece and right to life is the subject of an individual/organisation without due process for a crime convicted (job contracts don't count, you could choose not to do a job I'm paying you for, though the government would rule that you would need to reimburse me financially, I can't make you do the job). So reducing the foetus to mere property is in-effect labelling it a slave until some arbitrary period that it changes from property to human. (?)
A slave is a functional member of society, whose purpose and label is defined by his function in society. A fetus has no function in society --function is reserved for individual human beings (i.e. separated from the mother). The fetus is not a slave --a better analogy would be a vegetable, whose only purpose is to grow.

It also takes the stance that human life shouldn't be dismissed as an invonvenience, so that when dealing with the consequences of pregnancy, the termination of the life is not an ethical viable alternative.

However I also fiund the concept of pushing for murder charges against someone killing a "wanted" unborn child as hypocritical, the charge is aggravated assault, either it is, or it isn't a human, it can't be both depending on how you feel.
I agree that human life should not be dismissed as an inconvenience, but "inconvenience" is only a slant that anti-abortionist activist put on the process, one that conveniently ignores all other circumstances of the abortion.

Every case of abortion is unique, with unique circumstances and reasons. If there are any "abortions of convenience" amongst those circumstances, the majority of abortion reasons should not be ignored for the sake of those few people.

You do understand it is from the syllogism Aristotle created that all logic is based upon, right?

Am I human life? yes
Was I a foetus? yes

Unless you would like to claim these assumptions to be wrong?

Then a foetus is human life.
again, it is well established that a fetus is living human tissue; it is alive, and human in nature. however, your stomach cells are also alive, and human in nature. your liver is a distinct, living, human tissue.

are you a human person? yes, i would assume so.
were you a fetus? yes, i would assume so.
at the time you were a fetus, were you a human person? possibly; i do not believe so, but many other people do.
should you have been granted the same rights as a fetus that you now are granted as a person? again, i would say no; if fetuses should be treated as people because they may one day become people, then children should be allowed to vote and drive and buy alcohol because they will one day become adults.

I was trying to point out a flaw in his argument. And even if mutations occur, the DNA of the fetus is still made up almost completely by the parents' DNA. In addition to this, the fetus is physically dependent on the woman, and causes many toxic effects, such as morning sickness.
but that was my point; your argument was flawed. the genetic relationship of the fetus to the parents does not determine how much right they have to make life-or-death decisions for it; after all, an identical twin shares 100% of his DNA with his twin, but that doesn't give him the right to decide when his twin should live or die.

to my way of thinking, the ONLY relavent feature is the second part of your post here: the impacts on the woman. for me, abortion has nothing to do with ending the life of the fetus, but is instead about the right to one's own body as applied to the woman in the situation. she has the right to deny the use of her body for incubation of a fetus, no matter how it got there, just as any other person has the right to deny use of their body and organs.

ok, I'm going to try and explain this from a secular perspective.

There ais really only 1 assumption here, and that is that an unborn foetus is human life from the moment of conception.

So taking the first assumption, it moves onto the view that no person should ever be a slave, ie that there should be no human life whose existece and right to life is the subject of an individual/organisation without due process for a crime convicted (job contracts don't count, you could choose not to do a job I'm paying you for, though the government would rule that you would need to reimburse me financially, I can't make you do the job). So reducing the foetus to mere property is in-effect labelling it a slave until some arbitrary period that it changes from property to human. (?)

It also takes the stance that human life shouldn't be dismissed as an invonvenience, so that when dealing with the consequences of pregnancy, the termination of the life is not an ethical viable alternative.

However I also fiund the concept of pushing for murder charges against someone killing a "wanted" unborn child as hypocritical, the charge is aggravated assault, either it is, or it isn't a human, it can't be both depending on how you feel.

I also argue chiefly from a secular viewpoint, yet I see your argument as flawed... "There is really only 1 assumption here, and that is that an unborn foetus is human life from the moment of conception"... simply doesn't hold true.

Another assumption would be that it isn't a 'human life' until the moment it is born (based on the Genesis account).

Another assumption is that it isn't a life, even if it is 'human', until it is born... since 'a life' is different to being 'live'. (Based on the concept of cellular life).

Another assumption would be that it isn't human (since 'human' carries certain connotations not normally associated with clusters of cells), even if it is 'alive'.

Another assumption would be that it is neither 'human' (yet) nor 'alive' (yet), although it will likely attain both states if left sufficiently long, and nothing goes wrong.

And there are many assumptions I HAVEN'T touched there... but this should suffice to point out where the gap is in your argument.

at the time you were a fetus, were you a human person? possibly; i do not believe so, but many other people do.
should you have been granted the same rights as a fetus that you now are granted as a person? again, i would say no; if fetuses should be treated as people because they may one day become people, then children should be allowed to vote and drive and buy alcohol because they will one day become adults.

See I respect that view.

It's the ultra partisan viewpoints

of it's life, it's sacred, under no conditions, even negligent miscarriage should you be allowed to go without punishment. (you know I'm still amazed there are people who feel that even if the mother risks almost certain death, that it's wrong, their moral certitude is mind boggling)

Or the blindset of

it's not life, it's never been life, strike that possibility from your mind, la la la i can't hear you.

that get to me :p

Umm, the human life was using the present tense instead of the past tense, since well, it's daft to say that something still living ceases to be human life. (I didn't think someone would be ermm, pedantic enough to enforce a time model when one of the assumptions it to be irrelevant)

If we are going to use 2 time based suppositions.

Since Am I is now, and was is past, then the solution is

Therefore a 30 year old was once a child.

Would you prefer me to say "Therefore a foetus was human life" ?

Sorry, I did not fully replicate your tenses when I (in a spark of creativity) decided to see if the opposite association was true...

However, lets try straight substitution as per your original statements.
"Am I human life?" => "Am I 30 years old": Both can be answered "Yes, at this moment in time" (it only discussing the present).
"Was I a foetus?" => "Was I a child": Both can be answered "Yes, I used to be" (it discussing an indeterminate point of time in the past).
"Then a foetus is human life." => "Then a child is 30 years old": The former is debatable (is being debated), the latter is plainly false (as we understand the words, at least) and therefore cannot support the former (but neither does its falsity deny the possibility).
Equating the truthfulness of "a human life was once a foetus" and "a 30 year old was once a child", however, I agree with, but I'm not sure if that's logic or knowledge/experience of some kind speaking...

It generally turns into an argument of maths vs science.

Maths, ie logic will tell you that foetuses are humans, an Ethicist will follow the following logical pattern.

If I am human life, and I was a foetus, then a foetus is human life.

The same is said for us in embryonic form.

So the question comes down to whose right (or more right), the ethicist applying logic or the scientist applying science.

Fallacious. Neither math NOR logic 'tells you' that a foetus is a human.

Your basis is errant, so your logic is flawed.

If we're going to take Torah observance, who defines the natural order exactly? you? me? God?

Well the answer is obvious, how exactly does him exercising his infallible will pervert a natural order that is the result of his infallible will?

God is as responsible for the creation of evil is as he is good, or at least so he claims.

you do understand that story isn't just the story of 1 man right? it's to describe the tests that we all go through using 1 man's tests as an example? there is another story very similar later in the Torah. (the book eludes me)

It's the story of 1 man's triumph over adversity as an example to us all.

You are trying to associate natural order with your definition, which completely defeats the point of your argument.

Natural order, if you follow the judeo-christian conception, must have been an artifact of god. He creates a 'nature' and sets it to it's 'order'.

For god to then intervene, even though he created the order, is to pervert the order.

If I make a maze... and I put a rat in the maze, and I time the rat escaping... that is an investigation into the 'natural order' of rats-escaping-mazes.

If I make a maze... and I put a rat in the maze, and I time the rat escaping... but every time the rat starts heading down a wrong turn, I 'shoo' it back onto the 'right' path, I have perverted the 'natural order' of rats-escaping-mazes.

It is irrelevent whether ot not Job is one person, or the centre of an allegorical hub... (although some would argue that Job is VERY CERTAINLY one person)... the fact is, that natural order is perverted in the story, in order to imprint some kind of spiritual 'benchmark'.

Finally: Natural Order wasn't my argument... it was Terminalia's. If you think it erroneous as an argument, you should take it up with him, since it is his 'concept'.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Then why 'punish' the two for succumbing to temptation? If he knew in advance, then it is just revenge to punish them... especially since he didn't warn them of the presence of the serpent. If you think about it, by NOT mentioning the serpent.. to two people who have absolute innocence (and therefore, unblemished trust), god ensured that they would believe what the serpent said (since, surely, he would have warned them if there were something to DISBELIEVE in the garden)... and is, therefore, the ARCHITECT of their fall.
Hardly seems like a fair test to me.

Human nature is designed to fail, if he made us any different, we wouldnt be

human.


The snake getting in was part of the plan too.


A city isn't 'natural'. By your definition, god can happily make wastelands of all cities.

If they got as bad as Sodom and Gormorrah, I wouldnt care.


By destroying a city for it's 'sin', he goes directly against the 'natural order', something which YOU claimed he was incapable of doing.

Well these citys were so bad, they were no longer part of the natural order,

so God, removed them.

I take it you are not much of a chemist.

Can't dodge that one, chemistry has never interested me much.

I seriously doubt the existence of any real reaction, no matter how 'mystical', that could turn you into salt.

Like I said, it was probably something we havent developed yet, or salt could

have meant sulpher, something that kills you, some kind of thing that kills

you if you look at it.




God says... "look how cool and groovy Job is... he thinks I'm great".
Satan says... "He thinks you're silly really... he thinks you're a big wuss... be mean, and see if you stay friends".
God says... "Go kick his shiny metal ass".
Satan doesn't ask. God doesn't allow. God instructs, and Satan obeys.
It interferes with the natural order in all the ways that the natural order is interfered with in the text... read it, Terminalia.

God knew Satan wanted to prove to him, he could take one of his most

faithful servants off him, so God said, go on, try and take him away, so Satan

tried, and failed, such was Gods faith in Job.

but I'm not sure if that's logic or knowledge/experience of some kind speaking...

Logic is schooled from a hardcore realist, whom believed in certain universals being true.

The knowledge is more an application of the truth, no?

Ie if i said

I'm a fish.

Well your knowledge would be the reason you'd say, "no you're not".

if you dont want a kid dont get pregnant... lets start madatory birth control for the idiots who cant manage to use a condom...we can just put it in public school lunches.. or how about mandatory sterilization after the second abortion...or how about we just kill women who cant stop getting knocked up...eat it you scum..hahahahaha

Logic is schooled from a hardcore realist, whom believed in certain universals being true.

The knowledge is more an application of the truth, no?

Ie if i said

I'm a fish.

Well your knowledge would be the reason you'd say, "no you're not".

Logic would dictate that you are not a fish, since fish would not be likely to have access to a computer, what with electronics being a dangerous prospect under-water.

Finally: Natural Order wasn't my argument... it was Terminalia's. If you think it erroneous as an argument, you should take it up with him, since it is his 'concept'.

Yes but you applied the Judaist argument to someone using Christian theology.

Everyone except them seem to see theological flaws in modern Christianity (The Eastern Orthodox church is the closest to consistent) which are rarely if ever present in Judaism.

The judaist pespective is that Job is merely an example, that everyone goes through the trials, albeit different ones, and it's an example of human success despite great hardships. (ie Ha-Satan does this to everyone, we just don't hear/read about it in a book)

or that is how a Rabbi explained it to me

Human nature is designed to fail, if he made us any different, we wouldnt be
human.


So, by your own admission, god deliberately made Adam and Eve flawed.

He could have designed a non-flawed being, and called that 'human'... but he didn't... so: either he didn't know they would fail the 'Eden' test, or he deliberately designed us BROKEN.

Which makes it somewhat sick, to punish a race for a failing he DELIBERATELY factored into the designs.


The snake getting in was part of the plan too.


Which is fine... but, unless he told those two absolute innocents (who were believing EVERYTHING they were told), that he had introduced something that they COULDN'T trust... then he deliberately skewed the outcome so that Adam and Eve would fail his little test.


Well these citys were so bad, they were no longer part of the natural order,
so God, removed them.


On the contrary, since they were cities entirely of man's creation, man being a natural creature... and since they reflected the nature of the human beast, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were absolutely part of the natural order.

God removing them was, thus, a perversion of the natural order.


Can't dodge that one, chemistry has never interested me much.


Then don't try to argue chemistry.


Like I said, it was probably something we havent developed yet, or salt could
have meant sulpher, something that kills you, some kind of thing that kills
you if you look at it.


Like I said, don't try to argue chemistry.


God knew Satan wanted to prove to him, he could take one of his most
faithful servants off him, so God said, go on, try and take him away, so Satan
tried, and failed, such was Gods faith in Job.

You made this up. I have read the book cover-to-cover a hundred times, and I don't remember there being any mention, EVER, that Satan WANTED to "take one of his most faithful servants off " of God.

You are adding your own bias to the text, in direct contravention of what is there.

Yes but you applied the Judaist argument to someone using Christian theology.

Everyone except them seem to see theological flaws in modern Christianity (The Eastern Orthodox church is the closest to consistent) which are rarely if ever present in Judaism.

The judaist pespective is that Job is merely an example, that everyone goes through the trials, albeit different ones, and it's an example of human success despite great hardships. (ie Ha-Satan does this to everyone, we just don't hear/read about it in a book)

or that is how a Rabbi explained it to me

The point still holds true.

If Job was an actual man, and god instructed HaSatan to perpetrate acts of evil upon him, as listed in the text, then god interferes with 'natural order' of an individual.

If Job is an allegory, representing the fact that god isntructs HaSatan to perpetrate acts of evil upon men, as exemplified in the text, then god interferes with the 'natural order' of ALL individuals.

That's what the Judaists believe, yes.

But of course Ha-Satan doesn't make anybody do anything, they bare 100% responsibility hence why he then prosecutes him when they "listen" to him and do what he suggests.

But a judaist a christnian not makes, and convincing either of the other's validity will probably yield success soon after the blood comes from that stone.

Ooh! Let's play "name that logical fallacy (http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm)!" I think it's 'False Analogy', using yourself as an example of how god must behave? or maybe 'Affirming the Consequent'? Well, it's certainly not one of the causal or categorical ones.

You are attributing to god motivational reasons that are your own for your own actions, as if it was they were his reasons, too. Other reasons for why god does not act have been offered, in this thread and others, that are more reasonable arguments.

That'll teach me to use an example of a situation rather than just say what I mean. Nice catch by the way.

It's hard to argue logically about god, but none the less, since my honor is at stake here, I will create the logic box I should have started with.

The facts:

Abortion exists. God has not stopped it. (I will concede here that he may be 'stopping' it, but that isn't an arguable stance)

Of all the myriad of reasons why abortion exists (in spite of the way many judeo-christians feel about it, and the same feeling they then use false analogy to ascribe to god) they all fall into one of 4 categories.

1. God Does not exist/The Judeo-christian god doesn't exist.
2. God cannot change it.
3. God hasn't a choice in changing it.
4. God chooses not to change it.

The first 3 create paradoxes for the Judeo-christian faith, since they deny his existence, or deny his omnipotence.

My argument, is that the 4 option means that a christian who is vehemently pro-life (the abortion-doctors-are-murderers and pregnent-women-are-whores crowd) is going against god's choice, and theirfore his will.

Man, rabbit trails...I don't even remember what I was talking about...

That's what the Judaists believe, yes.

But of course Ha-Satan doesn't make anybody do anything, they bare 100% responsibility hence why he then prosecutes him when they "listen" to him and do what he suggests.

But a judaist a christnian not makes, and convincing either of the other's validity will probably yield success soon after the blood comes from that stone.

And yet, a christian should, at least, consider the judaist viewpoint, no?

Since half of their holy text is, in fact, someone else's holy text delicately shuffled, and wedged ina t the start of the book to add validity to an otherwise pretty weak storyline?

If you don't know the risks then you sure as hell shouldn't be doing it. Which brings us to the point of sex-ed. it should be taught more. It isn't ignorant to say you shouldn't have sex if you don't know or accept the risks. It is ignorant to say that you should have sex when you don't know or take the risks. With all of these STDs around you think that people would learn not to have sex with every person you hook up with. I noticed you said that not everyone chooses to have sex. I am obviously talking about people who DO choose to have sex. Please read my posts. If everyone doesn't know how to have controllled sex then they should not take the risk. In my opinion you really shouldn't have sex before your married anyway. It causes way to many problems.

Let me put this in as plain of speech as I can.

People are going to have sex. They are going to do it out of wedlock. They are going to do it when they are too young/too immature to handle it. They are going to do it when they don't know what they are doing. They are going to do it unprotected. They are going to do it with inadaquate/improperly used protection. They are going to do it with people they don't know. They are going to do it with people they 'shouldn't'.

They are going to have sex even if you made them believe that their brains would catch on fire and their genitalia explode upon completion.

Sex is a physical urge that sexual creatures cannot ever completely control. It is doubly so in social animals, where sex is used as a method to seal pair bonds and increase non-familial ties in addition to the reproductive impetus.

Whether or not you think they 'should' is inconsiquential. THEY WILL DO IT. THEY HAVE ALWAYS DONE IT. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO ALWAYS DO IT. Accept it.

Your attempt to force them to fit your own standards is both arrogant and judgemental.

11? Then to hell with them. It is foolish and I doubt that many 11 year olds have sex. While there have been cases for the most part let's be realistic. What decnt 11 year old would have sex anyway?

Ah, the 'compassion' of the 'moral' right.

I rest my case.

lol sorry then.

Thank you. Apology accepted, and returned in kind, if I have presumed too much in a post.


Fair call, I just dont believe women should choose a career over child birth.
If your going to have a career, then get your tubes tied up.

But you don't have the right to make that decision for her. It's her life. And it is the height of arrogance to suggest that you, someone who doesn't know her and never met her and probably never will, know better than her what is right for her.

If you want to try and tell the people in your own life how they should live, and they are willing to put up with you, then that's your own business. I won't put up with it in mine (or vicariously, the people I know, especially my wife).

And its not nice to call someone a worthless hick, that makes you look snobbish, their a human being just like you are.

Worthless: adj. Having no value.
Hick: n. an individual from rural america.

Since people 3 states over have no value in my life beyond possibly a very minor economic one (but certainly not enough for me to allow them to dictate how I should live my life), and many of the staunchest anti-abortion people are from rural areas (as am I mind you), the moniker fits.

But yes, I am an elitist. As are you.

And yet, a christian should, at least, consider the judaist viewpoint, no?

I'm assuming you know the history of the Christian churches? ie the split from the orthodox church in the 11th century etc?

The orthodox hold more opinions in common with the jews than the catholics or protestants, whereas the orthodox views are more of a product of Plato thru Augustine, the western churches were then influenced by Aquinas who was an Aristotlean.

If anything though, on the case of the Devil, the Christian churches give him greater power per se, ie independence and an almost demi-god like persona to spread chaos and evil; this persona has never made a great deal of sense to me though.

I am a human life, I was a sperm, so there for sperm is a human life. Contraceptive sex and masturbation are mass murder.

I dont believe in morality as an issue thats decided by the individual as a personal standard, that holds up and equals everybody elses, morality is objective.

I garuntee you if I listed my top 40 cardinal sins and you listed yours, they would be very different. I garuntee you that If you took a polling of 1000 people worldwide and did the same, you would likely find only 1 or 2 that were consistent. Further, upon polling the entire world, there would be no consistency. Should life prove existant on other planets, and other intelligent races are ever contacted, I would further suggest that their own lists would be entirely alien.

Morallity is subject to culture, ideology, nationality, economics, experience, sex, and life situation.

There is no moral objectivity. One finds it hard enough to argue that there is objectivity at all, much less specific objectivity.

I'm assuming you know the history of the Christian churches? ie the split from the orthodox church in the 11th century etc?

The orthodox hold more opinions in common with the jews than the catholics or protestants, whereas the orthodox views are more of a product of Plato thru Augustine, the western churches were then influenced by Aquinas who was an Aristotlean.

If anything though, on the case of the Devil, the Christian churches give him greater power per se, ie independence and an almost demi-god like persona to spread chaos and evil; this persona has never made a great deal of sense to me though.

It is unfortunate, but the christian church has never quite gotten away from the concept of Duality.

There is a god, and he is all good... so there MUST be an entity of all bad.

Too bad they don't realise that they are creating a duality...

I am unable to understand why it is that people, rather than at least putting the child up for adoption after it is born, choose to kill it. I am myself adopted, and I kind of like life. I could just be an asshole, but it seems to me that if a woman chooses to have sex, and obviously a guy is always willing to have sex, then it stands to reason that if they fuck up and she gets pregnant that they must take responsibility for their actions. Of course, in the world today parents don't take responsibility for their kids even when they are teenagers, so I reckon that the idea of "responsibility" has probably been deemed politically incorrect by now.

Do you remember the adoption process? Were you even aware that it was going on? I've had close family members on both sides of it, and let me tell you, it's painful. It's emotionally painful, economically painful, physically painful, and spiritually painful. It is not something that everyone is capable of handling.

In addition, are you white? Were you born healthy? Were you at any risk of having an STD or addiction passed on to you by your mother? Were you adopted by family members trying to help out? Were you a newborn when you were adopted? There are 210 million children in the world already who are waiting to be adopted because they don't fit one or more of those criteria.

Adoption is not the solution to this problem.

Also, abortion is taking responsibility for your actions. You act like they just wave a wand and magically the girl isn't pregnant any more.

Each ejaculation increases the death tole...........hey baby I'm on a role

Do you remember the adoption process? Were you even aware that it was going on? I've had close family members on both sides of it, and let me tell you, it's painful. It's emotionally painful, economically painful, physically painful, and spiritually painful. It is not something that everyone is capable of handling.

In addition, are you white? Were you born healthy? Were you at any risk of having an STD or addiction passed on to you by your mother? Were you adopted by family members trying to help out? Were you a newborn when you were adopted? There are 210 million children in the world already who are waiting to be adopted because they don't fit one or more of those criteria.

Adoption is not the solution to this problem.

Also, abortion is taking responsibility for your actions. You act like they just wave a wand and magically the girl isn't pregnant any more.
they for some reason dont like my plan either

all nutjobs who think abortion is the devil and want to force the woman to have the kid should become fiscally responsible for her: paying all doctor bills and any other bills related to the pregnancy, and when she has the kid, they get to adopt it

It may not yet be politically incorrect, but it sure seems like no one wants to take it as a valid arguement. :D

That's because it isn't one. Abortion is a way of taking responsibility for your actions, as is adoption, as is raising the child. The only way to not take responsibility is to ignore it, hide the pregnancy, hope it will go away, and when it doesn't leave it in a dumpster.

I also argue chiefly from a secular viewpoint, yet I see your argument as flawed... "There is really only 1 assumption here, and that is that an unborn foetus is human life from the moment of conception"... simply doesn't hold true.

Another assumption would be that it isn't a 'human life' until the moment it is born (based on the Genesis account).

Another assumption is that it isn't a life, even if it is 'human', until it is born... since 'a life' is different to being 'live'. (Based on the concept of cellular life).

Another assumption would be that it isn't human (since 'human' carries certain connotations not normally associated with clusters of cells), even if it is 'alive'.

Another assumption would be that it is neither 'human' (yet) nor 'alive' (yet), although it will likely attain both states if left sufficiently long, and nothing goes wrong.

And there are many assumptions I HAVEN'T touched there... but this should suffice to point out where the gap is in your argument.
Another assumption would be that it isn't a human being until it is fully self-sufficient member of human society, at the approximate age of 14-18. The defintion of "human" far surpasses a simple human-shaped physical form.

You do understand it is from the syllogism Aristotle created that all logic is based upon, right?

Am I human life? yes
Was I a foetus? yes

Unless you would like to claim these assumptions to be wrong?

Then a foetus is human life.

Your forgetting the third and fourth questions, which make your point moot.

Was I always a human life? no
Is it possible that previous stages in my development were not equipped to be a human person? yes

Morallity is subject to culture, ideology, nationality, economics, experience, sex, and life situation.

There is no moral objectivity. One finds it hard enough to argue that there is objectivity at all, much less specific objectivity.

Let's assume for a minute there is a God.

Would you tell him that his morality is not objective?

Of course even if there is a God, what he states and how we perceive it are two different things, as I'd imagine a being with objective perception sees things a fair bit differently to us.

I'm not really sure about the poll example, because that tries to lead one on the path that moral objectiveness can't exist.

What if say, Islam is right? While I can't quantify that, I also can't quantify it as wrong, which leads towards, not that moral objectiveness can't exist, but that we just don't know.

Of course, with thousands of philosophical viewpoints, there's arguments that support positions every which way from sunday.

Would you prefer me to say "Therefore a foetus was human life" ?

Inverse that and you would have it correct. Therefore a human life was once a fetus.

A human life was also once a part of an ocean, a fish, milk, and dirt, that does not mean that the inverse is true.

Were you always a human life?

Unless you would like to argue that you were species didus ineptis, I'm not exactly sure how you can say you weren't human life?

(yes that is a real species name btw ;) )

Is it possible that previous stages in my development were not equipped to be a human person?

whom determines "not equipped"

A human life was also once a part of an ocean, a fish, milk, and dirt, that does not mean that the inverse is true.

a part of != was

a door is a part of a car, a door is/was not a car and a car is/was not a or part of a door.

I was a toddler too.

Natural order, if you follow the judeo-christian conception, must have been an artifact of god. He creates a 'nature' and sets it to it's 'order'.

For god to then intervene, even though he created the order, is to pervert the order.

If I make a maze... and I put a rat in the maze, and I time the rat escaping... that is an investigation into the 'natural order' of rats-escaping-mazes.

If I make a maze... and I put a rat in the maze, and I time the rat escaping... but every time the rat starts heading down a wrong turn, I 'shoo' it back onto the 'right' path, I have perverted the 'natural order' of rats-escaping-mazes.

It's Judaic (or Judeo-Christian) up to the point of taking the Bible strictly literally, then it becomes a Protestant conception (or misconception). Both Jews and other Christians, in general, recognize the meaning of the story, the lesson in Job's trials and in God's "interference". It is basically only Protestants who proclaim that there is nothing more to the story than that God destroyed Soddom or that the flood happened.

Let's assume for a minute there is a God.

Okay, I'll bite.

Would you tell him that his morality is not objective?

If his morality exclusively fit the judeo-christian concept of it, yes. Objectivity can only be had by giving all viewpoints equal importance. The only way I can see this happening is if god matched the martian viewpoint (that's a reference to a book, not a religion), that I am god, as is everything else.

Of course even if there is a God, what he states and how we perceive it are two different things, as I'd imagine a being with objective perception sees things a fair bit differently to us.

Naturally, which is why I deny the concept of canon in a religious context.

I'm not really sure about the poll example, because that tries to lead one on the path that moral objectiveness can't exist.

I am one to think that it doesn't and can't, so my argument is prejudiced in that way. However, as morality is subjective in every case we can see, inductive reasoning leads us to believe that it is likely to be subjective in every case.

What if say, Islam is right? While I can't quantify that, I also can't quantify it as wrong, which leads towards, not that moral objectiveness can't exist, but that we just don't know.

Sure, I don't know. But evidence suggests, through experience, that morality is a melleable human concept custom fit to circumstance and experience. To apply to some part of that a level of objectivity is to apply some superiority to one's own viewpoint. This is a natural human thing to do, of course. I am doing so right now. But that does not make one correct in their assumption.

Of course, with thousands of philosophical viewpoints, there's arguments that support positions every which way from sunday.

And since so far, no two philosophies aggree on what is right and wrong, much less the severity of same, and individual followers within a philosophy are as likely to disagree on point as they are to agree, one can assume that the scope of their argument (I.E. morality) is in itself, subject to the individual.

Were you always a human life?
Unless you would like to argue that you were species didus ineptis, I'm not exactly sure how you can say you weren't human life?
(yes that is a real species name btw ;) )


Without getting philosophical. Evidence suggests that time did not start when I was born. So I could not have always existed.

Is it possible that previous stages in my development were not equipped to be a human person?

whom determines "not equipped"

I don't care. Pick your own definition. However, without a brain, a nervous system, or the ability to respond to stimuli or give any evidence of sapience, I defy you to come up with a definition for human life that would include an embryo without also including some pretty obvious illogical additions.

I was a toddler too.

But the toddler was != you. It didn't have the same memories as you, the same knowleges. It couldn't be having this conversation with me. It wasn't even made of the same molecules, and likely had severe differences in DNA throughout it's body.

Potentiality is not the same as actuality. An argument that has come up multiple times in this thread.

It was more :

God; Job is my faithful servant, and will never curse me.

Satan; Well Im just gonna go ram a snake up his butt, and see what he says

then!

God; go for it, he will not curse me.

I believe the story of Job is basically about, no matter what happens to you,

dont blame God for it.No. Read it again.

God says... "look how cool and groovy Job is... he thinks I'm great".

Satan says... "He thinks you're silly really... he thinks you're a big wuss... be mean, and see if you stay friends".

God says... "Go kick his shiny metal ass".

Satan doesn't ask. God doesn't allow. God instructs, and Satan obeys.

It interferes with the natural order in all the ways that the natural order is interfered with in the text... read it, Terminalia.
I guess that's just variations in the author's versions, then, because my Bible (The Message) has Terminalia's version.

Quick question to the anti-abortionists:

Do you think a zygote (newly fertilized egg) IS a person or BECOMES a person?

And by person I mean human being with all the rights you would expect.

But the toddler was != you. It didn't have the same memories as you, the same knowleges. It couldn't be having this conversation with me. It wasn't even made of the same molecules, and likely had severe differences in DNA throughout it's body.

What do those points have to do with what I was.

I'm not saying the toddler "is" me, to have the same memories, knowledges, etc, it would have to be me current tense not past tense.

Ergo, if it didn't have the same memories as me, then memories are not a valid quantifier (Personally I don't think memories are anything more than an arrangement of the cellular structure in the brain, there's no "me"ness, just cells, of course it'll be a long time before they discover the workings of the brain)

What do those points have to do with what I was.

Nothing, I am not arguing that you were never a fetus, an embryo, and egg, a gleam in your father's eye, or a toddler for that matter. I am arguing that those things were never you. They were stages that led up to you. They were, potentially you.

I am arguing that just because a human person was one a fetus it does not logically follow that a fetus IS (present tense) a human person.

I'm not saying the toddler "is" me, to have the same memories, knowledges, etc, it would have to be me current tense not past tense.

Ergo, if it didn't have the same memories as me, then memories are not a valid quantifier (Personally I don't think memories are anything more than an arrangement of the cellular structure in the brain, there's no "me"ness, just cells, of course it'll be a long time before they discover the workings of the brain)

But you are arguing that because YOU were once a fetus, that it logically follows that a fetus was once you, which is not true, and an logical fallicy to boot.

It's hard to argue logically about god, but none the less, since my honor is at stake here, I will create the logic box I should have started with.

The facts...
This is scooting off-topic, but it's relevant: there is a logic by which God makes sense. It's not so hard if you understand that everything --everything --in the Bible is part of a spiritual journey and exists to advance a spiritual agenda. The "histories" therein, whether true as written or not (doesn't matter), are there for spiritual advancement. The "myths" therein, whether you comprehend them as myth or not (doesn't matter), are there for spiritual advancement. God's "interference" and "punishments" are metaphorical, as is God a metaphor for spiritual love, and they all take place internally. God "exists" on an entirely spiritual plane, and does not affect the physical universe at all. See, if you accept these as the "facts" from which to argue, then arguments about God make much more sense. It's only when one tries to take the "facts" into the physical world and argue about them as literal truth that it all falls apart ...like looking for a broken heart with a magnifying glass.

The facts:

Abortion exists. God has not stopped it. (I will concede here that he may be 'stopping' it, but that isn't an arguable stance)

Of all the myriad of reasons why abortion exists (in spite of the way many judeo-christians feel about it, and the same feeling they then use false analogy to ascribe to god) they all fall into one of 4 categories.

1. God Does not exist/The Judeo-christian god doesn't exist.
2. God cannot change it.
3. God hasn't a choice in changing it.
4. God chooses not to change it.

The first 3 create paradoxes for the Judeo-christian faith, since they deny his existence, or deny his omnipotence.

My argument, is that the 4 option means that a christian who is vehemently pro-life (the abortion-doctors-are-murderers and pregnent-women-are-whores crowd) is going against god's choice, and theirfore his will.

Man, rabbit trails...I don't even remember what I was talking about...
God will not stop abortion; he will never interfere in his creation, because he exists to teach us a spiritual lesson. Emotion is his tool --guilt, horror, astonishment, bonding, love, and compassion. And it is a lesson for each person who experiences it; for no one else. That is why it must happen.

To argue that God would or could change anything in his creation is to steer away from the Judeo-Christian faith. It is an attempt to bring the spiritual (subjective) concepts into the physical world to examine them, but that's a place they don't belong.

But you are arguing that because YOU were once a fetus, that it logically follows that a fetus was once you, which is not true, and an logical fallicy to boot.

The reverse doesn't need to be true

If i am a human life
and I was once a foetus

Then a human life was once a foetus. (worded to be linguistically correct)

This is scooting off-topic, but it's relevant: there is a logic by which God makes sense. It's not so hard if you understand that everything --everything --in the Bible is part of a spiritual journey and exists to advance a spiritual agenda. The "histories" therein, whether true as written or not (doesn't matter), are there for spiritual advancement. The "myths" therein, whether you comprehend them as myth or not (doesn't matter), are there for spiritual advancement. God's "interference" and "punishments" are metaphorical, as is God a metaphor for spiritual love, and they all take place internally. God "exists" on an entirely spiritual plane, and does not affect the physical universe at all. See, if you accept these as the "facts" from which to argue, then arguments about God make much more sense. It's only when one tries to take the "facts" into the physical world and argue about them as literal truth that it all falls apart ...like looking for a broken heart with a magnifying glass.

What you are arguing for (or at least, the philisophical position you are espousing), is Deism. What I am arguing against, is the logic inherent in the typical Judeo-Christian mythos and how it applies to abortion in particular. Deism, is not part of the mythos to which I am contesting in my argument (which is, in short, that god is a separate and all-powerful entity who 'cares' and takes an 'active role' in the struggles of us mortals as evidenced by him sending 'his son' to horribly die for us, and by inspiring 'holy text' to be written to guide us).

God will not stop abortion; he will never interfere in his creation, because he exists to teach us a spiritual lesson. Emotion is his tool --guilt, horror, astonishment, bonding, love, and compassion. And it is a lesson for each person who experiences it; for no one else. That is why it must happen.

To argue that God would or could change anything in his creation is to steer away from the Judeo-Christian faith. It is an attempt to bring the spiritual (subjective) concepts into the physical world to examine them, but that's a place they don't belong.

Again, this is not the faith I am contesting the logic of. Though I will say that your description of it directly conflicts with the text of the religion, both literally and metaphorically. The position you are espousing is Deism, and not Christianity, nor Judaism, both of which describe both implicitly and explicity a god that directly affects (or tries to) physical reality.

That you choose to take the text as entirely metaphorical is your right, and I can't say that I disagree with you. But the argument we are having is a pro-choice v anti-abortion one, and the people with whom I am in contention do not see the canon as metaphorical. Or more often, only when it is convenient for them to do so. They claim that because 'god said' X or Y, we should have laws saying the same, and my contention is that this stance is illogical, and self-contradictory with the text and with other things espoused by the same people.

The reverse doesn't need to be true

If i am a human life
and I was once a foetus

Then a human life was once a foetus. (worded to be linguistically correct)

But that isn't what you said, and I will directly quote you here.

If I am human life, and I was a foetus, then a foetus is human life.

That is trying to state the inverse as truth. You are trying to use deductive reasoning to induce something. I.E. All fruits were once flowers, ergo all flowers are fruits. Or All Pear trees were once Pears, ergo all pears are Pear Trees.

The reverse doesn't need to be true

If i am a human life
and I was once a foetus

Then a human life was once a foetus. (worded to be linguistically correct)

Would you accept the rewording that what is now a human life once used to be a foetus? That's using "I" as a 'something' of continuence that can be back-traced to a pair of gametes, then forward through a zygote, embryo, foetus, unborn 'child', delivered 'child', baby, toddler, infant, child, teenager, young adult, adult, you-right-now (or whatever) and onwards into whatever future you are given (and could end up apply to your skeleton or even your fossil...). The span of time that the "I" was a human life need need not necessarilly overlap (and, even if it does, not completely) with the time that the "I" was a foetus.

And I'm not using "I" as in a full "id, ego, supergo possessing mentality with a body tacked round it", but as a handy label for a clump of organised molecules that eventually turn out to be the organism that is 'you' (and will end up being the accepted remains of 'you', despite the massive throughput of actual matter that has passed through this organised state and temporarily played a part in upholding and perpetuating this structure of organised of molecules...

What you are arguing for (or at least, the philisophical position you are espousing), is Deism. What I am arguing against, is the logic inherent in the typical Judeo-Christian mythos and how it applies to abortion in particular. Deism, is not part of the mythos to which I am contesting in my argument (which is, in short, that god is a separate and all-powerful entity who 'cares' and takes an 'active role' in the struggles of us mortals as evidenced by him sending 'his son' to horribly die for us, and by inspiring 'holy text' to be written to guide us).
Ah, cool. I'm not familiar with Deism, but what I stated is the only way any arguments about God make sense. I just wanted to say that; you're welcome to ignore me. :-) But it is the way Christianity was explained to me in my studies of mythology (so it is part of the mythos), and it is consistent with what I've seen taught by Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis. As far as I can tell, it is the Protestants who teach differently. I'll shut up now. ;-)

People are going to have sex. They are going to do it out of wedlock. They are going to do it when they are too young/too immature to handle it. They are going to do it when they don't know what they are doing. They are going to do it unprotected. They are going to do it with inadaquate/improperly used protection. They are going to do it with people they don't know. They are going to do it with people they 'shouldn't'.

They are going to have sex even if you made them believe that their brains would catch on fire and their genitalia explode upon completion.

Sex is a physical urge that sexual creatures cannot ever completely control. It is doubly so in social animals, where sex is used as a method to seal pair bonds and increase non-familial ties in addition to the reproductive impetus.

Whether or not you think they 'should' is inconsiquential. THEY WILL DO IT. THEY HAVE ALWAYS DONE IT. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO ALWAYS DO IT. Accept it.

Your attempt to force them to fit your own standards is both arrogant and judgemental.So you believe we have no choice in the matter? That's rather demeaning - and offensive. I do have a choice, and will excercise it responsibly.

again, it is well established that a fetus is living human tissue; it is alive, and human in nature. however, your stomach cells are also alive, and human in nature. your liver is a distinct, living, human tissue. You liver is not yourself in entirety. Your liver is also allowed to grow up and mature with the rest of you.

should you have been granted the same rights as a fetus that you now are granted as a person? again, i would say no; if fetuses should be treated as people because they may one day become people, then children should be allowed to vote and drive and buy alcohol because they will one day become adults.They have not been allowed to grow up and become adults. They have different capabilities because 1) not enough experiance, 2) actually not being able to comprehend the issues and decide between them responsibly because they are not fully developed. Yet they are considered human. How interesting.

consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy, any more than consenting to ski is consenting to falling and getting a broken arm. we can no more deny a woman the right to choose than we can deny a skier the right to have a broken arm set...they both require medical care to correct an accident that they incurred while engaging in a voluntary activity, and it would be inhumane of us to say, "you chose to go skiing, so you can just live with that broken arm."Deciding to go skiing means you accept possible conseqences such as a broken arm. The only problem is that an 'accidental' pregnancy does not just involve yourself. You are comparing a broken arm to a entire human being, and your argument is not applicable. Besides, in a pregnancy there is nothing 'wrong' with it. It's quite natural, actually - how else did you get here?

they for some reason dont like my plan either
all nutjobs who think abortion is the devil and want to force the woman to have the kid should become fiscally responsible for her: paying all doctor bills and any other bills related to the pregnancy, and when she has the kid, they get to adopt itSince you think murder is wrong (I hope :)), you should be responsible for serving the murderer's sentance and fines. I'm sure you will agree.
That's because it isn't one. Abortion is a way of taking responsibility for your actions, as is adoption, as is raising the child. The only way to not take responsibility is to ignore it, hide the pregnancy, hope it will go away, and when it doesn't leave it in a dumpster.I act silly, someone laughs at me, I kill them. That solves my problem, doesn't it? I wasn't hiding was I? Sorry, while that is, strictly speaking, a way to 'take responsibility', such actions should not involve killing other human beings when there are other options available.

Ah, cool. I'm not familiar with Deism, but what I stated is the only way any arguments about God make sense. I just wanted to say that; you're welcome to ignore me. :-) But it is the way Christianity was explained to me in my studies of mythology (so it is part of the mythos), and it is consistent with what I've seen taught by Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis. As far as I can tell, it is the Protestants who teach differently. I'll shut up now. ;-)

I went exclusively to religious schools of several flavors growing up. For 15 years of my life I went to 'church' one way or another 6-7 days a week. That includes going to synagogue on more than one occasion (read: consistently). I attended catholic seminary for 3 months, and a protestant christian college for a year before I dropped out. I have studied the texts of Abraham in more than one format heavily.

While I am cool with the philosophy of Deism. And while it may have been what you were taught, I would say that at least in general, it isn't the mainstream belief of the Judeo-Christian faith, and it is in opposition to the canon.

Mind you, I ain't trying to say that you are wrong. Hell, If I had to pick a religion it would probably be Deism. I am just saying that your viewpoint isn't necessarily the typical one (though my experience is of course very limited, so I don't know what everyone who claims judeo-christianity believes), and it is certainly not the typical one of the vehement anti-abortionist evangelical christians with whom I directed my statements.

So you believe we have no choice in the matter? That's rather demeaning - and offensive. I do have a choice, and will excercise it responsibly.

I never said we didn't have a choice. I said that PEOPLE WILL CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX, AND UNPROTECTED/IRRESPONIBLE SEX TO BOOT, NO MATTER WHAT!

Any other belief is sticking your head in the sand. (the emphasis above was added to try and prevent any further words being put in my mouth)

I act silly, someone laughs at me, I kill them. That solves my problem, doesn't it? I wasn't hiding was I? Sorry, while that is, strictly speaking, a way to 'take responsibility', such actions should not involve killing other human beings when there are other options available.

More correctly, due to ignorance, emotion, pressure, or just plain bad luck, I make a mistake that not only could cost me my life, but my health and well being for the rest of my life as well, so I try and remedy it in the least costly way possible. Sometimes, that same option is the only one available.

You have yet to demostrate objectively (beyond, "I think they are, ergo they are") how an early stage embryo is alive much less a human being. Until you can do so, stop using murder in your arguments.

Quick question to the anti-abortionists:

Do you think a zygote (newly fertilized egg) IS a person or BECOMES a person?

And by person I mean human being with all the rights you would expect.
A zygote is not a person, it cannot yet have a personality. It grows into a child. The child has partial rights after it is born. It has full rights of a human when it becomes an adult.

A zygote is not a person, it cannot yet have a personality. It grows into a child. The child has partial rights after it is born. It has full rights of a human when it becomes an adult.
Babies don't have personalities. So they're not humans either.

So you believe we have no choice in the matter? That's rather demeaning - and offensive. I do have a choice, and will excercise it responsibly.

Haven't read much in the lines of human development, have you? I think my post is earlier in here... Educational Psychologist, Erik Erikson, outlined the major stages of development from birth to adulthood. One of those stages is Intimacy vs. Isolation. Human beings in this stage of development seek out intimacy to help round out their character. Most pursue physical as well as mental and emotional intimacy in this stage. People who are not able to achieve this intimacy feel isolated and their development is impeded causing all manner of turmoil.

You liver is not yourself in entirety. Your liver is also allowed to grow up and mature with the rest of you.
They have not been allowed to grow up and become adults. They have different capabilities because 1) not enough experiance, 2) actually not being able to comprehend the issues and decide between them responsibly because they are not fully developed. Yet they are considered human. How interesting.

Here's the difference, if you will, an infant/toddler is capable of independant function. While very reliant on the parents in this stage of development, they have the ability to breathe on their own, respond to stimulus, and learn from their environment. This is not true of a pre-CNS fetus.

Deciding to go skiing means you accept possible conseqences such as a broken arm. The only problem is that an 'accidental' pregnancy does not just involve yourself. You are comparing a broken arm to a entire human being, and your argument is not applicable. Besides, in a pregnancy there is nothing 'wrong' with it. It's quite natural, actually - how else did you get here?

A broken arm does not just involve yourself either. It involves all your loved ones in that they are not obligated to assist you in tasks you would ordinarily have been able to accomplish yourself. Along these lines, if ~someone else~ helped you break your arm, they would be partially responsible for the break, would they not? So, then would it be up to them to decide whether or not to have it set and put in a cast? I think not. Why? Because it's not their arm. They have no right to decide whether your arm must remain broken or mend. Broken arms are just as natural as pregnancy, but the discomfort lasts FAR longer. We have also argued that it is not an "entire human being" until it develops its own central nervous system.

Since you think murder is wrong (I hope :)), you should be responsible for serving the murderer's sentance and fines. I'm sure you will agree.

The flaw in your logic here is that Bottle did not aid in the killing of someone else (meaning a viable human, already born) while a woman ABSOLUTELY CANNOT get pregnant without male sperm.

I act silly, someone laughs at me, I kill them. That solves my problem, doesn't it? I wasn't hiding was I? Sorry, while that is, strictly speaking, a way to 'take responsibility', such actions should not involve killing other human beings when there are other options available.

Hardly the same thing at all. This is a more ourtrageous argument than the "broken arm" analogy. Acting silly and being laughed at cannot be equated with 9 months of physical trauma. Until you have born a fetus to term and delivered it, I don't see that you have a right to force someone else to do it. For that matter, what right has anyone to force anyone else to do something they don't feel capable of?

Your arrogance amazes me.

I went exclusively to religious schools of several flavors growing up. For 15 years of my life I went to 'church' one way or another 6-7 days a week. That includes going to synagogue on more than one occasion (read: consistently). I attended catholic seminary for 3 months, and a protestant christian college for a year before I dropped out. I have studied the texts of Abraham in more than one format heavily.

While I am cool with the philosophy of Deism. And while it may have been what you were taught, I would say that at least in general, it isn't the mainstream belief of the Judeo-Christian faith, and it is in opposition to the canon.

Mind you, I ain't trying to say that you are wrong. Hell, If I had to pick a religion it would probably be Deism. I am just saying that your viewpoint isn't necessarily the typical one (though my experience is of course very limited, so I don't know what everyone who claims judeo-christianity believes), and it is certainly not the typical one of the vehement anti-abortionist evangelical christians with whom I directed my statements.
Diesm isn't what I was taught. I'm not familiar with it. I appreciate your credentials and knowledge in the subject of religion; they far surpass my own. I came to my understandings of God through the study of mythology, through people who may perhaps have been Diests though they didn't all proclaim their religion in their writings and lectures (some did claimed to be atheists). The ideas are typical of students of mythology. Thanks for listening to my ideas, though.

Deism is just a name of a philosophy. The philosophy of deism, at its basic level, is that the universe was created by god (or is god, depending), but that god exists outside the physical plane and cannot (or does not, depending) affect anything in the physical plane. Therefore, holy texts and 'miracles' and portents are inconsequential (and generally either metaphorical or made up entirely), and the only true 'good' is to live one's life as best they can (that last bit is parting the clouds somewhat, but it's still the general philosophy of most deists).

Most of our founding fathers were deists (Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, etc) and our own government was based on it's philosophy. Benjamin Franklin came to his interpretation the same as you, through a study of mythology and science.

Babies don't have personalities. So they're not humans either.
Babies begin to develop personalities in their first few months of life, and the process continues to develop until they die.

Deism is just a name of a philosophy. The philosophy of deism, at its basic level, is that the universe was created by god (or is god, depending), but that god exists outside the physical plane and cannot (or does not, depending) affect anything in the physical plane. Therefore, holy texts and 'miracles' and portents are inconsequential (and generally either metaphorical or made up entirely), and the only true 'good' is to live one's life as best they can (that last bit is parting the clouds somewhat, but it's still the general philosophy of most deists).

Most of our founding fathers were deists (Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, etc) and our own government was based on it's philosophy. Benjamin Franklin came to his interpretation the same as you, through a study of mythology and science.
Thank you for the explanation. Whether or not I am arguing a Diest philosophy, though, I see Christianity being given a bad rap, because it is founded in the same myths and concepts as the other Indo-European and Asian religions and its god and theirs (and his "actions") make sense in the same context. The arguments against the Christian quarter, while fascinating in a "what will they say next" sort of way, compell me to offer, at least for my own satisfaction, my own ideas. :-)

'Christianity' is different things to different people. To the evangelical right, your view of god or christianity is tantamount to heresy (and to a few, a stoning offense). To me, your espousal is reasoned and sensible.

Understand, at least for me, if I make a comment directed at 'christians' (at least, in the current forum context) it doesn't include you. Knowing a lot of other people like me who also enjoy fervently debating with the more evangelical, I would say that very few are speaking of you or any of the more laid back sects of the christian church (or any church for that matter).

Miscarriages are a red herring (it's a miscarriage whether it's at 3 hours or 3 months, right?), it's not negligent behaviour. Negligence implies lack of reasonable due care, you can't expect someone to tale care of an unborn child they are completely unaware of on the first day and still consider that "reasonable". In fact, I've never heard nor seen one person claim that anywhere. (but I'm sure there's probably a few who do, there always is..)

In other words, you have already made a very clear distinction between an actual person and an embryo.

After all, if a woman harms someone through negligent actions, she is held responsible for it, even if she did not know they were there. However, by your logic, she is not held responsible if her actions kill an embryo that she does not know is there. The logical conclusion is either that you cannot prosecute someone for harming another if they were unaware of the person's presence, or that an embryo is not a full human life.

It generally turns into an argument of maths vs science.

Maths, ie logic will tell you that foetuses are humans, an Ethicist will follow the following logical pattern.

If I am human life, and I was a foetus, then a foetus is human life.

The same is said for us in embryonic form.

So the question comes down to whose right (or more right), the ethicist applying logic or the scientist applying science.

That isn't logic, darling. I could just as easily say:

I am an adult, and I was a child, so a child is an adult.

So you believe we have no choice in the matter? That's rather demeaning - and offensive. I do have a choice, and will excercise it responsibly.
And that's wonderful. But I think the point is that you're not everybody, and not even representative of everybody. Every case is unique, by virtue of having unique people in unique circumstances, and saying everybody should keep their pants on because you do (or Zanon does) is an unrealistic expectation.

Let's assume for a minute there is a God.
Would you tell him that his morality is not objective?


Yes.

As, from careful reading of the bible (I assume you 'mean' the Judeo-christian model of god), the deity in question exhibits a range of emotions... jealousy, regret, etc.

If he can be pleased with something, or regret something, then his observation and participation are not entirely objective.

I beleive my stance is, and has been for long, unattended. As a member of the regressive party, Im against abortion (except when it comes to safety of the mother) but pro-killing babies. And old people. I hate them both..

I guess that's just variations in the author's versions, then, because my Bible (The Message) has Terminalia's version.

Interesting... which version do you use?

I use the KJV, since it is the most 'popular' translation... and KJV gives:

Job 1:8 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

God's opening argument to Satan... telling him about this wonderful Job fellow he has discovered...

Job 1:9 "Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?"

Job 1:10 "Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land."

Job 1:11 "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

Satan says... well, of course he thinks you're great... you do all this good stuff for him, but if you DIDN'T, I bet he'd turn against you...

Job 1:12 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

God says... okay... go kick his shiny metal butt.

Note: I'm not sure any popular biblical translator actually supports my translation from the Hebrew to "okay... go kick his shiny metal butt"... but I think it sums up the gist of the piece... :)

I'll try to keep it material, so:

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists?

What if they become murderers? Or rapeists? Or abortionists? Or just assume that they would end up as dead beats. I also think it is crule to bring a child in to the world THIS day and age.

The reverse doesn't need to be true

If i am a human life
and I was once a foetus

Then a human life was once a foetus. (worded to be linguistically correct)

But a foetus does not necessarily equate to a human life...

Just while I think about it... it's worth bearing in mind that the term foetus refers to far more than just the unterine passengers of the human female...

So, foetus CERTAINLY doesn't equate to human.

Interesting... which version do you use?
Hehe, the Bible I use is The Message, as I said. That's the version.

I use the KJV, since it is the most 'popular' translation... and KJV gives:

Job 1:8 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

God's opening argument to Satan... telling him about this wonderful Job fellow he has discovered...

Job 1:9 "Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?"

Job 1:10 "Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land."

Job 1:11 "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

Satan says... well, of course he thinks you're great... you do all this good stuff for him, but if you DIDN'T, I bet he'd turn against you...

Job 1:12 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

God says... okay... go kick his shiny metal butt.

Note: I'm not sure any popular biblical translator actually supports my translation from the Hebrew to "okay... go kick his shiny metal butt"... but I think it sums up the gist of the piece... :)
Okay, you might enjoy this, then: :)

6One day when the angels came to report to GOD, Satan, who was the Designated Accuser, came along with them. 7GOD singled out Satan and said, "What have you been up to?"
Satan answered GOD, "Going here and there, checking things out on earth."
8GOD said to Satan, "Have you noticed my friend Job? There's no one quite like him--honest and true to his word, totally devoted to God and hating evil."
9Satan retorted, "So do you think Job does all that out of the sheer goodness of his heart? 10Why, no one ever had it so good! You pamper him like a pet, make sure nothing bad ever happens to him or his family or his possessions, bless everything he does--he can't lose!
11"But what do you think would happen if you reached down and took away everything that is his? He'd curse you right to your face, that's what."
12GOD replied, "We'll see. Go ahead--do what you want with all that is his. Just don't hurt him." Then Satan left the presence of GOD.
13Sometime later, while Job's children were having one of their parties at the home of the oldest son, 14a messenger came to Job and said, "The oxen were plowing and the donkeys grazing in the field next to us 15when Sabeans attacked. They stole the animals and killed the field hands. I'm the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened..."
16While he was still talking, another messenger arrived and said, "Bolts of lightning struck the sheep and the shepherds and fried them--burned them to a crisp. I'm the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened..."
17While he was still talking, another messenger arrived and said, "Chaldeans coming from three directions raided the camels and massacred the camel drivers. I'm the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened..."
18While he was still talking, another messenger arrived and said, "Your children were having a party at the home of the oldest brother 19when a tornado swept in off the desert and struck the house. It collapsed on the young people and they died. I'm the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened..."
20Job got to his feet, ripped his robe, shaved his head, then fell to the ground and worshiped:

21Naked I came from my mother's womb,
naked I'll return to the womb of the earth.
GOD gives, GOD takes.
God's name be ever blessed.

22Not once through all this did Job sin; not once did he blame God.

Two things to point out, here. First, it's not "go kick his butt" but "go see if you can kick his butt, I bet you can't". And second, do you notice that the prayer at the end is a prayer to the Mother Goddess, she from whom we are born and to whose body we return in death. Just had to point and dance, there. ;-)

[QUOTE=Pithica]
But you don't have the right to make that decision for her. It's her life.

Then I say hit the road, and if she doesnt, then I will instead.


If you want to try and tell the people in your own life how they should live, and they are willing to put up with you, then that's your own business.


I dont tell them how they should live, I just dont approve of people who have

selfish prioritys.



Worthless: adj. Having no value.
Hick: n. an individual from rural america.
Since people 3 states over have no value in my life beyond possibly a very minor economic one (but certainly not enough for me to allow them to dictate how I should live my life), and many of the staunchest anti-abortion people are from rural areas (as am I mind you), the moniker fits.

Yes the salt of the earth, thats what they are, not 'worthless hicks', shame

on you.


But yes, I am an elitist. As are you.

Yes, but what kind of elitist, are you?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]So, by your own admission, god deliberately made Adam and Eve flawed.

No, just the potential for failure.


He could have designed a non-flawed being, and called that 'human'... but he didn't... so: either he didn't know they would fail the 'Eden' test, or he deliberately designed us BROKEN.

But it wouldnt have been human then.




Which makes it somewhat sick, to punish a race for a failing he DELIBERATELY factored into the designs.

He had to punish us, and if he had made us perfect, we wouldnt be human.


Which is fine... but, unless he told those two absolute innocents (who were believing EVERYTHING they were told), that he had introduced something that they COULDN'T trust... then he deliberately skewed the outcome so that Adam and Eve would fail his little test.

He didnt introduce it, Satan went in on his accord.

On the contrary, since they were cities entirely of man's creation, man being a natural creature... and since they reflected the nature of the human beast, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were absolutely part of the natural order.
God removing them was, thus, a perversion of the natural order.

Yes but what we made isnt natural, the only natural thing we can create is

us.


You made this up. I have read the book cover-to-cover a hundred times, and I don't remember there being any mention, EVER, that Satan WANTED to "take one of his most faithful servants off " of God.

That was his intention.

Why else would he do it.

You liver is not yourself in entirety. Your liver is also allowed to grow up and mature with the rest of you.

a fetus is not you in your entirety, either. in fact, until about 8.5 months gestation, a fetus doesn't have any of the structures that will give rise to you as the individual that you are. until that point in development, the neurological areas that determine your Self are simply not present, and your liver would contain as much information about you as a person as that fetus.


They have not been allowed to grow up and become adults. They have different capabilities because 1) not enough experiance, 2) actually not being able to comprehend the issues and decide between them responsibly because they are not fully developed. Yet they are considered human. How interesting.

my point is that potentiality is not actuality. i never said children shouldn't be considered human, i was merely making the point that we don't afford legal rights based upon what somebody is GOING to become, we afford them rights based on what they ARE. no matter how human a child is, we don't give it adult rights until it has become an adult. there is no question that a fetus is human tissue, but the fact that it may become a human child at some point in the future has nothing to do with the legal status it should be granted as a fetus.


Deciding to go skiing means you accept possible conseqences such as a broken arm.

yes, but does it mean accepting that you cannot get medical help for those consequences? can you not take responsibility for your broken arm by having a doctor set it and put your arm in a cast? similarly, having sex does entail that one is tacitly accepting the consequences of that act, but it doesn't in any way mean that one accepts that one will have to endure any pregnancy that results.


The only problem is that an 'accidental' pregnancy does not just involve yourself. You are comparing a broken arm to a entire human being, and your argument is not applicable. Besides, in a pregnancy there is nothing 'wrong' with it. It's quite natural, actually - how else did you get here?

a broken arm is totally natural; it is exactly what is supposed to happen when certain forces are broght to bear on certain tissues. i think you were looking for the word "desirable," because we don't let naturality determine how we practice medicine. disease is totally natural, as is predation, and that doesn't change the fact that we combat those whenever we can.

my argument is precisely applicable, in the context of saying that a woman's consent to sex does not equal her consent to carry a fetus to term. if you don't like the fact that my argument is valid i completely understand; most pro-life people don't like this realization, because it means they can't use one of their favorite blame spiels, and i know how much of a pain it can be to generate new material.

Then I say hit the road, and if she doesnt, then I will instead.

Huh?

I dont tell them how they should live, I just dont approve of people who have selfish prioritys.

You just tried to tell me, someone you don't know, how you think my wife should live. You are attempting to assert your own ideology over on someone else. Sounds pretty selfish to me, also sounds like you telling someone how they should live.

Yes, but what kind of elitist, are you?

The kind that believes that people are more capable of running their own lives than someone else trying to run it for them.

Hehe, the Bible I use is The Message, as I said. That's the version.


Okay, you might enjoy this, then: :)

6One day when the angels came to report to GOD, Satan, who was the Designated Accuser, came along with them. 7GOD singled out Satan and said, "What have you been up to?"
Satan answered GOD, "Going here and there, checking things out on earth."
8GOD said to Satan, "Have you noticed my friend Job? There's no one quite like him--honest and true to his word, totally devoted to God and hating evil."
9Satan retorted, "So do you think Job does all that out of the sheer goodness of his heart? 10Why, no one ever had it so good! You pamper him like a pet, make sure nothing bad ever happens to him or his family or his possessions, bless everything he does--he can't lose!
11"But what do you think would happen if you reached down and took away everything that is his? He'd curse you right to your face, that's what."
12GOD replied, "We'll see. Go ahead--do what you want with all that is his. Just don't hurt him." Then Satan left the presence of GOD.
13Sometime later, while Job's children were having one of their parties at the home of the oldest son, 14a messenger came to Job and said, "The oxen were plowing and the donkeys grazing in the field next to us 15when Sabeans attacked. They stole the animals and killed the field hands. I'm the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened..."
16While he was still talking, another messenger arrived and said, "Bolts of lightning struck the sheep and the shepherds and fried them--burned them to a crisp. I'm the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened..."
17While he was still talking, another messenger arrived and said, "Chaldeans coming from three directions raided the camels and massacred the camel drivers. I'm the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened..."
18While he was still talking, another messenger arrived and said, "Your children were having a party at the home of the oldest brother 19when a tornado swept in off the desert and struck the house. It collapsed on the young people and they died. I'm the only one to get out alive and tell you what happened..."
20Job got to his feet, ripped his robe, shaved his head, then fell to the ground and worshiped:

21Naked I came from my mother's womb,
naked I'll return to the womb of the earth.
GOD gives, GOD takes.
God's name be ever blessed.

22Not once through all this did Job sin; not once did he blame God.

Two things to point out, here. First, it's not "go kick his butt" but "go see if you can kick his butt, I bet you can't". And second, do you notice that the prayer at the end is a prayer to the Mother Goddess, she from whom we are born and to whose body we return in death. Just had to point and dance, there. ;-)

I don't agree with the "took away everything that is his"... the way I read it, and that is supported by the Hebrew, it isn't so much 'take away' as 'strike'... so Satan basically gets instructed to go and destroy Job's life... everything he holds dear. That's where I get my 'kick his shiny metal butt' from... god tells him to go lay waste to Job's existence, and see how he feels then.

I had noticed the little 'prayer' to the Earth Mother... it is just one of the instances of evidence of the earlier pantheistic nature of the religion... especially noticable in the Hebrew.

[QUOTE=Pithica]Huh?

Meaning relationship is over.



You just tried to tell me, someone you don't know, how you think my wife should live. You are attempting to assert your own ideology over on someone else. Sounds pretty selfish to me, also sounds like you telling someone how they should live.

I think your being a bit extreme here, me not agreeing with your wifes ideals,

doesnt mean I'm asserting my ideology over her.


The kind that believes that people are more capable of running their own lives than someone else trying to run it for them.

For a start your married, so its not just her life anymore, its yours as well,

and your life is hers.

I don't agree with the "took away everything that is his"... the way I read it, and that is supported by the Hebrew, it isn't so much 'take away' as 'strike'... so Satan basically gets instructed to go and destroy Job's life... everything he holds dear. That's where I get my 'kick his shiny metal butt' from... god tells him to go lay waste to Job's existence, and see how he feels then.
Alright. Difference of interpretation, then. As you're probably aware, the KJV, although beautifully worded, supports a translation that is slanted towards Protestantism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Meaning relationship is over.

I still don't quite get what you are trying to imply, but I doubt it matters.

I think your being a bit extreme here, me not agreeing with your wifes ideals, doesnt mean I'm asserting my ideology over her.

Forgive me if I have mixed you up with someone else here, but aren't you the one trying to argue that abortion should be illegal? That your ideology should tantamount hers (and all pro-choice women) because you believe you are in the moral right?

Sounds a bit like asserting to me.

For a start your married, so its not just her life anymore, its yours as well, and your life is hers.

I still don't get how this invalidates my point. If I want to have a discussion with my wife about her beliefs or her actions because I disagree with them, that's between me and her. And even then, it's still her life, so it's ultimately her decision (and my decision to divorce her if I feel it's that important or in some way ruins my own life). If someone who doesn't know her, and doesn't matter to her tries to force them on her from 3 states away that is another matter entirely.

I cannot understand how you can logically come to the conclusion that you (as a anti-abortion individual) have either the right or the ability to make a choice about her life better than she can. It is the equivalent of me telling you that you can't have a vesectomy if you want because I feel that you should be a baby-maker first and foremost.

No, just the potential for failure.


The potential for failure is still a flaw. If I made a machine that performed a task... let's say it picks up eggs, and carries them to a box.... I want that machine to pick up every egg, and put them all in the box. If my machine drops every fifth egg, then my design is flawed.

If god is the creator of all, and supposedly all-powerful, how is it he cannot make an unflawed creation?


But it wouldnt have been human then.


Yes it would, silly. If god made it, and said "I have made humans"... then that is what a human would be. Either god cannot make a perfect creation, or he chose not to... you decide which.


He had to punish us, and if he had made us perfect, we wouldnt be human.


No. He didn't have to punish anyone. Imagine another example: I have a puppy. My puppy makes a mess on the floor. Do I HAVE to punish it? No. I choose to punish it, because I don't want it to make any more messes, but I don't HAVE to. God doesn't HAVE to punish anyone. And, given that he made us flawed and exposed us to temptation without warning us that temptation EVEN EXISTED... if he chose to act on that flaw, that's not punishment, that's being vindictive.


He didnt introduce it, Satan went in on his accord.


Nonsense. Don't try to paint the serpent as satan. The serpent is very clearly a snake. Look, he curses it to 'no legs'. Does satan, therefore, have no legs? Think it through.

Also, even if it were true that the serpent and satan are one... (and ignoring the fact that you obviously STILL don't understand what 'satan' is) are you telling me that god cannot control satan? That they are actually opposed forces, rather than one subservient to the other?


Yes but what we made isnt natural, the only natural thing we can create is
us.


Society is part of our nature. If we make a society (whether or not we put walls or fences on it) it is part of our nature.


That was his intention.
Why else would he do it.

You answer that question, Terminalia.... and there will finally be some hope for you...

Go on, step out of your box for a minute, and try to work out what answer someone like ME might give.... I have all kinds of confidence in you, you can do this.

The potential for failure is still a flaw. If I made a machine that performed a task... let's say it picks up eggs, and carries them to a box.... I want that machine to pick up every egg, and put them all in the box. If my machine drops every fifth egg, then my design is flawed.

If god is the creator of all, and supposedly all-powerful, how is it he cannot make an unflawed creation?
From the statements and premises offered, we cannot logically conclude that he cannot make an unflawed thing, only that he has not made one. ...or that the task for the 'machine' he made is being deduced incorrectly and it is performing as designed (to use your analogy, its purpose was never to pick up eggs).

Alright. Difference of interpretation, then. As you're probably aware, the KJV, although beautifully worded, supports a translation that is slanted towards Protestantism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

I totally agree. Every holy book is written with an agenda. Every holy book translated, is translated with an agenda. It is hard even to be an objective READER, let alone a writer.

In this case, though... the KJV cuts through somewhat closer to the true meaning, I suspect...

Job 1:11 "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

The word translated as 'touch' is Naga', which basically translates as "to touch, reach or strike" especially in contexts of 'touch' as in 'to arrive' and to strike as 'to strike physically', or 'to be stricken with disease'.

From the Hebrew, then... it does seem that Satan is being instructed to 'afflict' Job in a deleterious fashion, rather than just being told to go an borrow his tools and lawnmower...

From the statements and premises offered, we cannot logically conclude that he cannot make an unflawed thing, only that he has not made one. ...or that the task for the 'machine' he made is being deduced incorrectly and it is performing as designed (to use your analogy, its purpose was never to pick up eggs).

And I am not settling on the argument that he cannot make an unflawed thing. If god cannot make an unflawed thing... he is not 'all-powerful'. If he CAN, but chose not to, then it is malicious to punish his creation for being flawed.

That's kind of my point.

And I am not settling on the argument that he cannot make an unflawed thing. If god cannot make an unflawed thing... he is not 'all-powerful'. If he CAN, but chose not to, then it is malicious to punish his creation for being flawed.

That's kind of my point.

Holla!

This was the same kind of paradox I was trying to point out earlier with the whole 'choice for god to stop it' thing.

Boy, am I happy that where I live abortion is legal (and that there are few people advocating making abortion illegal again). Quite frankly, some people in this thread scare me...

But anyway...

Let me get this straight: pro-lifers claim all human life is sacred, including newly fertilised eggs, right?

But I'm sure that there are pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty. Is a criminal, even a murderer, not a human? Then who are we that we have the right to take away his life? Or maybe a human somehow loses his humanity by committing certain crimes? I'm just trying to figure out a logic that makes being pro-life AND pro-death penalty coherent.

Help me, someone?

And I am not settling on the argument that he cannot make an unflawed thing. If god cannot make an unflawed thing... he is not 'all-powerful'. If he CAN, but chose not to, then it is malicious to punish his creation for being flawed.

That's kind of my point.
exactly. if God created humans with inherent flaws, and if he had the power to create them without those flaws, then it is certainly not just or fair to then punish humans for containing the flaws that he choose to include in their makeup.

Boy, am I happy that where I live abortion is legal (and that there are few people advocating making abortion illegal again). Quite frankly, some people in this thread scare me...

But anyway...

Let me get this straight: pro-lifers claim all human life is sacred, including newly fertilised eggs, right?

But I'm sure that there are pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty. Is a criminal, even a murderer, not a human? Then who are we that we have the right to take away his life? Or maybe a human somehow loses his humanity by committing certain crimes? I'm just trying to figure out a logic that makes being pro-life AND pro-death penalty coherent.

Help me, someone?

This is the main reason why I opt-out of dignifying what 'they' proclaim as 'pro-life'. To me, the platform that is being espoused is 'anti-abortion'... because, as you point out, it is only necessarily 'pro-life' when the 'life' in question is a human foetus. They are not interested in non-human lives, they are not interested in feeding the poor, or sending aid to foreign nations (at least, not in their 'pro-life' guise... although some pro-life persons may ALSO do those things)... they also do not necessarily protest against execution, etc... so I don't see their platform as a 'pro-life' one.

To be totally honest, to my thinking.... the reason they insist on banning abortion (but may not protest about execution) is because it is a way to FORCE their religious views on other people... by law, if possible. 'Abortion' is loosely about 'babies', so they can make a sympathetic case, maybe, and this can be how they force their regime on those of other faiths....

But, that's just the way I see it... I'm sure many others see it differently.

I'd say that until it reaches the phase where it could survive outside the womb, then it's no big deal to terminate it. I don't buy into all that soul mate and "what might have been" crap because it's very ephemeral and unlikely that one possible person would have any greater effect on the world than any other.

I agree, pro-life seems an ill-chosen term. Pro-choice as a term for the "other team" seems appropriate though: we don't force people to have abortions, we simply state that a woman should have the right to choose whether she wants to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort the pregnancy. Whereas pro-lifers wish to force their anti-abortion stance on others.

Another issue concerning this "pro-life" terminology. It seems to me that to some people (mostly the Christian anti-abortion "go forth and multiply" people) value the quantity of human life over the quality of life. "The more , the merrier" doesn't always apply, certainly not where human life is concerned.

And I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but making abortion out to be some convenient solution to an inconvenient situation is ignoring that an abortion, however voluntary it might be, is rarely easy. Many women are "emotionally scarred" afterwards.

This is the main reason why I opt-out of dignifying what 'they' proclaim as 'pro-life'. To me, the platform that is being espoused is 'anti-abortion'... because, as you point out, it is only necessarily 'pro-life' when the 'life' in question is a human foetus. They are not interested in non-human lives, they are not interested in feeding the poor, or sending aid to foreign nations (at least, not in their 'pro-life' guise... although some pro-life persons may ALSO do those things)... they also do not necessarily protest against execution, etc... so I don't see their platform as a 'pro-life' one.

To be totally honest, to my thinking.... the reason they insist on banning abortion (but may not protest about execution) is because it is a way to FORCE their religious views on other people... by law, if possible. 'Abortion' is loosely about 'babies', so they can make a sympathetic case, maybe, and this can be how they force their regime on those of other faiths....

But, that's just the way I see it... I'm sure many others see it differently.

I agree, pro-life seems an ill-chosen term. Pro-choice as a term for the "other team" seems appropriate though: we don't force people to have abortions, we simply state that a woman should have the right to choose whether she wants to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort the pregnancy. Whereas pro-lifers wish to force their anti-abortion stance on others.

Another issue concerning this "pro-life" terminology. It seems to me that to some people (mostly the Christian anti-abortion "go forth and multiply" people) value the quantity of human life over the quality of life. "The more , the merrier" doesn't always apply, certainly not where human life is concerned.

And I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but making abortion out to be some convenient solution to an inconvenient situation is ignoring that an abortion, however voluntary it might be, is rarely easy. Many women are "emotionally scarred" afterwards.

Your point about quality versus quantity is, I feel, an excellent one... expalining why so many people have such a poor standard of living, and yet religious groups try to remove access to sexual education, contraception, abortion, choice... etc.

Also, good point about abortion not being an 'easy' alternative.

Your point about quality versus quantity is, I feel, an excellent one... expalining why so many people have such a poor standard of living, and yet religious groups try to remove access to sexual education, contraception, abortion, choice... etc.

Also, good point about abortion not being an 'easy' alternative.

Thank you. *taking a bow* :)

Just my effort to bring something new to this thread, so much has already been said so many times.

Thank you. *taking a bow* :)

Just my effort to bring something new to this thread, so much has already been said so many times.

Welcome.... I totally agree on the messed-up priorities that favour quantity over quality of life... and believe that you expressed it well. It is rare to see something 'new' in a thread weighing in at well over 900 posts already!

:)

950 posts, and yet so much of the same... If people would just listen to eachother, then maybe debating wouldn't be so pointless. So many people saying things that boil down to "I'm right, you're wrong" and "I'm better than you are"... Almost depressing... But knowing that at least one person appreciates my remark makes it all worthwhile ;)

Welcome.... I totally agree on the messed-up priorities that favour quantity over quality of life... and believe that you expressed it well. It is rare to see something 'new' in a thread weighing in at well over 900 posts already!

:)

But I'm sure that there are pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty. Is a criminal, even a murderer, not a human? Then who are we that we have the right to take away his life? Or maybe a human somehow loses his humanity by committing certain crimes? I'm just trying to figure out a logic that makes being pro-life AND pro-death penalty coherent.

Help me, someone?

I'm not Pro-Life (my record on this thread and others would testify) but by now I know several versions of the Pro-Life argument on that situation. Basically, they boil down to something like the fact that someone who kills chooses to go outside of society and can therefore be punished accordingly, whereas the little innocent embryo has never done anyone any harm...

In fact, the more extreme Pro-Lifers take that argument to the logical end that a doctor who practices abortions (or even someone who works in the same clinic) and thus a 'murderer' (by the subjective stance of the claimant) has forfeited their life and that it is morally acceptible for the Pro-Lifer to take such matters into their own hands, regardless of the laws of the land...

Your arrogance amazes me.Your ability to say that you have the power to kill anyone you want based on your views of when life starts terrifies me.

In fact, the more extreme Pro-Lifers take that argument to the logical end that a doctor who practices abortions (or even someone who works in the same clinic) and thus a 'murderer' (by the subjective stance of the claimant) has forfeited their life and that it is morally acceptible for the Pro-Lifer to take such matters into their own hands, regardless of the laws of the land...He has not forfeited his life. I, nor any other person has the right to 'take matters into their own hands'. It is not 'morally acceptable' to do so. The only institution that has that right is the state, and only then after fair trial.

*heart stops for a moment* Damn, that's downright terrifying...


In fact, the more extreme Pro-Lifers take that argument to the logical end that a doctor who practices abortions (or even someone who works in the same clinic) and thus a 'murderer' (by the subjective stance of the claimant) has forfeited their life and that it is morally acceptible for the Pro-Lifer to take such matters into their own hands, regardless of the laws of the land...

Didn't see my edit, did you? :D

Everybody has something to give. Everyone does have original thoughts and original abilities, if only they would stop yielding to everyone elses propaganda and peer pressure. If you want to deny that right to your child, I guess it would be better that he or she was never born. When you abort your child, you are really saving that child from yourself. I certainly wouldn't want to be born by a mother who thought I was an accident or considered my abortion. If there is no love to be recieved, then there is none to give.

Didn't see my edit, did you? :D

Nope, didn't see your post, I was busy typing mine... Oh well, great minds think alike :)

Everybody has something to give. Everyone does have original thoughts and original abilities, if only they would stop yielding to everyone elses propaganda and peer pressure. If you want to deny that right to your child, I guess it would be better that he or she was never born. When you abort your child, you are really saving that child from yourself. I certainly wouldn't want to be born by a mother who thought I was an accident or considered my abortion. If there is no love to be recieved, then there is none to give.

Not quite sure what your stance on abortion is...
Anyway, one (half joking-half serious) of my arguments for not having a kid (and therefore having an abortion in case of an accidental pregnancy): I don't want to put a child through having me as a mother.
And on a more general level: it can't possible be positive for a child to have a mother who doesn't want it.

He has not forfeited his life. I, nor any other person has the right to 'take matters into their own hands'. It is not 'morally acceptable' to do so. The only institution that has that right is the state, and only then after fair trial.

That's what some people think, from what I hear. As I said, I'm in no way a (so-called) Pro-Lifer, I'm pro-choice through'n'through (choice for everyone, though who knows which way I might swing or tend to if any partner of mine gets pregnant despite precautions or has second thoughts soon after a planned pregnancy).

*heart stops for a moment* Damn, that's downright terrifying...I work in a company that is several steps removed but still possibly associated (in some people's minds) with animal experimentation. We don't touch it, but we deal with those who deal with those who do (or something like that) in a side-ways relationship. I have to accept the possibility (slim, but possible) that someone with a militant view towards animal experimentation might target my company and hence (by the role of the dice) me.

I'm all for best practice in the studies (fewest creatures possible, in relevant ways only, humanely as far as possible and directly in order to improve the lives of everyone who later go on to benefit from the substances and devices) but some people have an absolute point of view. That affects me more than 'Pro-Lifers' do, and I have a sympathy for the generalities of their causes but enough reservations about generalising to the extreme to sit firmly on the opposite camp for all intents and purposes.

That, however, is a diversion from the point at hand, it's just the closest I imagine I'll be to being in the position of legitimate doctors targetted by extremists such as I described...

A little something interesting I found to help present Catholic viewpoint on pro-life and Kerry:

Pro-choice candidates and church teaching.

BY ARCHBISHOP JOHN J. MYERS
Friday, September 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Amid today's political jostling, Catholic citizens are wondering whether they can, in conscience, vote for candidates who support the legalized killing of human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development by abortion or in biomedical research.
Responding to requests to clarify the obligations of Catholics on this matter, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, under its prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, released a statement called "On Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion." Although it dealt primarily with the obligations of bishops to deny communion to Catholic politicians in certain circumstances, it included a short note at the end addressing whether Catholics could, in good conscience, vote for candidates who supported the taking of nascent human life in the womb or lab.
Cardinal Ratzinger stated that a "Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of a candidate's permissive stand on abortion." But the question of the moment is whether a Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons. The cardinal's next sentence answered that question: A Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion Catholic politician only "in the presence of proportionate reasons."

What are "proportionate reasons"? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. Then we must consider the scope of the evil of abortion today in our country. America suffers 1.3 million abortions each year--a tragedy of epic proportions. Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being "sacrificed" in biomedical research.
Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.
Frankly, it is hard to imagine circumstance (b) in a society such as ours. No candidate advocating the removal of legal protection against killing for any vulnerable group of innocent people other than unborn children would have a chance of winning a major office in our country. Even those who support the death penalty for first-degree murderers are not advocating policies that result in more than a million killings annually.
As Mother Teresa reminded us on all of her visits to the U.S., abortion tears at our national soul. It is a betrayal of our nation's founding principle that recognizes all human beings as "created equal" and "endowed with unalienable rights." What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a "proportionate reason" to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation's labs?
Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.
Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization.

Archbishop Myers heads the archdiocese of Newark.

Not quite sure what your stance on abortion is...
Anyway, one (half joking-half serious) of my arguments for not having a kid (and therefore having an abortion in case of an accidental pregnancy): I don't want to put a child through having me as a mother.
And on a more general level: it can't possible be positive for a child to have a mother who doesn't want it.I know what you mean. I don't even feel suitable material to be a partner, never mind husband and/or father...

(Maybe if I didn't spend all my time on these forums I'd be much better off, have a better social life and meet whatever soul-mate is hanging around out there in the real world... :))

Not quite sure what your stance on abortion is...
Anyway, one (half joking-half serious) of my arguments for not having a kid (and therefore having an abortion in case of an accidental pregnancy): I don't want to put a child through having me as a mother.
And on a more general level: it can't possible be positive for a child to have a mother who doesn't want it.

I don't think you should write it off completely... I can appreciete that you might not want children now... and that you are speculative about the idea at ANY point... but I'm not sure you'd make a bad mother at all.

You seem to be pretty well informed, not noticably over judgemental, rational, and with pragmatic realistic views of life. Of course, I've not met you, so appearance could be deceiving... but you haven't come across so far as the sort of eprson who SHOULD NOT have children.

Quality, I guess.... rather than quantity!

;)

It is important to remember that the american taliban barbarians who want to make abortion a crime because they believe that it is "murder" also believe that:

The police should forbid a woman who is a rape victim and has become pregnant from terminating her pregnancy. Regardless of her age. Regardless of who raped her.

This applies to 13 year old girls and to 35 year old women all the same, even if the rapist in question was a relative.

Recognize and fight barbarism in america.
We can become a civilized country yet!

Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being "sacrificed" in biomedical research.

10s of thousands every year? Where the hell was this guy getting his numbers? Not to mention that the embryos in question were not produced for the purpose of being sacrificed and are slated to be destroyed anyways.

Unless, of course, he is speaking of therapeutic cloning, which would not even be an embryo in the normal sense of the word.

Your ability to say that you have the power to kill anyone you want based on your views of when life starts terrifies me.

You cannot kill what is not alive.

I don't think my self as pro-choice. I'm anti-life.


You now have my permission to flame.

You cannot kill what is not alive.Thanks for helping me out. :D I love it when someone on the opposing side proves my statements true. :)




10s of thousands every year? Where the hell was this guy getting his numbers? Not to mention that the embryos in question were not produced for the purpose of being sacrificed and are slated to be destroyed anyways.

Unless, of course, he is speaking of therapeutic cloning, which would not even be an embryo in the normal sense of the word.I don't suppose the word 'proposed' means anything to you?

I do find it interesting how you choose to quibble over 'proposed' numbers, yet don't really respond at all to the main content.

I don't suppose the word 'proposed' means anything to you?

I don't see what it has to do with the price of eggs in China. He still had to have gotten the idea from somewhere that that many lines were proposed - which I simply don't buy.

I do find it interesting how you choose to quibble over 'proposed' numbers, yet don't really respond at all to the main content.

The main content is not worth responding to. It is the leaders of the Catholic Church trying to indoctrinate and force others into a belief system with no real backing in anything but "we say so."

Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being "sacrificed" in biomedical research.

I don't see what it has to do with the price of eggs in China. He still had to have gotten the idea from somewhere that that many lines were proposed - which I simply don't buy.It means he must have heard someone say that that's what they'd like to do - not that it actually happening now...

It means he must have heard someone say that that's what they'd like to do - not that it actually happening now...

Being in the industry and never having heard any such numbers proposed, I think he made the crap up off the top of his head.

Being in the industry and never having heard any such numbers proposed, I think he made the crap up off the top of his head.Being in the business of religion and morals, I imagine he has quite a lot of people that contact him in such matters. Undoubtably some of them report such things.

I wonder how many people that are currently pro-choice are that way simply because they just don't want to believe that what they either did or let others do was something so evil that they can't stand to think it true? I could understand not wanting to condemn yourself or someone you love...

I wonder how many people that are currently pro-choice are that way simply because they just don't want to believe that what they either did or let others do was something so evil that they can't stand to think it true? I could understand not wanting to condemn yourself or someone you love...
i'd say the number is roughly zero. the idea that people are pro-choice because they don't want to admit their own abortion was wrong is much the same as the typically theist idea that atheists just deny God because they don't want to admit they are sinners; both are demonstrably false, of course, but it gives pro-lifers and theists alike the opportunity to get up on an even higher horse.

Being in the business of religion and morals, I imagine he has quite a lot of people that contact him in such matters. Undoubtably some of them report such things.

And I imagine that most of the people who contact him about stem cell research are the uninformed masses with made up numbers and other ideas that are completely false.

I, on the other hand, see stem cell research first-hand. Who do you think is more likely to accurately hear what the "proposed" numbers for research are?

I wonder how many people that are currently pro-choice are that way simply because they just don't want to believe that what they either did or let others do was something so evil that they can't stand to think it true? I could understand not wanting to condemn yourself or someone you love...

Let's see. I think abortion is generally the wrong choice. However, I think that forcing your own religious beliefs on another is causing grievous harm to that person. So I don't do it. This is why I am pro-choice. It has nothing to do with what I want to believe, as I have the *choice* to believe what I want.

Originally Posted by Willamena
From the statements and premises offered, we cannot logically conclude that he cannot make an unflawed thing, only that he has not made one. ...or that the task for the 'machine' he made is being deduced incorrectly and it is performing as designed (to use your analogy, its purpose was never to pick up eggs).
And I am not settling on the argument that he cannot make an unflawed thing. If god cannot make an unflawed thing... he is not 'all-powerful'. If he CAN, but chose not to, then it is malicious to punish his creation for being flawed.
Okay, now take God's choice out of the equation. God has no choice. The "task" we were made to perform is perfect. We are, as we were created, the only thing we could ever have been, and our efforts are punishable. Where does that lead to?

Our efforts are not the task we were made to perform.

I wonder how many people that are currently pro-choice are that way simply because they just don't want to believe that what they either did or let others do was something so evil that they can't stand to think it true? I could understand not wanting to condemn yourself or someone you love...
I don't believe in evil, just love and mistakes.

I don't believe in evil, just love and mistakes.
you need to become famous, so that somebody can quote you as having said that. i guarantee it would end up on paperweights and Halmark cards.

I wonder how many people that are currently pro-choice are that way simply because they just don't want to believe that what they either did or let others do was something so evil that they can't stand to think it true? I could understand not wanting to condemn yourself or someone you love...


So you dont have a moral or reasonable argument in favor of your own beliefs... and you have decided to attack the characters of your opponents while at the same time glorifying yourself?


That would make you.... beneath contempt.

So you dont have a moral or reasonable argument in favor of your own beliefs... and you have decided to attack the characters of your opponents while at the same time glorifying yourself?


That would make you.... beneath contempt.Not at all. :) I was just wondering. If you took it personally, I can't help that. I've given other arguments to defend my beliefs (you must not have read the entire thread), and I know that no one will ever admit being in such a situation as I have described. Just something to think about, hey? :D


Let's see. I think abortion is generally the wrong choice. However, I think that forcing your own religious beliefs on another is causing grievous harm to that person. So I don't do it. This is why I am pro-choice. It has nothing to do with what I want to believe, as I have the *choice* to believe what I want.You have a choice to beleive in whatever you want. True. Do you always know the motivation behind your actions? I doubt it. It may be subconcious; I don't know. I was just putting a thought out there. Good luck proving it wrong. :)


And I imagine that most of the people who contact him about stem cell research are the uninformed masses with made up numbers and other ideas that are completely false.

I, on the other hand, see stem cell research first-hand. Who do you think is more likely to accurately hear what the "proposed" numbers for research are? Um, I didn't see anything in there that said the numbers were true, only that he has heard something to the effect on the subject. You are probably much more informed on the issue than many people; however, it does not make you the only one who has knowledge on it though. Probably some of them are Catholic as well...

Not at all. :) I was just wondering. If you took it personally, I can't help that. I've given other arguments to defend my beliefs (you must not have read the entire thread), and I know that no one will ever admit being in such a situation as I have described. Just something to think about, hey? :D


Did you stop beating your wife?


Interesting the sort of assertions questions can make isnt it.

So, did you?

Did you stop beating your wife?
Interesting the sort of assertions questions can make isnt it.

So, did you?I didn't ask anyone if they were aware that that is what was happening with them. I was just seeing what kind of responses I would get with the thought. And no, I don't even have a wife to beat. ;)

Oh no, I must be secretly evading the question that was never asked! Aiii!

I was just putting a thought out there. Good luck proving it wrong. :)

you set forth the assertion, therefore it is upon you to provide proof to support your theory. until you do it is nothing but hot air, and not worthy of further discussion.

you set forth the assertion, therefore it is upon you to provide proof to support your theory. until you do it is nothing but hot air, and not worthy of further discussion.Meaning you just don't want to talk about it, not that is not 'worthy of discussion'. You can think on it though. Thing is, I can't prove it to you. Only you can determine if it applies in your situation. I don't see why you would not discuss it though; new ideas are always fun. :)

Since when has 'hot air' not been discussed on NS anyway? :D

Meaning you just don't want to talk about it, not that is not 'worthy of discussion'.

the reason i don't want to talk about it is the same reason i don't want to talk about the assertion that the only reason you are saying the things you are saying is because you subconsciously wish you were a parakeet. it is a silly assertion with nothing to back it up, and is therefore a waste of time.


You can think on it though.

i have, and have concluded it is merely a foolish attempt at provocation. just because i don't accept your theory doesn't mean i failed to give it thought.


hing is, I can't prove it to you. Only you can determine if it applies in your situation. I don't see why you would not discuss it though; new ideas are always fun. :)

new ideas are often boring and pointless. also, your theory is not a new idea, as i pointed out originally...it is merely a variation on a very tired theme.


Since when has 'hot air' not been discussed on NS anyway? :D
seeing as how we have no shortage of hot air, why would you be so determined to add your own volume to the surplus?

Okay, now take God's choice out of the equation. God has no choice. The "task" we were made to perform is perfect. We are, as we were created, the only thing we could ever have been, and our efforts are punishable. Where does that lead to?

Our efforts are not the task we were made to perform.

And, if god cannot choose, then how is he all-powerful? Why would anyone believe that he was creator of all, if he has no ability to 'choose'... even if he WAS the hand that shaped the globe, that would remove from his domain the ABILITY to be the force BEHIND the creation.

In effect, he becomes the Storm-Trooper to someone else's Hitler.

And, if this is the best design god can manage, it makes no sense for him to 'punish' us for being flawed... once again, if he has no 'choice' but to punish us, we are back in the subordinate-rather-than-master situation.

^ Well Said. Personally I have one belief: Your beliefs have no place in other's lives. NOTHING gives anyone else the right to infringe their beliefs upon others. If someone told me abortion was wrong I'd be forced to disagree, but its not my place to try and convince them otherwise. On the other hand, if they tried to FORCEFULLY make it so that I could not do what I believed in then I would have to kill them. Plan and simple really, noone's life matters in this world. For those that believe in god and are going to rebuttle with the whole grand design BULLCRAP: I don't believe in god, nor do I think I ever will believe in someone who would throw their leiutenant and creation (satan) out of the home (heaven) because it had its own beliefs and were willing to fight for them. Arrogant, yes, but when others' beliefs are imposed upon you then your only choice is to fight back. That alot off topic, but to sum it up: It isn't your baby being aborted so shut the hell up.

[EDIT]: Yes, there IS a difference between voicing your opinion ("You shouldn't have that abortion..."), and imposing it ("You CAN'T have that abortion! You will burn in hell! etc...", and then physically stopping them somehow...VIA legeslation and the like.).

And, if god cannot choose, then how is he all-powerful? Why would anyone believe that he was creator of all, if he has no ability to 'choose'... even if he WAS the hand that shaped the globe, that would remove from his domain the ABILITY to be the force BEHIND the creation.

He did choose, temporally this is past tense, but unlike us, he is not temporal. it's the Universal vs Temporal context, as a Universal entity, his existence within the temporal world is unchanging/perfect. Everything that he felt, said, did, believed, understood, undertook, etc etc within the universe was decided/acted upon/ etc etc before time began. An absolute Universal truth/entiry/whatever by it's very concept can never change, and to define God as anything but a universal entity is to define as something other than what Jews/Christians/Muslims see him as.

And, if this is the best design god can manage, it makes no sense for him to 'punish' us for being flawed... once again, if he has no 'choice' but to punish us, we are back in the subordinate-rather-than-master situation.

You're only punished in the sense of a believer looking from the inside-out. It's hard to explain, but if one to take the original Christian churches view of Hell (Orthodox), it's simply a place created where God chose not to exist, of course, to a true believer the very thought of this place emanates within all the other metaphors present through the bible indicate an eternal torment, which from their perspective is true, but then if you despised God, this place would probably be preferential to existing almost absorbed within him.

Let's see. I think abortion is generally the wrong choice. However, I think that forcing your own religious beliefs on another is causing grievous harm to that person.

You know, I hear this from secular people quite a lot (I can't tell if you are or not Dem), and yet they don't see the flaw in saying "My secular view is that abortion is wrong, but you shouldn't force religion upon other people".

the reason i don't want to talk about it is the same reason i don't want to talk about the assertion that the only reason you are saying the things you are saying is because you subconsciously wish you were a parakeet. it is a silly assertion with nothing to back it up, and is therefore a waste of time.Silly? No, not really. No more than any other assumption. I get the feeling you just don't want to address it.


i have, and have concluded it is merely a foolish attempt at provocation. just because i don't accept your theory doesn't mean i failed to give it thought.
I wasn't provoking anyone. If you took it that way, I don't know what to tell you. I certainly did not say I knew anything for sure.

new ideas are often boring and pointless. also, your theory is not a new idea, as i pointed out originally...it is merely a variation on a very tired theme.
It is new to this thread (I think). You really don't get tired of going round and round with the same arguments (for the most part worded the same way), do you?

"New ideas are often boring and pointless." Man, I love that. Shows a willingness to avoid arguments that do not fit the normal type of thing you deal with and have a quick answer for.

seeing as how we have no shortage of hot air, why would you be so determined to add your own volume to the surplus?I meant that I wonder why you were taking it so badly when you just consider it 'hot air'. If so, why should you care?

=Pithica]I still don't quite get what you are trying to imply, but I doubt it matters.

Are you serious, of course it matters.


Forgive me if I have mixed you up with someone else here, but aren't you the one trying to argue that abortion should be illegal?

Yes, except for serious deformity, rape, mothers life in danger etc.

That your ideology should tantamount hers (and all pro-choice women) because you believe you are in the moral right?
Sounds a bit like asserting to me.

So what, Im not insisting she has to am I, after all shes your wife, what do

you care what I think she does anyway?

As for moral right, I do have that, and so do plenty of other people including

a lot of women who dont agree with women who treat their body like its a

garbage chute, and object when people are disgusted.

I still don't get how this invalidates my point. If I want to have a discussion with my wife about her beliefs or her actions because I disagree with them, that's between me and her. And even then, it's still her life, so it's ultimately her decision (and my decision to divorce her if I feel it's that important or in some way ruins my own life). If someone who doesn't know her, and doesn't matter to her tries to force them on her from 3 states away that is another matter entirely.

Well if you cant change her mind, how the hell am I going too, what are you

worried about anyway?

Its only the internet, and Im alot further than three states away, try the

biggest ocean in the world as well, that should make you sleep lol

I cannot understand how you can logically come to the conclusion that you (as a anti-abortion individual) have either the right or the ability to make a choice about her life better than she can. It is the equivalent of me telling you that you can't have a vesectomy if you want because I feel that you should be a baby-maker first and foremost.

Id have no objection to you telling me that, mainly because you cant force

me too, same as me saying your wife shouldnt do that, because I cant force

her too, get it?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]The potential for failure is still a flaw. If I made a machine that performed a task... let's say it picks up eggs, and carries them to a box.... I want that machine to pick up every egg, and put them all in the box. If my machine drops every fifth egg, then my design is flawed.
If god is the creator of all, and supposedly all-powerful, how is it he cannot make an unflawed creation?

Because its our flaws that make us human.




Yes it would, silly. If god made it, and said "I have made humans"... then that is what a human would be. Either god cannot make a perfect creation, or he chose not to... you decide which.

lol silly, who do you think you are?

He obviously chose not to, only God is perfect, why would he recreate

himself?



Nonsense. Don't try to paint the serpent as satan. The serpent is very clearly a snake. Look, he curses it to 'no legs'. Does satan, therefore, have no legs? Think it through.

Snake - Serpent - Satan - same thing in the story.


Also, even if it were true that the serpent and satan are one... (and ignoring the fact that you obviously STILL don't understand what 'satan' is)


How don't I, do you know what Satan is?


are you telling me that god cannot control satan? That they are actually opposed forces, rather than one subservient to the other?

Yes God can control Satan, but chooses to a point, not to.


Society is part of our nature. If we make a society (whether or not we put walls or fences on it) it is part of our nature.

Human nature is not nature, as in the ecosystem etc

Being in the business of religion and morals, I imagine he has quite a lot of people that contact him in such matters. Undoubtably some of them report such things.

I wonder how many people that are currently pro-choice are that way simply because they just don't want to believe that what they either did or let others do was something so evil that they can't stand to think it true? I could understand not wanting to condemn yourself or someone you love...

The Vatican also says that it is scientifically proven that condoms don't help in preventing aids, that condoms even propagate aids. You'd wonder where the hell they get their "reports" from.

The Vatican also says that it is scientifically proven that condoms don't help in preventing aids, that condoms even propagate aids. You'd wonder where the hell they get their "reports" from.
or why the world hasn't stepped forward to put the Catholic Church on trial for crimes against humanity. they are directly responsible for literally millions of HIV infection cases in Africa alone, and in Africa there is virtually no treatment for AIDS...the Pope has ordered the murder of millions of people, yet there are Catholics who have the audacity to call themselves "pro-life" while supporting the Pope.

or why the world hasn't stepped forward to put the Catholic Church on trial for crimes against humanity. they are directly responsible for literally millions of HIV infection cases in Africa alone, and in Africa there is virtually no treatment for AIDS...the Pope has ordered the murder of millions of people, yet there are Catholics who have the audacity to call themselves "pro-life" while supporting the Pope.

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's murder, plain and simple.

The pope's opposition to birth-control and abortion is the clearest example of Catholicism preferring quantity of life over quality of life. Aids, poverty, overpopulation: all of this doesn't matter, as long as everybody just keeps on "breeding". The result: millions infected with HIV (and thus condemned to death), millions living (and dying) in abject poverty and misery because parents can't support their many children. Pro-life indeed.

The pope's opposition to birth-control and abortion is the clearest example of Catholicism preferring quantity of life over quality of life. Aids, poverty, overpopulation: all of this doesn't matter, as long as everybody just keeps on "breeding". The result: millions infected with HIV (and thus condemned to death), millions living (and dying) in abject poverty and misery because parents can't support their many children. Pro-life indeed.
exactly. they are pro-BIRTH, but i don't see any justification for calling them "pro-LIFE."

exactly. they are pro-BIRTH, but i don't see any justification for calling them "pro-LIFE."

In a lot of cases it really seems to be more, you know, 'pro-punishing women... those sluts' than anything else.

I mean... 'if the woman enjoyed the sex, punish her with a child, but if she didn't (rape), well, that's fine, no need to punish her...'

In a lot of cases it really seems to be more, you know, 'pro-punishing women... those sluts' than anything else.

I mean... 'if the woman enjoyed the sex, punish her with a child, but if she didn't (rape), well, that's fine, no need to punish her...'


Ah, but you see, to them all human life is sacred, so how could a child be a punishment? No no, having a baby can only be bliss, a bed of thornless roses... To deny that is to deny the very foundation of society...

And, if god cannot choose, then how is he all-powerful? Why would anyone believe that he was creator of all, if he has no ability to 'choose'... even if he WAS the hand that shaped the globe, that would remove from his domain the ABILITY to be the force BEHIND the creation.

In effect, he becomes the Storm-Trooper to someone else's Hitler.

And, if this is the best design god can manage, it makes no sense for him to 'punish' us for being flawed... once again, if he has no 'choice' but to punish us, we are back in the subordinate-rather-than-master situation.
Choice is the ability to choose wisely (do it right) or poorly (make a mistake). God cannot choose poorly, therefore there is no choice.

Choice is man's power. God's "all-power" is the power of creation. That's his gig, to be the Creator. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. His 'word' is creation, bringing thought instantly into manifestation. There is no choice involved in the process: he thinks (aloud) and it is. The world is as he becomes aware of it; one and the same.
"Elohim in Genesis I makes creation like a craftsman. Alternatively, he 'says' or 'calls' it into being and 'tells' it what to do. He 'sees' that it is good. So also did the Mesopotamian craftsman when his work was complete, as he was required by law before his goods could leave the shop."
Similarly, Yahweh creates man from clay without a choice in the matter. As soon as he conceived of 'a man to till the ground', "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:6-7) His is a 'heart' type rather than a 'word' type creation --creation comes from the loving heart, and then thought is applied to it afterwards to keep it in check, in the form of judgements and laws.

"In the first story, Elohim saw that what he had made was good. In the second story, Yahweh does not delight in his creation. Good is not his appraisal of what he has made..." Man is not 'good-only', but that doesn't mean the design is 'flawed' in any way. Man was made to be both good and bad, to have the choice to choose good over bad. Making mistakes and making amends is how man learns and grows spiritually. That is our purpose in the design.

Our behaviour is determined by, and determines, how we think and feel. The mind/heart/soul part of us, not the physical body, is the part that God sees and interacts with, storywise, and that interacts with him. This is the part of us that 'knows' things by forming relationships with them. We 'know' the world through the relationship of experiencing it. We 'know' each other through relationships and bonding. And we 'know' God through relationship with what is in our hearts. God made us in his image, of mist (emotion) and dust (thought). Just as we are a manifestation of God's heart, what is in our hearts gets manifested in our words, actions and the tasks of our hands.

For people who are self-aware, god's "punishments" are not those that take place in the physical world, that happen to the body, to the city, or state, or to the world --they are seen as the consequences of our own heart --'hell' is torment, 'heaven' is bliss. "Know thyself" --the wisest words every recorded.


Quotes from "The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image".

The Vatican also says that it is scientifically proven that condoms don't help in preventing aids, that condoms even propagate aids. You'd wonder where the hell they get their "reports" from.

my guess would be it has something to do with people who think condoms = absolute protection and go ahead anyway.

It's hard to explain, but if one to take the original Christian churches view of Hell (Orthodox), it's simply a place created where God chose not to exist, of course, to a true believer the very thought of this place emanates within all the other metaphors present through the bible indicate an eternal torment, which from their perspective is true, but then if you despised God, this place would probably be preferential to existing almost absorbed within him.
See, now that makes sense that the "place where God does not exist" is within our heart/mind/soul, a place where (perhaps) most atheists (in)dwell? To religious folk, being in such a "place", apart from God, would be torment.

In my opinion, it is only human arrogance that infers "choice" from God's actions, making God more man-like in order to understand him, assigning human motivations to God's "deeds."