NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's your chance NSG, decide something for me. I have no idea what to make of the abortion issue.

On the one hand I couldn't imagine ever doing such a thing as intentionally killing an unborn child, on the other hand if you're too stupid to use a condom you really shouldn't breed.

Convince me, make me see your point of view. Why do men debate this anyway? If you're not the father why do you get to say?

If you're not the father why do you get to say?

The same reason that non Americans can have an opinion on the Vietnam war

The same reason that non Americans can have an opinion on the Vietnam war

Yeah but their opinions aren't worth anything.

Life doesn't start at conception. At conception you've only got one cell. Life doesn't start until you can think on some level. Up until then an abortion does no more harm than an appendectomy.

It's not your Uterus, nor is it your clump of cells, so it's not your decision when some promiscuous broad gets her monthly D&C.

And men's opinion counts because we're the ones who make the laws. Deal with it.

I killed an unborn child today when I rubbed one off.

How I could do something so monstrous, I have no idea. Society, it's rotten to the core!

D&C?

Can you think of any really, really good reason why you should force every woman who ever got pregnant to have the child regardless of whether she wanted it, could afford it or any other circumstance?
That, I imagine, is your answer.

I don't care rather or not you approve of abortion. As long as you don't think your disapproval is so important someone else is obligated to live by it.

D&C?

Can you think of any really, really good reason why you should force every woman who ever got pregnant to have the child regardless of whether she wanted it, could afford it or any other circumstance?
That, I imagine, is your answer.

Dilation and curettage. It's an abortion procedure. You know, if I have to explain abortion it's not as funny.

the consideration for me is "who should decide?"

im OK with the general US system where when the pregnancy is at a stage where if the embryo/fetus died on its own, it would be called a miscarriage, its OK to have abortion on demand. up to.... 16ish..weeks, no reason needed. as the pregnancy progresses beyond that, there needs to be a reason for an abortion. medical, psychological, rape/incest, SOMETHING. the closer to full term the more pressing the reason has to be. after all, she had plenty of time to decide on abortion in the first 16 weeks it has to be more than a change of mind in the 8th month.

so WHO should decide? does the woman have to parade herself through some court and beg for a medical procedure? how many obstacles do we put in the way of a woman terminating her pregnancy and how do we feel about, in essence, mandating that abortions be done later rather than sooner?

women are moral agents. they are most imtimately involved in the pregnancy. they know the pros and cons, the moral arguments, the pain of deciding one way or the other. they are in the best position to decide for themselves if abortion is right for them or not. throwing up legal obstacles only compounds the tragedy.

Here's your chance NSG, decide something for me. I have no idea what to make of the abortion issue.

On the one hand I couldn't imagine ever doing such a thing as intentionally killing an unborn child, on the other hand if you're too stupid to use a condom you really shouldn't breed.

Convince me, make me see your point of view. Why do men debate this anyway? If you're not the father why do you get to say?

Probably because I'm interested in ethics. In any case, after a great deal of thought and debate on the subject, I ultimately came to the conclusion that determining the ethical quality of abortion is simply a far too ethically complicated and situation-dependent matter for sweeping government legislation to address effectively, and thus advocate leaving it up to individual discretion, preferably in consultation with health professionals and family members.

If you're not the father why do you get to say?

Because the potential kid is made up of part of me? Shared ownership :p

Because the potential kid is made up of part of me? Shared ownership :p

No, if you're not the father.

Wow, this is certainly a topic we've never seen before.

Yeah but their opinions aren't worth anything.

By your same logic, most womens opinions are equally worthless, unless they are the mother. Which, in my opinion, is wholly accurate.

The decision of abortion is placed solely upon the mother and father of the child. If the father leaves, it rests on the mother. If they want an abortion, they have the right to bodily integrity.

A woman is not just a baby incubator. By forcing her to carry a child to term, she is forced into the position of one.

Additionally, there is no way a child born within the first two trimesters could survive outside the womb. It is not alive. It either doesn't, or barely, has lungs, a heart, a brain, etc.
It is (in the most pure sense) a parasite at this point. It lives only at the cost of the host (mother)

It really is not the governments, nor any other person or organizations, position to dictate what we can and cannot do with our bodies. It is my body, ergo, it is my choice of what I do with it. I cannot come up with every possible situation that would result in a woman wanting, or even needing, an abortion, and for that reason, I cannot comforably ban it.

Similarly, banning it does not make it go away. What it does do is increase the risks involved, and brings back backalley abortions, done with a coat hanger and a pair of pliers, with no anesthetics or antibiotics.

No, if you're not the father.

Meh, we have to put ourselves in that position. We have to decide what we would do if it was ours. No point in debating it any other way. This thread would die lickity split. :D

The same reason that non Americans can have an opinion on the Vietnam war

errrr....the Americans and Vietnamese were not the only country to fight during the time of the 'Vietnam War'....

Everyone should support abortion.

Liberals because they support a woman's right to choose.
Conservatives because it's mostly liberals who get them and will gradually reduce the liberal population.


*end blatant stereotyping*

Morally, the taking of a life is always wrong. This has to be balanced, however, against the welfare of the mother. Strict controls must exist on the practice, therefore, but it should not be completely outlawed.

As for why I get a say, the simple answer is 'because you just asked me what I thought.'

First, Biblically

Exodus 21:22-25
"When two men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

There is no reason to think that the harm refers only to the woman. It says harm, as in any harm. And it seems that it was accidental: two men fighting and the woman gets in the way. But the penalty for harm is still life for life. Should it be any less if it is intentional?

Now for "reason"

Conception is the only non-arbitrary place to say life begins. What are the objections to this?

It's not developed enough. Well, according to that logic, not as developed means less valuable. So there is should be no problem with killing a 2 year old. Why? He's less developed and therefore not as valuable. Or even a teenage girl for that matter. Again, she's not fully developed, so she is not valuable. At conception, the fertilized egg is human (it has all the chromosomes), it is just how a human at that stage of life is supposed to be.

It's too small. Stupid. I'm taller than most people. I should be able to kill my grandmother: she's a foot shorter than I. And the football player should be able to kill me. I have much less bulk than he. Size is a stupid excuse.

It can't feel pain. There is a girl who can't feel pain. She sits on her bed and chews her fingers off because she can't feel that she's hurting herself. No, I don't have a link. I saw it on the news (Good Morning America I think) and forgot the name and haven't been able to find anything on her since. If someone can help me, I would be most appreciative.

It's not concious. You're not when you sleep either. Should I be able to kill you in your sleep? What about people on the operating table? Again, stupid.

Every time my objections to the arguments are raised, the answer is invariably "That's different!" How? It's not really. I'm putting aside all other differences and asking "Is this really what determines value of life?" If we put aside everything else, can size, ability to feel pain, conciousness, or level od development really determine value? The answer is no.

Now for the mother and her "rights"

She can't support the child. Neither can many parents. They lose their jobs and can't feed their familes. Should those parents be put out of their misery? Some (if they are logical) would have to say that yes, the parents can end that hardship by killing their children. Financial difficulty is no excuse. Plus, there's adoption.

She can't handle the pain of carrying this child: it brings up bad memories of rape. Well, I'm sorry. But, you can't just kill people for bad memories. I see people everyday who cause me to have very bad memories (my homosexual years). Should I be allowed to kill them?

What about rape or incest? Let's get the criminals and punish them. Don't punish the child. If you truly can't live with it, put the baby up for adoption.

I don't want this child! Just because you don't want something, that means you can kill it? So, I don't want my girlfriend anymore, I can kill her. Again, people say "That's different" but is it really? No. The prinicple is the same.

But she's a teenager and has her whole life ahead of her! Again, there's adoption.

Here's your chance NSG, decide something for me. I have no idea what to make of the abortion issue.

On the one hand I couldn't imagine ever doing such a thing as intentionally killing an unborn child, on the other hand if you're too stupid to use a condom you really shouldn't breed.

Convince me, make me see your point of view. Why do men debate this anyway? If you're not the father why do you get to say?

Be pro-choice. Decide for yourself when the occasion arises.

Be pro-choice. Decide for yourself when the occasion arises.

It would never ever arise.

It would never ever arise.

Then you're in luck. You don't need to have an opinion on it.

First, Biblically


Oh, did I go to sleep and wake up in a Judao-Christian Theocracy? No? Then fuck what the Bible says.


Now for "reason"

Conception is the only non-arbitrary place to say life begins. What are the objections to this?

It's not developed enough. Well, according to that logic, not as developed means less valuable. So there is should be no problem with killing a 2 year old. Why? He's less developed and therefore not as valuable. Or even a teenage girl for that matter. Again, she's not fully developed, so she is not valuable. At conception, the fertilized egg is human (it has all the chromosomes), it is just how a human at that stage of life is supposed to be.

It's too small. Stupid. I'm taller than most people. I should be able to kill my grandmother: she's a foot shorter than I. And the football player should be able to kill me. I have much less bulk than he. Size is a stupid excuse.

It can't feel pain. There is a girl who can't feel pain. She sits on her bed and chews her fingers off because she can't feel that she's hurting herself. No, I don't have a link. I saw it on the news (Good Morning America I think) and forgot the name and haven't been able to find anything on her since. If someone can help me, I would be most appreciative.

It's not concious. You're not when you sleep either. Should I be able to kill you in your sleep? What about people on the operating table? Again, stupid.

Every time my objections to the arguments are raised, the answer is invariably "That's different!" How? It's not really. I'm putting aside all other differences and asking "Is this really what determines value of life?" If we put aside everything else, can size, ability to feel pain, conciousness, or level od development really determine value? The answer is no.

Now for the mother and her "rights"

She can't support the child. Neither can many parents. They lose their jobs and can't feed their familes. Should those parents be put out of their misery? Some (if they are logical) would have to say that yes, the parents can end that hardship by killing their children. Financial difficulty is no excuse. Plus, there's adoption.

She can't handle the pain of carrying this child: it brings up bad memories of rape. Well, I'm sorry. But, you can't just kill people for bad memories. I see people everyday who cause me to have very bad memories (my homosexual years). Should I be allowed to kill them?

What about rape or incest? Let's get the criminals and punish them. Don't punish the child. If you truly can't live with it, put the baby up for adoption.

I don't want this child! Just because you don't want something, that means you can kill it? So, I don't want my girlfriend anymore, I can kill her. Again, people say "That's different" but is it really? No. The prinicple is the same.

But she's a teenager and has her whole life ahead of her! Again, there's adoption.

Biologically, a fetus is not a child, nor is it "people." Then again, you can make your "reasonable" argument much more effective by appealing to emotions, yes?

How about this. If a fetus is a person, how come names aren't chosen or given until after birth?

If a fetus is a person, how come it isn't counted in censuses?

If a fetus is a person, how come abortion is never determined by legal authorities to qualify as either "manslaughter," "murder" or "homicide?"

errrr....the Americans and Vietnamese were not the only country to fight during the time of the 'Vietnam War'....

True- the French thought it was theirs for a while, but that baby ended up ours. And we're still paying for it, years later.

If a fetus is a person, how come abortion is never determined by legal authorities to qualify as either "manslaughter," "murder" or "homicide?"

Because 'legal' and 'moral' are entirely seperate words that should never be confused. He is arguing that it should be considered murder.

Here's your chance NSG, decide something for me. I have no idea what to make of the abortion issue.

On the one hand I couldn't imagine ever doing such a thing as intentionally killing an unborn child, on the other hand if you're too stupid to use a condom you really shouldn't breed.

Convince me, make me see your point of view. Why do men debate this anyway? If you're not the father why do you get to say?

It's a pretty simple argument, really.

Regardless of how you feel about abortion personally,

Do you think you or anybody else have the right to force a woman to use her body as an involuntary incubator for another human being? We don't force people to donate blood. We don't harvest organs from the dead to save lives against the deceased's wishes...and they're DEAD! But some people think it's all right to force women to serve as pods for unborn infants.

It's a double standard.

First, Biblically

Exodus 21:22-25
"When two men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

There is no reason to think that the harm refers only to the woman. It says harm, as in any harm. And it seems that it was accidental: two men fighting and the woman gets in the way. But the penalty for harm is still life for life. Should it be any less if it is intentional? Funny how you feel your interpretation of Jewish scripture is more accurate than a Jew's interpretation. I'm pretty sure they don't consider it a baby until it's born.

Now for "reason"

Conception is the only non-arbitrary place to say life begins. What are the objections to this? The objection is that a cell or cluster of cells is simply not equal to a human being. It can't survive on it's own, it can't think, it can't take any action. Certainly no voluntary action because without a brain to think it has no will. It has no sensation and emotion. To assign it the same value as a real human's life doesn't raise the value of a zygote, it lowers the value of real human life.



It's not developed enough. Well, according to that logic, not as developed means less valuable. So there is should be no problem with killing a 2 year old. Why? He's less developed and therefore not as valuable. Or even a teenage girl for that matter. Again, she's not fully developed, so she is not valuable. At conception, the fertilized egg is human (it has all the chromosomes), it is just how a human at that stage of life is supposed to be. A two year old can clearly think and feel. You can't say you don't see the difference between a fetus with a brain smaller than a mouse's and a two year old kid. If you do you're either a liar or you're just deluded. If you're going to go by chromosomes then a tonsil is human life and therefore sacred. If you're going to draw a line somewhere it should be at the point we decide the brain is developed enough in the average infant to support thought and emotion at least on a higher level than a rodent.

It's too small. Stupid. I'm taller than most people. I should be able to kill my grandmother: she's a foot shorter than I. And the football player should be able to kill me. I have much less bulk than he. Size is a stupid excuse.

It can't feel pain. There is a girl who can't feel pain. She sits on her bed and chews her fingers off because she can't feel that she's hurting herself. No, I don't have a link. I saw it on the news (Good Morning America I think) and forgot the name and haven't been able to find anything on her since. If someone can help me, I would be most appreciative.

It's not concious. You're not when you sleep either. Should I be able to kill you in your sleep? What about people on the operating table? Again, stupid.

Every time my objections to the arguments are raised, the answer is invariably "That's different!" How? It's not really. I'm putting aside all other differences and asking "Is this really what determines value of life?" If we put aside everything else, can size, ability to feel pain, conciousness, or level od development really determine value? The answer is no. Are you really that dense? A sleeping person is conscious most of the time, and is engaged in mental activity on a certain level while dreaming. A girl who can't feel pain can still feel emotion and think.

Now for the mother and her "rights"

She can't support the child. Neither can many parents. They lose their jobs and can't feed their familes. Should those parents be put out of their misery? Some (if they are logical) would have to say that yes, the parents can end that hardship by killing their children. Financial difficulty is no excuse. Plus, there's adoption. I'd agree if it was already a child. It's not. Your argument is shot.

She can't handle the pain of carrying this child: it brings up bad memories of rape. Well, I'm sorry. But, you can't just kill people for bad memories. I see people everyday who cause me to have very bad memories (my homosexual years). Should I be allowed to kill them? You're comparing killing a person to abortion again. Not the same thing.

What about rape or incest? Let's get the criminals and punish them. Don't punish the child. If you truly can't live with it, put the baby up for adoption.

I don't want this child! Just because you don't want something, that means you can kill it? So, I don't want my girlfriend anymore, I can kill her. Again, people say "That's different" but is it really? No. The prinicple is the same.

But she's a teenager and has her whole life ahead of her! Again, there's adoption.Once again, a zygote or fetus isn't the same as a human. Abortion isn't murder.

Because 'legal' and 'moral' are entirely seperate words that should never be confused. He is arguing that it should be considered murder.

He is arguing that fetuses are people. I am questioning whether he truly believes that, and whether he might say if his hypothetical wife became pregnant, "I have one child."

carrying the child to term is not just a matter of keeping it in a basket and then giving it away once the timer's gone off. There are huge psychological, physiological, and chemical changes that take place in a woman upon giving birth. I think that to force a woman to carry a child to term is to force her to live with these (some of which are) PERMANANT changes in her body for life. Is it fair for a third party to so judge and punish a woman in an unfortunate situation in this way?

I think not.

Here's your chance NSG, decide something for me. I have no idea what to make of the abortion issue.

On the one hand I couldn't imagine ever doing such a thing as intentionally killing an unborn child, on the other hand if you're too stupid to use a condom you really shouldn't breed.

Convince me, make me see your point of view. Why do men debate this anyway? If you're not the father why do you get to say?
Well, when an abortion is done, I don't know if it is technically murder. But it is the cessation of a person that could have been born and lived. Thus I am against it.

He is arguing that fetuses are people. I am questioning whether he truly believes that, and whether he might say if his hypothetical wife became pregnant, "I have one child."

I had a situation like that once (OT). I was filling out forms for student aid and it asked how many kids I had .My wife was pregnant w/ twins. They weren't born at that time but they would be when I would be starting school that semester. When I called the help desk, the guy chuckled and went to ask his supervisor. They told me to put down 2.

I had a situation like that once (OT). I was filling out forms for student aid and it asked how many kids I had .My wife was pregnant w/ twins. They weren't born at that time but they would be when I would be starting school that semester. When I called the help desk, the guy chuckled and went to ask his supervisor. They told me to put down 2.

But you have to look at why he said to write it that way. Because it logically follows that (barring unfortunate circumstances) a foetus (or two) will eventually be born and thus will become dependents (for the purposes of financial aid). Does it make more sense to add this right now, or wait whatever number of months until they are born and then have to go back and amend your FAFSA?

To me the best 4 arguments in favor of safe, legal abortion and a woman's right to choose are as follows:

Ashmoria
the consideration for me is "who should decide?"

im OK with the general US system where when the pregnancy is at a stage where if the embryo/fetus died on its own, it would be called a miscarriage, its OK to have abortion on demand. up to.... 16ish..weeks, no reason needed. as the pregnancy progresses beyond that, there needs to be a reason for an abortion. medical, psychological, rape/incest, SOMETHING. the closer to full term the more pressing the reason has to be. after all, she had plenty of time to decide on abortion in the first 16 weeks it has to be more than a change of mind in the 8th month.

so WHO should decide? does the woman have to parade herself through some court and beg for a medical procedure? how many obstacles do we put in the way of a woman terminating her pregnancy and how do we feel about, in essence, mandating that abortions be done later rather than sooner?

women are moral agents. they are most imtimately involved in the pregnancy. they know the pros and cons, the moral arguments, the pain of deciding one way or the other. they are in the best position to decide for themselves if abortion is right for them or not. throwing up legal obstacles only compounds the tragedy.

Texan Hotrodders
Probably because I'm interested in ethics. In any case, after a great deal of thought and debate on the subject, I ultimately came to the conclusion that determining the ethical quality of abortion is simply a far too ethically complicated and situation-dependent matter for sweeping government legislation to address effectively, and thus advocate leaving it up to individual discretion, preferably in consultation with health professionals and family members.

Lunatic Goofballs
It's a pretty simple argument, really.

Regardless of how you feel about abortion personally,

Do you think you or anybody else have the right to force a woman to use her body as an involuntary incubator for another human being? We don't force people to donate blood. We don't harvest organs from the dead to save lives against the deceased's wishes...and they're DEAD! But some people think it's all right to force women to serve as pods for unborn infants.

It's a double standard.

In addition:

There is no compulsion involved with legal abortion. All it does is make abortion available as an option, if needed. It neither mandates nor encourages people to get abortions. People who do not want them, need never get one, and people who oppose abortion are still free to promote their views and encourage others to also not get abortions, with the goal of eventually making sure that no one will ever get one except when medically necessary.

Thus, the right to choose safe, legal abortion is a win-win situation for all sides.

Except, of course, those whose true goal is to control the lives of others.

1) Edwardis you are a comlpete idiot. 'O IM TALLER THAN GRAMMA I SHULD KILLS HER' is NOT the same as 'wow, this fetus is about 5 weeks old and can't eat, sleep, think, feel, talk, emote or pretty much anything else that any normal HUMAN (meaning not a zygote or womb-ridden baby) can do, and I really don't have the resources or mental capacity to care for it'

Next time try finding better analogies. Not only did you make absolutely no sense in your reasoning...but you spent a long time doing it. What kind of retard spends 45 minutes writing a post that looks like it was taken straight out of my fourteen year old brother's notebook? Write on, mijo, maybe if you make enough words with your keyboard people will be too overwhelmed to pay attention to the mindless bullshit that you call a valid point.

2) About the actual issue in question:

Yes I agree with abortion. I mean, of course it is expected for any man or woman in this western society to feel guilt or sorrow over having to terminate a potential life that was created by you...but at the same time, if you're too stupid to pay 30 bucks a month to get your ass on the pill, or pay 3 bucks for a 3 pack of condoms at the fuckin' Stop n' Shop, you really should have no responsibility over a child. I'm married and financially stable, but I have to travel a lot with my husband and I am still in school. If I found out i were pregnant tomorrow, I would choose to abort the pregnancy because I cannot wholly provide for the child at this point in time. How is that a bad thing? Would you rather me carry to term and half-ass the kids life?

Good call assfucks. In the name of jesus, I will give my child a shitty life! (but that's better than no life...right?)

Here's your chance NSG, decide something for me. I have no idea what to make of the abortion issue.

On the one hand I couldn't imagine ever doing such a thing as intentionally killing an unborn child, on the other hand if you're too stupid to use a condom you really shouldn't breed.

Convince me, make me see your point of view. Why do men debate this anyway? If you're not the father why do you get to say?

How about you don't ever have to do it if you don't want to?

good enough?

Great first post, Barefoot.

danke.

On top of all of that, too...it's really nobody's business whether or not a woman or couple decide to end a pregnancy. It's not your kid, or your body, or your prerogative. So even if you disagree with the concept, who are you to tell someone that they have to disagree too?

Here's your chance NSG, decide something for me. I have no idea what to make of the abortion issue.

On the one hand I couldn't imagine ever doing such a thing as intentionally killing an unborn child, on the other hand if you're too stupid to use a condom you really shouldn't breed.

Convince me, make me see your point of view. Why do men debate this anyway? If you're not the father why do you get to say?

Fetuses have none of the qualifying requirements for the rights of personhood, pregnant women (presumably) have full qualifying requirements for the rights of personhood.

So there is only one position that a rational person can take.

To this point, most of the arguments against the pro-life position have been gravely flawed. The opponents of abortion all hold that an unborn child is human from conception.

If that is the case, pro-choice arguments involving the circumstances of conception, whether the child is wanted or not, or any physical abnormalities are irrelevant. There are absolutely never any grounds for any abortion by anyone at any time. A mother's choice to have her child aborted gives no more justification than does a murderer's choice to kill his victim.

If that is not the case - if human life begins at birth, or at some point of survivability outside the womb, or if human life is never sacred - then all pro-life arguments fall to pieces. In every case, an abortion can be justified by some sort of situational ethics. (So can partial birth abortion, infanticide, and eventually the wanton slaughter of the mentally ill, the elderly, the homeless, etc., if we want to venture down that slipperly slope.)

I believe that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and nothing is about to change my mind. I believe this largely because of what the Bible says about the nature of conception. As the Bible (or, in some cases, other alleged forms of divine revelation, such as the Koran) is a large part of the worldview of and justification for the views of almost every pro-lifer, perhaps this is a place to debate its authority and whether it does indeed oppose abortion. As far as I and every confessing Christian are concerned, the Bible is a true document inspired by God, and what it says or does not say about this issue can be taken as fact. If that is true, and if the Bible does indeed forbid abortion, then I am right and the pro-choicers are wrong. If the Bible is not divinely inspired or does not address this issue, the whole pro-life position is greatly weakened.

That seems to be the crux of the argument here, although nobody except Edwardis (post 19) has even touched on it.

Would a pro-choicer - especially a Christian pro-choicer - please address this?

To this point, most of the arguments against the pro-life position have been gravely flawed. The opponents of abortion all hold that an unborn child is human from conception.

If that is the case, pro-choice arguments involving the circumstances of conception, whether the child is wanted or not, or any physical abnormalities are irrelevant. There are absolutely never any grounds for any abortion by anyone at any time. A mother's choice to have her child aborted gives no more justification than does a murderer's choice to kill his victim.

If that is not the case - if human life begins at birth, or at some point of survivability outside the womb, or if human life is never sacred - then all pro-life arguments fall to pieces. In every case, an abortion can be justified by some sort of situational ethics. (So can partial birth abortion, infanticide, and eventually the wanton slaughter of the mentally ill, the elderly, the homeless, etc., if we want to venture down that slipperly slope.)

I believe that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and nothing is about to change my mind. I believe this largely because of what the Bible says about the nature of conception. As the Bible (or, in some cases, other alleged forms of divine revelation, such as the Koran) is a large part of the worldview of and justification for the views of almost every pro-lifer, perhaps this is a place to debate its authority and whether it does indeed oppose abortion. As far as I and every confessing Christian are concerned, the Bible is a true document inspired by God, and what it says or does not say about this issue can be taken as fact. If that is true, and if the Bible does indeed forbid abortion, then I am right and the pro-choicers are wrong. If the Bible is not divinely inspired or does not address this issue, the whole pro-life position is greatly weakened.

That seems to be the crux of the argument here, although nobody except Edwardis (post 19) has even touched on it.

Would a pro-choicer - especially a Christian pro-choicer - please address this?

How can any of us possibly change your mind, when you say nothing ever will? You believe what you believe absolutely, there can be no discussion.


Thanks for playing, and be sure to pick up your lovely parting gifts on the way out.

To this point, most of the arguments against the pro-life position have been gravely flawed. The opponents of abortion all hold that an unborn child is human from conception.

If that is the case, pro-choice arguments involving the circumstances of conception, whether the child is wanted or not, or any physical abnormalities are irrelevant. There are absolutely never any grounds for any abortion by anyone at any time. A mother's choice to have her child aborted gives no more justification than does a murderer's choice to kill his victim.

If that is not the case - if human life begins at birth, or at some point of survivability outside the womb, or if human life is never sacred - then all pro-life arguments fall to pieces. In every case, an abortion can be justified by some sort of situational ethics. (So can partial birth abortion, infanticide, and eventually the wanton slaughter of the mentally ill, the elderly, the homeless, etc., if we want to venture down that slipperly slope.)

I believe that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and nothing is about to change my mind. I believe this largely because of what the Bible says about the nature of conception. As the Bible (or, in some cases, other alleged forms of divine revelation, such as the Koran) is a large part of the worldview of and justification for the views of almost every pro-lifer, perhaps this is a place to debate its authority and whether it does indeed oppose abortion. As far as I and every confessing Christian are concerned, the Bible is a true document inspired by God, and what it says or does not say about this issue can be taken as fact. If that is true, and if the Bible does indeed forbid abortion, then I am right and the pro-choicers are wrong. If the Bible is not divinely inspired or does not address this issue, the whole pro-life position is greatly weakened.

That seems to be the crux of the argument here, although nobody except Edwardis (post 19) has even touched on it.

Would a pro-choicer - especially a Christian pro-choicer - please address this?


What's with this slippery slope bullshit? Humans deal with arbitrary limits all the time. For example, in my state, New Jersey, age of consent is 16. Why 16? Well, it's just an arbitrary number. There are probably people who can handle sex earlier and there are probably people who can't handle sex at 18, but we've chosen 16 because it minimizes damage to people while maximizing liberty. Same goes for voting age (18) and drinking age (21). We can certainly do a similar thing with abortion and we should. It would protect actual children while maximizing the liberty of pregnant women.

As for the religious argument, I think Jews peg personhood at birth, not conception. They wrote the OT, so who are you to say god says conception is the point where one becomes a person?

Also the bible has nothing to do with secular law.

I believe that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and nothing is about to change my mind. I believe this largely because of what the Bible says about the nature of conception.

What does the bible say on conception and personhood?

Here's your chance NSG, decide something for me. I have no idea what to make of the abortion issue.

On the one hand I couldn't imagine ever doing such a thing as intentionally killing an unborn child, on the other hand if you're too stupid to use a condom you really shouldn't breed.

Convince me, make me see your point of view. Why do men debate this anyway? If you're not the father why do you get to say?

exactly, that's why i'm pro choice.

To this point, most of the arguments against the pro-life position have been gravely flawed. The opponents of abortion all hold that an unborn child is human from conception.

If that is the case, pro-choice arguments involving the circumstances of conception, whether the child is wanted or not, or any physical abnormalities are irrelevant. There are absolutely never any grounds for any abortion by anyone at any time. A mother's choice to have her child aborted gives no more justification than does a murderer's choice to kill his victim.

If that is not the case - if human life begins at birth, or at some point of survivability outside the womb, or if human life is never sacred - then all pro-life arguments fall to pieces. In every case, an abortion can be justified by some sort of situational ethics. (So can partial birth abortion, infanticide, and eventually the wanton slaughter of the mentally ill, the elderly, the homeless, etc., if we want to venture down that slipperly slope.)

I believe that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and nothing is about to change my mind. I believe this largely because of what the Bible says about the nature of conception. As the Bible (or, in some cases, other alleged forms of divine revelation, such as the Koran) is a large part of the worldview of and justification for the views of almost every pro-lifer, perhaps this is a place to debate its authority and whether it does indeed oppose abortion. As far as I and every confessing Christian are concerned, the Bible is a true document inspired by God, and what it says or does not say about this issue can be taken as fact. If that is true, and if the Bible does indeed forbid abortion, then I am right and the pro-choicers are wrong. If the Bible is not divinely inspired or does not address this issue, the whole pro-life position is greatly weakened.

That seems to be the crux of the argument here, although nobody except Edwardis (post 19) has even touched on it.

Would a pro-choicer - especially a Christian pro-choicer - please address this?

First thing I'd like to question is the presumtion that Christianity believes that human life is sacred. History would seem to indicate that might be negotiable.

Second thing i'd like to question is whether the concept of human life being sacred is more or less valuable than say, the wishes of the dying. Afterall, we seem to have a tremendous amount of respect for the dead even if that person's organs could save lives. Apparently, life isn't as sacred as death.

But I think I will instead focus on the fact that the abortion debate has nothing to do with the fetus. Afterall, if pro-life activists put half of the effort they exert into improving the adoption system in this country and providing assistance to poor and single mothers, then maybe there wouldn't be a need for abortion. The abortion debate is about controlling women. It's not about the baby. It's about the woman. DOes a woman have the right to decide what happens to her own body?

In response, I would like any pro-life christians to explain why a person has more right in the eyes of God to decide what happens to him or her after death than when that person is still alive.

That seems to be the crux of the argument here, although nobody except Edwardis (post 19) has even touched on it.

Would a pro-choicer - especially a Christian pro-choicer - please address this?


Leave it up to a bunch of holier than thou bible thumpers to act like retards on the internet. Idiots like you make me cherish the ability to choose.

You and Edwardis can form a strong liberated front to fight alongside God in his war against babyslaughter. I bet he would be totally proud that you're sitting in the Nation States forums arguing about whether or not you like what's none of your business when you could very well be out crusading with picket signs outside the Gay Pride Parade.

Bottom line: you suck.

Abortion will never stop as long as we have the Ol' Whoopsadaisy

http://www.oapedia.com/oa/The_Ol%27_Whoopsadaisy

First, Biblically

Exodus 21:22-25
"When two men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

There is no reason to think that the harm refers only to the woman. It says harm, as in any harm. And it seems that it was accidental: two men fighting and the woman gets in the way. But the penalty for harm is still life for life. Should it be any less if it is intentional?


Two points - firstly, not everyone believes in or is bound by the moral code in the bible, in the same way that you are not forced to follow the teachings of the Koran. Second the bible forbids nearly everything, from shrimp to bank accounts. It even flatly contradicts itself at points. If you want to use it as the basis for your faith and moral code fine, but don't use it as a basis for law and logic for all people.

Conception is the only non-arbitrary place to say life begins. What are the objections to this?

It's not developed enough. Well, according to that logic, not as developed means less valuable. So there is should be no problem with killing a 2 year old. Why? He's less developed and therefore not as valuable. Or even a teenage girl for that matter. Again, she's not fully developed, so she is not valuable. At conception, the fertilized egg is human (it has all the chromosomes), it is just how a human at that stage of life is supposed to be.

It's too small. Stupid. I'm taller than most people. I should be able to kill my grandmother: she's a foot shorter than I. And the football player should be able to kill me. I have much less bulk than he. Size is a stupid excuse.

It can't feel pain. There is a girl who can't feel pain. She sits on her bed and chews her fingers off because she can't feel that she's hurting herself. No, I don't have a link. I saw it on the news (Good Morning America I think) and forgot the name and haven't been able to find anything on her since. If someone can help me, I would be most appreciative.

It's not concious. You're not when you sleep either. Should I be able to kill you in your sleep? What about people on the operating table? Again, stupid.

Every time my objections to the arguments are raised, the answer is invariably "That's different!" How? It's not really. I'm putting aside all other differences and asking "Is this really what determines value of life?" If we put aside everything else, can size, ability to feel pain, conciousness, or level od development really determine value? The answer is no.

The small and developed arguments are actually the same one - your height example is a bit stupid and undermines your argument. Similarly, replace concious with sentient, and your examples are defunct. I have never heard the "can't feel pain" argument, and would never use it - it is indeed foolish.

However, comparing a 2 year old with a newly fertilized egg is not a clever idea. A 2 year old is a living, breathing, sentient, self aware being, capable of surviving on it's own, whereas a fertilized egg is a collection of cells and chemicals with no self awareness, completly dependant on the mother not only for simple food, oxygen, and water, but for the various hormones and chemicals that will turn it into a human being. Saying a fertilized egg is alive is like saying a stick of dynamite has already exploded before you light the fuse.

Now for the mother and her "rights"

She can't support the child. Neither can many parents. They lose their jobs and can't feed their familes. Should those parents be put out of their misery? Some (if they are logical) would have to say that yes, the parents can end that hardship by killing their children. Financial difficulty is no excuse. Plus, there's adoption.

She can't handle the pain of carrying this child: it brings up bad memories of rape. Well, I'm sorry. But, you can't just kill people for bad memories. I see people everyday who cause me to have very bad memories (my homosexual years). Should I be allowed to kill them?

What about rape or incest? Let's get the criminals and punish them. Don't punish the child. If you truly can't live with it, put the baby up for adoption.

I don't want this child! Just because you don't want something, that means you can kill it? So, I don't want my girlfriend anymore, I can kill her. Again, people say "That's different" but is it really? No. The prinicple is the same.

But she's a teenager and has her whole life ahead of her! Again, there's adoption.

I have to say, I am not a big fan of either the financially difficulty or the "I just don't want it" arguments either, although your argument about killing your girlfriend is not the same (you can leave your girlfriend and never see her again, rather than suffer pain and danger to carry her around for nine months then push her out your cervix. It also depends on your position about the stage at which a foetus/embryo is a life.) But on your other points I have to strongly disagree.

Carrying a child is traumatic, especially at a young age, both mentally and physically. There is even a risk of death. Forcing someone to go through that against their will is profoundly abhorrant to me, particularly in the case of rape or incest, where trauma has already been inflicted. It's not a case of bad memories, it's a case of bad events, which can be prevented. It's the equivlant of torture and murder of women, and even teenage children.

Oh and anybody who puts the word rights in quote marks loses about 6 points on my Scale of Respect.

There's a nice big billboard on the highway not far from here. It says "You call it abortion, God calls it murder." Everytime I pass it, I ask "Where?" I haven't gotten an answer yet. I have yet to find anywhere that God calls abortion "murder."
These people always seem to be talking to God, but he doesn't seem to talk to anyone sensible. Come to think of it, in sensible places we lock up and medicate the people who talk to God all the time.

that's ok...I live in houston, and we have billboards that read 'SUPPORT OUR MAYOR: RAY NAGIN'

wtf.

/threadjack bitches

First, Biblically

Exodus 21:22-25
"When two men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

I'm going to assume you are aware that many translations state that a miscarriage occurs, not just "her children come out." Thus, in those translations it is clear that there is no live child born.

Meanwhile, if we were talking about a woman having a healthy child, why would there be a fine at all?

Conception is the only non-arbitrary place to say life begins. What are the objections to this?

How is that non-arbitrary? It is just as, and probably more, arbitrary than those who place it at levels of development that actually mean something.

Tell me, can you construct a biologically accurate definition of organism that includes an embryo but does not include a heart? Note that you cannot argue from potential, as something is does not meet a given qualification simply because it might one day meet that qualification. If it worked that way, I'd be collecting a pension right now.

But she's a teenager and has her whole life ahead of her! Again, there's adoption.

This argument will have merit when the people who make it start adopting all the millions of children already awaiting adoption - children currently being raised in orphanages or shuttled from foster home to foster home to foster home. Note that these people cannot specify that they want a perfectly healthy white infant. They need to start adopting chidren, not dolls.


Well, when an abortion is done, I don't know if it is technically murder. But it is the cessation of a person that could have been born and lived. Thus I am against it.

You can be against abortion and still be pro-choice. Many of us are.

I believe that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and nothing is about to change my mind.

And that is fine. But do you think your beliefs should be imposed upon others simply because you believe them - even if you cannot prove them to be true?

I believe this largely because of what the Bible says about the nature of conception.

Correction, you believe this because of your personal interpretation of what the Bible says.

As far as I and every confessing Christian are concerned, the Bible is a true document inspired by God, and what it says or does not say about this issue can be taken as fact.

You have just invalidated anything else you have to say by claiming to speak for all Christians, when you do not.

If that is true, and if the Bible does indeed forbid abortion, then I am right and the pro-choicers are wrong. If the Bible is not divinely inspired or does not address this issue, the whole pro-life position is greatly weakened.

You have set up a false dichotomy here. You seem to think that "pro-choice" equates to "pro-abortion." It does not. It is perfectly possible to be both anti-abortion and pro-choice. I have my own beliefs on the subject, but I do not have the right to force those beliefs upon others when I cannot objectively show that a human person is being harmed. You may believe that a zygote is a human person. You may believe that an embryo is a human person. But the fact remains that neither even meets the general definition of an organism.

Would a pro-choicer - especially a Christian pro-choicer - please address this?

Done.

There's a nice big billboard on the highway not far from here. It says "You call it abortion, God calls it murder." Everytime I pass it, I ask "Where?" I haven't gotten an answer yet. I have yet to find anywhere that God calls abortion "murder."
That's terrible. I am against abortion, but claiming to speak for God is just arrogant.

As for the religious argument, I think Jews peg personhood at birth, not conception. They wrote the OT, so who are you to say god says conception is the point where one becomes a person?

Actually, not even at birth. Male children were considered persons something like a week after their birth. Female children closer to two weeks, IIRC.

There's a nice big billboard on the highway not far from here. It says "You call it abortion, God calls it murder." Everytime I pass it, I ask "Where?" I haven't gotten an answer yet. I have yet to find anywhere that God calls abortion "murder."

That would be nice to know, wouldn't it? This is especially true when you recognize that the OT had laws that ordered priests to perform actions that would induce abortion in women if they were accused of adultery. It is especially true when you recognize that most religions and cultures throughout history have had no laws whatsoever against abortion before the quickening - the point at which the woman can feel movement. Those that did generally did not punish it as murder, but instead expected a fine to be paid to the husband/father of the woman.

Why concern ourselves with abortion when we can just get rid of everyone this way? (http://us.altermedia.info/images/nuke.jpg)

To this point, most of the arguments against the pro-life position have been gravely flawed. The opponents of abortion all hold that an unborn child is human from conception.

If that is the case, pro-choice arguments involving the circumstances of conception, whether the child is wanted or not, or any physical abnormalities are irrelevant. There are absolutely never any grounds for any abortion by anyone at any time. A mother's choice to have her child aborted gives no more justification than does a murderer's choice to kill his victim.

If that is not the case - if human life begins at birth, or at some point of survivability outside the womb, or if human life is never sacred - then all pro-life arguments fall to pieces. In every case, an abortion can be justified by some sort of situational ethics. (So can partial birth abortion, infanticide, and eventually the wanton slaughter of the mentally ill, the elderly, the homeless, etc., if we want to venture down that slipperly slope.)

I believe that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and nothing is about to change my mind. I believe this largely because of what the Bible says about the nature of conception. As the Bible (or, in some cases, other alleged forms of divine revelation, such as the Koran) is a large part of the worldview of and justification for the views of almost every pro-lifer, perhaps this is a place to debate its authority and whether it does indeed oppose abortion. As far as I and every confessing Christian are concerned, the Bible is a true document inspired by God, and what it says or does not say about this issue can be taken as fact. If that is true, and if the Bible does indeed forbid abortion, then I am right and the pro-choicers are wrong. If the Bible is not divinely inspired or does not address this issue, the whole pro-life position is greatly weakened.

That seems to be the crux of the argument here, although nobody except Edwardis (post 19) has even touched on it.

Would a pro-choicer - especially a Christian pro-choicer - please address this?
Your anti-choice argument, above, is also flawed by your liberal use of the word "if". Also, by your choice of foundation for the argument, which is entirely subjective, not provable, and far from universal.

You argue that SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE A, and IF A IS TRUE THEN etc.

But why should anyone base their lives around what "some" other people "believe"? These beliefs you cite are nothing but that -- beliefs. They are not facts. They are not and cannot be proven to be true. Why should I care about them?

Since we have established that you cannot prove the truth of your beliefs, then the whole rest of your argument, which is dependent on your beliefs, becomes instantly irrelevant to anyone other than you and people who hold to your belief system. And since they are irrelevant outside your own belief system, they cannot be used to demonstrate any flaw or anything else about anything outside that belief system, including pro-choice arguments.

In order to use your beliefs to show a flaw in the pro-choice arguments, you would first have to show that your beliefs match reality. That simply cannot be done with subjective, religious beliefs. Therefore, all you did here was show that pro-choice beliefs do not match your own beliefs. That is not news, and being different from your beliefs is not a flaw in the pro-choice arguments.

Your anti-choice argument, above, is also flawed by your liberal use of the word "if". Also, by your choice of foundation for the argument, which is entirely subjective, not provable, and far from universal.

How is the Bible subjective? I believe it to be true, inspired revelation from God. I also believe that my beliefs are true in the absolute sense. That is, beliefs differing fundamentally from my Biblical worldview are all false.

But why should anyone base their lives around what "some" other people "believe"? These beliefs you cite are nothing but that -- beliefs. They are not facts. They are not and cannot be proven to be true. Why should I care about them?


You should care about them because they are the truth. You can argue that they are not the truth, but you cannot argue that they don't apply to you without disputing their truth. Truth is absolute, and what is true for one person cannot be untrue for another.

Since we have established that you cannot prove the truth of your beliefs, then the whole rest of your argument, which is dependent on your beliefs, becomes instantly irrelevant to anyone other than you and people who hold to your belief system. And since they are irrelevant outside your own belief system, they cannot be used to strate any flaw or anything else about anything outside that belief system, including pro-choice arguments.

If, indeed, God, Who is omniscient, has decreed that unborn children are people, then that affects everyone, not just Christians. What I or anybody else believes is irrelevant to the debate. What is in question is the truth. If, indeed, the Bible is true, what it says applies to all, whatever they believe. Truth is not affected by what people believe; it is an absolute standard. Your arguments should address what that truth is. That was the point I was trying to make in my first post.

In order to use your beliefs to show a flaw in the pro-choice arguments, you would first have to show that your beliefs match reality. That simply cannot be done with subjective, religious beliefs. Therefore, all you did here was show that pro-choice beliefs do not match your own beliefs. That is not news, and being different from your beliefs is not a flaw in the pro-choice arguments.

Once again, Christianity and all that goes with it is not subjective. Either it is true, or it is false. (In this way, it is opposed to many modern philosophies and "belief systems".) Christianity depends on historically verifiable fact.

And are these facts verifiable? There is a simple test: Was Christ crucified? Was He resurrected? If either is false, then Christianity is false. If both are true, then Christianity is true. Historians attest that Christ was certainly crucified. Furthermore, Christianity would never have come into existence if Christ was not seen by witnesses AFTER His death; early Christianity was dependent on the fact that several hundred people had seen Him alive. The logical, rational, objective conclusion is that Christianity is true.

I believe not for the sake of believing, or because my "belief system" is more effective or more elegant than any other; I believe because of objective, historic facts. From the truth of Christianity, I accept the truth of the Bible; from the Bible's numerous references to the uniqueness of conception and of God's care for the unborn child (in Psalms 51 and 139, for example), I conclude that abortion is murder.

Attack my presuppositions, not the relevance of my "subjective, religious belief system". My "belief system" is irrelevant to this argument, but the facts on which my faith is founded are very relevant indeed.

Here's your chance NSG, decide something for me. I have no idea what to make of the abortion issue.

On the one hand I couldn't imagine ever doing such a thing as intentionally killing an unborn child, on the other hand if you're too stupid to use a condom you really shouldn't breed.

Convince me, make me see your point of view. Why do men debate this anyway? If you're not the father why do you get to say?

MY say is like with any other human rights issue ... she has a right to controll her body simple as that.

That being said I personaly could never do it and would never wish my partner to do it. But that does not mean that my wishes should in any way over ride her rights

It is her body at risk it is her medical safty and future at stake she has the right to decide as I do over my body

How is the Bible subjective? I believe it to be true, inspired revelation from God. I also believe that my beliefs are true in the absolute sense. That is, beliefs differing fundamentally from my Biblical worldview are all false.


snip

And others believe the oposite ... sense as so far there is no way to objectivly test for the super natural the only thing showing your supposed absolute correctness is your BELIEF which is very much subjective

And others believe the oposite ... sense as so far there is no way to objectivly test for the super natural the only thing showing your supposed absolute correctness is your BELIEF which is very much subjective

Read the rest of my argument (although my post was a bit long). Christianity is NOT based on people's "beliefs"; it is based on objective, historically verifiable fact, as I argued in my previous post. This separates it from most other religions:

If Buddha never existed, following 'his' belief system is still a wonderful way to achieve better karma. (Unless my understanding of Buddhism is off - and, seeing as how there are so many branches of it, I am likely wrong about something.)

If Confucius never existed, following 'his' belief system is still a wonderful way to better oneself, which seems to be the whole point of Confucianism.

Even Islam does not rest on the facts of Mohammed's life. Rather, it rests on non-historically-verifiable assertions about Allah, whom Muslims never (I don't think) claim to have had the sort of concrete, material dealings with mankind that Christ did. Sure, Islam could be true - but its truth or untruth does not rest on historical fact.

Many Jews do not seem to claim that Moses' (historically verifiable) authorship of the Torah is especially relevant. It is revelation from God (like, allegedly, the Koran), but it cannot be proved or disproved historically.

The apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:
"[I]f Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."

There. Christianity is not subjective. It is faith founded on historical fact that can be proven or disproven. By all means, attack Christianity, but do not dismiss it as just another "belief system". Either you are wrong, or else I am "of all men most to be pitied." In the former case, Christianity is very relevant to the debate at hand because it is TRUE.

(Sorry for not really staying on topic here, but the debate seems to be leading this way.)

It should be left legal, because if made illegal, would it not continue, but in unsafe and unsterile conditions? I think we should keep it legal, no matter the moral consequences. We could however, fund anti abortion campaigns, IE, amek sure to let people know of other ways, but then let themknow the clinic is still open as a last resort.


I win, give me a cookie.

How is the Bible subjective? I believe it to be true, inspired revelation from God. I also believe that my beliefs are true in the absolute sense. That is, beliefs differing fundamentally from my Biblical worldview are all false.
(emphasis mine)
There is the problem. You believe it. That doesn't make it true. I believe that there's a leprachaun on my shoulder telling me what's right and wrong. Doesn't mean that what the I believe the leprachaun says applies to anyone else.

You should care about them because they are the truth. You can argue that they are not the truth, but you cannot argue that they don't apply to you without disputing their truth. Truth is absolute, and what is true for one person cannot be untrue for another.
By that logic, since I belive the truth of what my leprachaun says (that is that abortions are alright and sunshine is the best medicine) then abortions are alright for everyone and doctors should wheel patients outside to cure them of their diseases.

Once again, Christianity and all that goes with it is not subjective. Either it is true, or it is false. (In this way, it is opposed to many modern philosophies and "belief systems".) Christianity depends on historically verifiable fact.
No it doesn't.

And are these facts verifiable? There is a simple test: Was Christ crucified? Was He resurrected? If either is false, then Christianity is false. If both are true, then Christianity is true. Historians attest that Christ was certainly crucified.
No they don't.

Furthermore, Christianity would never have come into existence if Christ was not seen by witnesses AFTER His death; early Christianity was dependent on the fact that several hundred people had seen Him alive. The logical, rational, objective conclusion is that Christianity is true.
Ok, and greek mythology wouldn't have come to exist if people hadn't seen Zeus or Aphrodite.

I believe not for the sake of believing, or because my "belief system" is more effective or more elegant than any other; I believe because of objective, historic facts.
No you don't, since these objective historic facts don't exist. It's likely you believe because you were raised to believe.

From the truth of Christianity, I accept the truth of the Bible; from the Bible's numerous references to the uniqueness of conception and of God's care for the unborn child (in Psalms 51 and 139, for example), I conclude that abortion is murder.
Ok, and from other parts of the Bible, I conclude that a child isn't a life until its first breath and that abortion isn't murder, but a fineable offense.

Attack my presuppositions, not the relevance of my "subjective, religious belief system". My "belief system" is irrelevant to this argument, but the facts on which my faith is founded are very relevant indeed.
The facts which are none at all.

Fetuses have none of the qualifying requirements for the rights of personhood, pregnant women (presumably) have full qualifying requirements for the rights of personhood.

So there is only one position that a rational person can take.

What are the rational bases for the specific "qualifying requirements" and "rights of personhood" you advance?

It should be left legal, because if made illegal, would it not continue, but in unsafe and unsterile conditions?

Similar arguments have been made in the case of drugs, prostitution, etc. They continue, in unsafe, unsterile conditions - but still (most) governments try to prevent them by leaving them illegal. Could (post-birth) murder be legalized and regulated, so that it might not take place under such unsafe, unsterile conditions?

(For that matter, abortion mills are not always the most safe or sterile places.)

I think we should keep it legal, no matter the moral consequences. We could however, fund anti abortion campaigns, IE, amek sure to let people know of other ways, but then let themknow the clinic is still open as a last resort.

If, as you say, abortion is murder, it should be treated as such. Murder happens anyway. Muggings happen anyway. Wife-beatings happen anyway. Tax evasion happens anyway. Abortion might well happen anyway, but, if it is indeed murder, the state should do its best to prevent it at all costs, just like other forms of murder.

Follow your assertion that 'abortion is murder' through to its logical conclusion. If is not murder, it should be legal; if it is murder, it should not be legal. There is no logical place for a middle ground.

I win, give me a cookie.
You can have a cookie, but you still don't win.

"German" is very dilluted. He believes, yes - but he believes that his belief is truth, and truth can't be disputed, therefore he's right regardless? He's insane. Plainly put, he's got mental problems - there's no logic in that whatsoever. In fact, I think he actually created a negative vacuum of antilogic in his posts by the sheer mass of nonsense he wrote down.

Jesus Christ.

How is the Bible subjective?

Every human being that reads it interprets it and its various passages at least somewhat differently. Even if every writer that contributed to the Bible had been infallible (which they were not - they were human beings), individual faith would still rest upon subjective interpretation of what the various writers said.

I believe it to be true, inspired revelation from God. I also believe that my beliefs are true in the absolute sense. That is, beliefs differing fundamentally from my Biblical worldview are all false.

The fact that you preface all of this with "I believe..." rather than, "It is an empirically demonstrable fact that...." shows you precisely how this is subjective. Others disagree with all of this. You cannot prove yourself to be right. Others cannot prove you to be wrong. Because of that, the issue becomes inherently subjective.

You should care about them because they are the truth.

In your opinion.

If, indeed, God, Who is omniscient, has decreed that unborn children are people, then that affects everyone, not just Christians.

So how are you going to prove that God has decreed any such thing? In fact, how are you going to prove that God even exists?

What I or anybody else believes is irrelevant to the debate.

If that were true, you wouldn't be bringing up your beliefs left and right.

Once again, Christianity and all that goes with it is not subjective. Either it is true, or it is false. (In this way, it is opposed to many modern philosophies and "belief systems".) Christianity depends on historically verifiable fact.

LOL. Much of the Bible is not historically verifiable. If your faith is based only in that which has been historically verified, or even that which *could* be historically verified, you have very little to have faith in at all. Even the existence of Christ himself is not really historically verifiable. He could be, although I do not believe him to be, a character constructed from various teachers of the time. The various teachings of Christ are not historically verifiable, nor can we historically verify that the teachings came from God. There is no historical verification of the resurrection, nor would we know for certain that it was affected by God if there were.

The Gospels list Christ as being born in two different years, under two different kings, from two different lineages. Which is correct?

If you rely upon the Bible being "historically verifiable," you have very weak faith indeed - and very little in which to have faith in the first place.

And are these facts verifiable?

No, not really. Not with any certainty anyways.

Historians attest that Christ was certainly crucified.

This is a patently incorrect statement. There are few records of crucifixions. In fact, historians generally disagree with the portrayal of Pontius Pilate in the Bible. They also dispute whether or not Christ, as a single figure, rather than as a collection of various Messianic figures, even existed.

Furthermore, Christianity would never have come into existence if Christ was not seen by witnesses AFTER His death; early Christianity was dependent on the fact that several hundred people had seen Him alive. The logical, rational, objective conclusion is that Christianity is true.

By this logic, John Smith never would have claimed to receive golden tablets from an angel if it didn't really happen.

I believe not for the sake of believing, or because my "belief system" is more effective or more elegant than any other; I believe because of objective, historic facts. From the truth of Christianity, I accept the truth of the Bible; from the Bible's numerous references to the uniqueness of conception and of God's care for the unborn child (in Psalms 51 and 139, for example), I conclude that abortion is murder.

I see nothing in that to suggest that abortion is murder. These passages are written from the point of view of a human being who was born discussing the fact that God knew they would be born, and what type of person they would turn out to be. It seems to be much more of a comment on God being omiscient than any type of comment related to abortion.

Attack my presuppositions, not the relevance of my "subjective, religious belief system". My "belief system" is irrelevant to this argument, but the facts on which my faith is founded are very relevant indeed.

Your faith is founded on a belief system - one that you cannot objectively demonstrate to be true.

(For that matter, abortion mills are not always the most safe or sterile places.)

What's an "abortion mill"? I've never heard of such a thing.

If, as you say, abortion is murder, it should be treated as such.

Where did he say that?

Meanwhile, saying abortion is murder and objectively demonstrating it are two very different things. I could say that fishing is murder, that taking antibiotics is murder, that stepping on a cockroach is murder.

Even Islam does not rest on the facts of Mohammed's life. Rather, it rests on non-historically-verifiable assertions about Allah, whom Muslims never (I don't think) claim to have had the sort of concrete, material dealings with mankind that Christ did. Sure, Islam could be true - but its truth or untruth does not rest on historical fact.

You are so blinded by your "faith", it isn't even funny. The assertions about Allah, which were made by Muhammed, are equally verifiable to the assertions about Allah (yes, God and Allah are the same) made by Christ. In fact, from a historical viewpoint, the assertions that Christ made are less verifiable because he never wrote them down himself. The assertions come through the Gospels which were written, most likely, by followers of the disciples, who were, in turn, followers of Christ. They are twice removed from the source.

What are the rational bases for the specific "qualifying requirements" and "rights of personhood" you advance?

I couldn't define them with any certainty or preciseness, but it is a vague understanding of the utility and obligations of said rights.

That is open to some drastic interpretation, but it has some practical usefulness.

"German" is very dilluted. He believes, yes - but he believes that his belief is truth, and truth can't be disputed, therefore he's right regardless? He's insane. Plainly put, he's got mental problems - there's no logic in that whatsoever. In fact, I think he actually created a negative vacuum of antilogic in his posts by the sheer mass of nonsense he wrote down.

Jesus Christ.

I believe you mean 'deluded'.

Read the rest of my argument (although my post was a bit long). Christianity is NOT based on people's "beliefs"; it is based on objective, historically verifiable fact, as I argued in my previous post. This separates it from most other religions:

The apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:
"[I]f Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."

There. Christianity is not subjective. It is faith founded on historical fact that can be proven or disproven. By all means, attack Christianity, but do not dismiss it as just another "belief system". Either you are wrong, or else I am "of all men most to be pitied." In the former case, Christianity is very relevant to the debate at hand because it is TRUE.

(Sorry for not really staying on topic here, but the debate seems to be leading this way.)

if your faith hinges on it being historically correct, you are up shits creek. there is no proof of the truth of any part of the bible except for a few incidentals like "there was an ancient egypt and they were ruled by pharoahs" and "there was a rome and it did rule over israel"

its irrelevant to this thread but if you would like to start a new thread on the topic you will get lots of repsonses. i find the subject almost endlessly interesting myself.

Also the bible has nothing to do with secular law.

How presumptious! Here's a quick history lesson:

The Bible actually has quite a bit to do with secular law, quite a bit more than most are willing to give it credit (or even know).

In the time of the early Church, most people in Western Europe followed a complex set of laws that varied from locality to locality and were based loosely on the rulings of various ecumenical councils as well as numerous and scattered canons and practices.

By the early Middle Ages, individuals had collected all (local, national, etc.) doctrinal policies and sought to reconcile any discrepancies and contradictions.
Note: Throughout this entire period, Biblical law and doctrine formed the basis and structure of secular law in most of Western Europe. The Saxons (Britannia) used a different form of law known as common law. Eventually, this practice of common law became infused with doctrinal law as I am about to explain.

Now, around the 1130s, we have a fellow by the name of Gratian. Not much is known about this man's life, but he created a compilation known as the Decretum of Gratian. This compilation brought together all the laws, papal decrees, council rulings, etc. into one work, which laid out canon law as it applies to secular rulings in all of Christendom at the time. To date, the Decretum of Gratian remains one of the most fundamental foundations of modern secular law. Because it is itself based on Biblical scripture and laws dealing with the secular application of Biblical law, it stands to reason that the Bible actually has an enormous amount to do with secular law.

Completely off-topic, but that statement just screamed fallaciousness. ;)

How is the Bible subjective? I believe it to be true, inspired revelation from God. I also believe that my beliefs are true in the absolute sense. That is, beliefs differing fundamentally from my Biblical worldview are all false.
That's how it is subjective -- the bolded part -- the part with "I believe" in it. You tell me what you "believe." Where is your proof that will get me to believe it is true as well? There isn't any, there never has been any, there never will be any, because there cannot be any. Why? Because "belief" is not fact; therefore it cannot be proven; therefore you have no way of persuading me to believe it, any more than I could persuade you to believe in the truth of my equally unprovable religious beliefs.

You should care about them because they are the truth. You can argue that they are not the truth, but you cannot argue that they don't apply to you without disputing their truth. Truth is absolute, and what is true for one person cannot be untrue for another.
I do not need to dispute the "truth" of anything. The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim. You claim your beliefs are the "truth." It is up to you to prove it. If you cannot, then there is no reason for me to accept them as any more true than my own beliefs.

If, indeed, God, Who is omniscient, has decreed that unborn children are people, then that affects everyone, not just Christians. What I or anybody else believes is irrelevant to the debate. What is in question is the truth. If, indeed, the Bible is true, what it says applies to all, whatever they believe. Truth is not affected by what people believe; it is an absolute standard. Your arguments should address what that truth is. That was the point I was trying to make in my first post.
Again with the "if" over and over. You left out the one fundamental "if" however -- If God exists. This you cannot prove. So why should I accept any decree that purports to be from an entity that may not even exist, that could just as easily be a figment of your imagination or a cynical ploy on your part to claim authority over me?

Once again, Christianity and all that goes with it is not subjective. Either it is true, or it is false. (In this way, it is opposed to many modern philosophies and "belief systems".) Christianity depends on historically verifiable fact.
Christianity is not the only religion in the world. Why should non-Christians care what Christianity decrees?

And are these facts verifiable? There is a simple test: Was Christ crucified? Was He resurrected? If either is false, then Christianity is false. If both are true, then Christianity is true. Historians attest that Christ was certainly crucified. Furthermore, Christianity would never have come into existence if Christ was not seen by witnesses AFTER His death; early Christianity was dependent on the fact that several hundred people had seen Him alive. The logical, rational, objective conclusion is that Christianity is true.
If, if, if, if, if. You don't have a very strong foundation for any of this, do you? Let's take a look at these ifs.

1) If the crucifixion and resurrection are false, then Christianity is false. Okay, maybe it's false, have you ever considered that possibility? The fact is you are ASSUMING that Christianity is true and therefore everything connected to it is true, but you cannot use the assumption of truth to prove truth. So that claim means nothing.

2) Historians attest that Christ was crucified. Oh, do they? When do they do that? And which historians? As far as I know, historians have not even determined that Christ existed, much less that he was crucified. If you have proof otherwise, you will have to present it. Again, you made the positive claim, so you brought the burden upon yourself.

3) Are you a time traveler? Were you there to see the beginning of Christianity? No? Me neither. So, to be honest, all you can know is that early Christianity depended on a few writers SAYING that several hundred people saw Christ after he was dead. You have no evidence that several hundred people actually did see such a thing.

The logical, rational, objective conclusion is that you are trying to disguise unsubtantiated belief as proven fact but failing to do so. We may also add a side speculation that you may not understand what "subjective" means.

I believe not for the sake of believing, or because my "belief system" is more effective or more elegant than any other; I believe because of objective, historic facts. From the truth of Christianity, I accept the truth of the Bible; from the Bible's numerous references to the uniqueness of conception and of God's care for the unborn child (in Psalms 51 and 139, for example), I conclude that abortion is murder.
All of which is 100% subjective as well as highly personal to you only. It is of no interest to me and I have no intention of having my laws be based on it.

Attack my presuppositions, not the relevance of my "subjective, religious belief system". My "belief system" is irrelevant to this argument, but the facts on which my faith is founded are very relevant indeed.
Your presuppositions ARE your subjective belief system, therefore it is not irrelevant. It is the entire basis of your argument and it invalidates your claims that your argument is objective and should be applicable to others.

The same reason that non Americans can have an opinion on the Vietnam war

what if your vietnamese?

Why concern ourselves with abortion when we can just get rid of everyone this way? (http://us.altermedia.info/images/nuke.jpg)

nuke the womb?

Here's your chance NSG, decide something for me. I have no idea what to make of the abortion issue.

On the one hand I couldn't imagine ever doing such a thing as intentionally killing an unborn child, on the other hand if you're too stupid to use a condom you really shouldn't breed.

Convince me, make me see your point of view. Why do men debate this anyway? If you're not the father why do you get to say?

Hey Khadgar, my opinion is as follows.
I've just had a daughter (2 weeks and counting) and it is the greatest thing that has ever happened in my life.
Looking back over the nine months of the pregnancy and thinking whether in hindsight a abortion would have been possible option, the answer is... i don't know.

I am pro-choice for the simple reason that people should have the choice when it comes to having a child. Not simply because its a womens body, etc.. But also because if a child is unwanted he/she will not be raised in a loving environment that is deserved.
Personally i think having an abortion at 3months or after should NOT be allowed unless both mother & child are definitely in danger. But what right do i have to force this opinion on anyone else. No one can convince you, simply because until you are in the situation you can't know what you will decide.

Oh and to the religious people saying God said this and God said that.
Your basing all this on stories from a book where the authors said they were inspired by god, etc.... If your all that gullible to believe that on face value, you really should not admit to it because you just look stupid. And before you argue the point G-D told me to right this, so i'm right and your wrong.