Prochoice/ proabortion

[BrandonMustang]

Sorry. I just got informed by a friend far less noob-y than I not to post on a forum this old.

I don't have a problem with the way individuals react to irrationally presented arguments. I have heard a few sweeping generalizations that made me wince a little but I assume they imply that there are exceptions.

I will lay out the anti-abortion stuff as well as the life starts at conception stuff.

The Biblical grounds for my views on abortion are as follows (This is the best I could do on my own with my study Bible and a few calls to my pastor to find certain verses I could not remember the location of.):

Psalm 127:3 "Behold, children are a gift from the Lord."

which would seem basic enough.

some negative stuff:

Genesis 20:13 says, "For the Lord had completely closed all the wombs of the House of Abimilech."

They couldn't have any babies because God didn't allow it.

Genesis 16:2, "And Sarah said to Abraham, 'The Lord has restrained me from bearing.'"

1 Samuel 1:5-6, "The Lord had shut up her [Hanna] womb."

It says that twice.

From a negative perspective you see that God closes the womb.

correlating positive stuff:

Genesis 17:16, God said to Abraham, "I will bless her [Sarah] and give you a son from her, and she shall be the mother of nations."

Here God is excersising control over the womb again and showing specific purpose of an unborn (and unconceived) child.

Genesis 21:2 says, "Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which the Lord had spoken."

Here God is showing specific purpose of an unborn conceived child.

Genesis 25:21 "Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife because she was barren, and the Lord was entreated by him and Rebecca, his wife, conceived".

God enabled her to have a child.

1 Samuel 1:19-20 says, "The Lord remembered her [Hannah]." Though He had shut her womb, He remembered her and after she had conceived she bore a son and called his name "Samuel," saying, "Because I have asked for him from the Lord."

The Lord opened her womb and gave her a son.

Boaz, in Ruth 4:13, took Ruth (his wife), "And when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception."

The Lord gives the conception each time.

In Judges 13:3, Manoah's wife is at issue, and she has asked and the Lord responds. It says,

"The angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, 'Behold, now that you are barren and bearest not, but you shall conceive and bear a son."

Her son was Sampson. That's a good story on its own, BTW.

These show God's power of barreness and conception.

In Job, Job talks to and about God in reference to his creation and purpose.

In Job 10:8, "Thy hands fashioned and made me altogether."
Job 10:9, "Remember now, that Thou hast made me as clay," i
Job 10:10, "Didst You not pour me out like milk, and curdle me like cheese?"
Jon 10:11 "You clothed me with skin and flesh, and you knit me together with bones and sinews. You granted me life."
Job 12:9, "Who among all these doesn't know that the hand of the Lord has done this, in whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind?"

Job 31:15, "Did not He[God] who made me in the womb make him, and the same one fashion us in the womb?" He's talking about one person (speaking of himself and someone else).
Job 33:4, "The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

So, God is the source of all life. There are more verses in Psalms by David (King of the Jews. Killed Goliath. Great Great... ...Grandaddy of Jesus Christ) but these are more than enough I think. (Job is believed to be the book of the Bible written at the earliest date, BTW.)

Did life start as a physical or spiritual conception?

Psalm 100:3, "Know that the Lord Himself is God; it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves."

This means that our individual souls were made by God and not the physical development of the fetus.

In Isaiah, He[Isaiah the Prophet] refers to God as

"...the Lord who made you and formed you from the womb."

over and over.

Jeremiah 1:5, God said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."

So God has had our purposes planned out since the womb. If we were consecrated before we were born, then we were already "in-the-works" so to speak.

What about the deformed people that are born. Is God the creator of those?

Exodus 4:11, God says, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"

He has a purpose for everything. There is argument over the applications of this but it is an important point.

In Genesis 1 God makes Man out of his own image as opposed to the earth (like the animals and the plants).

Genesis 9:6 says, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man, and as for you: be fruitful and multiply."

This correlates with Genesis 1.

If we are already set apart by God to have individual purposes from our time in the womb then that should show the sanctity of the fetus. almost done now...

Psalm 139:13, "For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them."

This shows that God knows us even before conception and that we are His (He has ordained all of our days for us even before we exist).

Psalm 82:3, "Vindicate the weak and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy."

God has a special concern (and so should we) for the weak and helpless.

Last Scriptures (from hyperbole explaining the law):

Exodus 21:22, "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child (some translations say "so she has a miscarriage," some say, "So she has an untimely birth"), yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

The Hebrew is actually closer to the untimely birth translation which suggests premature or problematic labor.

So, if anyone directly affects the health and/or life of an unborn child in a negative way, they qualify for harsh punishment.

If God already has each person planned out before conception, we are made in his image, and we are clearly told not to mess with that... ::paraphrased:: then, with all of this added to that, abortion can in no way be sanctioned by God.

That said, I have made some mistakes and gotten a girl pregnant. It's a long story you don't need to hear but, in short, she had an abortion against my objections. It tore me up inside. She repented and is even a Christian now. I, however, was a Christian then and all this stuff still happened. When you are a sophomore in college(I was at the time) and you are looking at being a daddy..., well, your beliefs are tested. That is where all of this research came from.

So there it is. A Biblically sound argument against abortion by a n00b. Please be gentle.

[Darth Wong]

I would probably be considered part of the religious right wing. I am a music minister in southern baptist church and a conservative republican. Members of my congregation use this forum to so ::gulp:: here goes.

It's interesting that people in your congregation read this forum and (presumably, since your sentence is incomplete) talk amongst themselves about how wrong we are, without actually signing up and trying to debate us. Can one of them give a reason for this cowardice? Does it have something to do with slandering us by claiming that we attack anything that is "different", when in fact our rules concerning evidence and observance of the rules of logic are clearly stated?

Ethically, I believe that abortion is Biblically wrong.

Are you one of those people who believes there are no ethics without the Bible?

Citing the Bible won't do me much good here so I won't (I can if you'd really like me to). If I were ever asked for my opinion (which is obviously applied by a forum setting) I would make that known. I do not, however, believe that it is the government's place to make that decision for everyone. I have always had a problem with anyone that tries to force their beliefs on others whether they are Christians, Atheists, Muslims, etc. I believe in the separation of church and state and I believe that many of my right wing comrades are failing to uphold that concept. I guess that makes me pro-choice/not pro-abortion.

Good for you, I have to say that's unusual for a southern baptist and a conservative Republican. Do you think George W. Bush is anything but an idiot? I'm curious.

I would also never call someone with different beliefs than my own a hopeless moron.

Do you honestly believe there is no such thing as a stupid statement? Because in my experience, the people who are most eager to hide behind civility rules are the people who are in the habit of making such statements (either that, or dishonest ones).

[Covenant]

I would probably be considered part of the religious right wing. I am a music minister in southern baptist church and a conservative republican. Members of my congregation use this forum to so ::gulp:: here goes.

Hopefully they have forum names and post--you seem to be talking to one about the ins and out of policy, so that's good. If these people can survive, surely you can too! So while your first experiences might be rough, as they were for me, don't take it personally. Rules about evidence are there to protect the facts on both sides of a debate.

Ethically, I believe that abortion is Biblically wrong.

That's a non-sequitor. Biblically wrong or right has nothing to do with ethics. God also advocates genocide in the Bible, so does that mean it's ethically correct to liquidate an entire population? Or it's stance on divorce?

The ethics of a question like genocide or divorce or abortion are ethical questions, not Biblical ones. You should reverse that sentence to say "Biblically, abortion is ethically wrong" because you're transferring the source of morality to God's law rather than the science of ethics.

I do not, however, believe that it is the government's place to make that decision for everyone. I have always had a problem with anyone that tries to force their beliefs on others whether they are Christians, Atheists, Muslims, etc. I believe in the separation of church and state and I believe that many of my right wing comrades are failing to uphold that concept. I guess that makes me pro-choice/not pro-abortion.

Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody wants there to be a reason for abortion. You'll find the same people who are pro choice on this issue are also the people pushing for stronger education in schools about contraceptives so that people much like yourself don't end up making the kinds of mistakes that lead to needing an abortion. People should choose to have a child, afterall.

Forcing an unwanted child into the foster care system is nearly child abuse as is--if it was flooded by more Oopsie-Babies, you can bet it would be worse. I know I wouldn't want to have been born merely because my mother wasn't allowed to terminate her pregnancy a month in. People who think it's a horrifying practice should sign up with the people out there trying to educate people on how to properly avoid this, rather than simply outlawing it.

You'll cure a symptom but not a problem, but I fear these people are more concerned with imposing their own personal morality on other people than looking ethically at the consequences of these actions and the quality of life of this poor child.

And yet they go for abstinance-only education? It's naked arrogance. That kind of teaching didn't work for their grandparents, or their parents, or them. Why is it going to work for their kids? They allow their zeal to cloud their reasoning, and other people end up paying the price. It's cruel.

I would also never call someone with different beliefs than my own a hopeless moron. This particular issue always results in a lot of mud-slinging on all sides. I wish people would do more to avoid that. Sorry, I know many of you like to rant. Me too, sometimes.

The hopeless morons are morons who simply refuse to look at the best available information and make a decision based on that. I don't think you fit into that catagory, as you understand that while you dislike abortion and wouldn't personally advocate one in one of your relationships, you realize that forcing your Bible-based values on me or someone else who does not proscribe to that value system is wrong.

I'm no moral relativist. I may not agree with your reasons for believing abortion is wrong, even if I'm glad you're willing to leave that up to someone else to decide for themselves. But if people could do more of that--believe one thing, but allow the decisions that effect others to be based on reason--I think we'd all be better off.

[BrandonMustang]

It's interesting that people in your congregation read this forum and (presumably, since your sentence is incomplete) talk amongst themselves about how wrong we are, without actually signing up and trying to debate us. Can one of them give a reason for this cowardice? Does it have something to do with slandering us by claiming that we attack anything that is "different", when in fact our rules concerning evidence and observance of the rules of logic are clearly stated?

Sorry. I don't know why the word "to" is in that sentence. I recently found out that two youth (ages 14 and 15) browse this site as guests (strictly for SciFi geekiness. woot). They noticed my name and asked me if I was "BrandonMustang"(due to the name and the Kyle Rayner avatar). They never said anything negative. I gulped because my views are not the knee-jerk response common in many conservative church staff members.

Are you one of those people who believes there are no ethics without the Bible?

Of course not. There have been many ethical breakthroughs outside the realm of Christianity. I will elaborate on this in a response to Covenant.

Good for you, I have to say that's unusual for a southern baptist and a conservative Republican. Do you think George W. Bush is anything but an idiot? I'm curious.

Heh. I think he is a very moral person. However, one can not determine the policies of a nation based purely on one's own morality. I think he is ill-suited to the Presedency because of his inability to look past his black and white moral code (most of which has Biblical ties). Separation of church and state should discourage this style of administration, IMO. That said, my mother and father would skin me alive if they heard me say anything disrespectful about any President. Old fashioned I guess. We didn't get to watch Leno or SNL when they were making fun of Clinton (or personally say anything disparaging). Understand. My parents HATED Clinton. I am morally uncomfortable discussing the idiocy of any President, regardless of whether I agree with him politically or not (Bush, Clinton, etc included).

Do you honestly believe there is no such thing as a stupid statement? Because in my experience, the people who are most eager to hide behind civility rules are the people who are in the habit of making such statements (either that, or dishonest ones).

No, DW, I believe in stupid statements. I also try my best to avoid them. I don't hide behind civility either. I just feel like a large fraction of the folks arguing both sides of this point of controversy think anyone who feels differently than they they do is morally bankrupt or an ignorant Bible-beater. I don't think that accomplishes much. I know in some cases it's true, but not as often as some would like to think.

Hopefully they have forum names and post--you seem to be talking to one about the ins and out of policy, so that's good. If these people can survive, surely you can too! So while your first experiences might be rough, as they were for me, don't take it personally. Rules about evidence are there to protect the facts on both sides of a debate.

Yeah, Socar15 has helped me a lot. Especially with this response. He is the less-n00by friend I mentioned. Ace Pace sent me a PM with a vocabulary reminder.

That's a non-sequitor. Biblically wrong or right has nothing to do with ethics. God also advocates genocide in the Bible, so does that mean it's ethically correct to liquidate an entire population? Or it's stance on divorce?

The ethics of a question like genocide or divorce or abortion are ethical questions, not Biblical ones. You should reverse that sentence to say "Biblically, abortion is ethically wrong" because you're transferring the source of morality to God's law rather than the science of ethics.

I think it is easy for both Biblical believers and non-believers to take those subjects way out of context (and I would LOVE to discuss each one individually if you ever want to). However, what you have to understand about being a Christian is that, as a Christian, I am to follow God's Law first [the Bible(parts containig to law. Just because God destroyed Soddom doesn't mean I can destroy{insert country here})], Man's Law second [The Gov't. etc.(as long as it does not directly contradict God's Law{The law allows abortion but does not force anyone to do it, therefore it does not encourage believers to sin})]. I believe, however, that there is room for personal ethics as well. There have been revolutionaries in the past that went against the law on countless ethical issues. I hope that explains the hierarchy of Christian Ethics (IMO).

Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody wants there to be a reason for abortion. You'll find the same people who are pro choice on this issue are also the people pushing for stronger education in schools about contraceptives so that people much like yourself don't end up making the kinds of mistakes that lead to needing an abortion. People should choose to have a child, afterall.

Forcing an unwanted child into the foster care system is nearly child abuse as is--if it was flooded by more Oopsie-Babies, you can bet it would be worse. I know I wouldn't want to have been born merely because my mother wasn't allowed to terminate her pregnancy a month in. People who think it's a horrifying practice should sign up with the people out there trying to educate people on how to properly avoid this, rather than simply outlawing it.

Well, as I said, I wanted to keep the child and I agree with your observation. I think the most specific point of controversy morally is whether it is a woman's right to abort a pregnancy or not. Biblically it is NOT her right. However, free will to make these types of decisions is crucial to the Christian Faith.

You'll cure a symptom but not a problem, but I fear these people are more concerned with imposing their own personal morality on other people than looking ethically at the consequences of these actions and the quality of life of this poor child.

I agree... see below ::points down::

I have always had a problem with anyone that tries to force their beliefs on others whether they are Christians, Atheists, Muslims, etc. I believe in the separation of church and state and I believe that many of my right wing comrades are failing to uphold that concept.

And yet they go for abstinance-only education? It's naked arrogance. That kind of teaching didn't work for their grandparents, or their parents, or them. Why is it going to work for their kids? They allow their zeal to cloud their reasoning, and other people end up paying the price. It's cruel.

Like you mention here,

The hopeless morons are morons who simply refuse to look at the best available information and make a decision based on that. I don't think you fit into that catagory, as you understand that while you dislike abortion and wouldn't personally advocate one in one of your relationships, you realize that forcing your Bible-based values on me or someone else who does not proscribe to that value system is wrong.

Abstinance education can not succeed with someone who does not have a Christian Faith. Someone who does can look at the scripture I posted and make that decision based on the precepts of that Faith. If one doesn't hold to that set of values, the argument can not stand up. That is why I would not condemn someone for having an abortion. If the context was appropriate I would give my beliefs and the reasons for them but, IMO, that is all that is my personal right.

I'm no moral relativist. I may not agree with your reasons for believing abortion is wrong, even if I'm glad you're willing to leave that up to someone else to decide for themselves. But if people could do more of that--believe one thing, but allow the decisions that effect others to be based on reason--I think we'd all be better off.

I appreciate that. The only thing (nitpick) is that your last statement. When you said

But if people could do more of that--believe one thing, but allow the decisions that effect others to be based on reason--I think we'd all be better off.

That implies that reason is not used by those who believe in the Bible. I am not asking for a license to be a crazy Christian as long as I let other people be reasonable. I think I have shown that my position on this issue can be reached reasonably even though my beliefs differ from others'. I don't believe that reason, logic, and ethics are exclusive to either group. It's not "apples and oranges" so much as "red apples and green apples". If you were not implying that or implying something else, no biggie.

BTW, it is wonderful to talk to folks on the opposite end of the belief scale openly without hostility. A first for me. Thanks.

[Feil]

However, what you have to understand about being a Christian is that, as a Christian, I am to follow God's Law first [the Bible(parts containig to law. Just because God destroyed Soddom doesn't mean I can destroy{insert country here})], Man's Law second [The Gov't. etc.(as long as it does not directly contradict God's Law{The law allows abortion but does not force anyone to do it, therefore it does not encourage believers to sin})].

The Bible contains plenty of laws, clearly stated as such that permit--nay, require--you to do things that by any rational set of morals are fundamentally evil. Deuteronomy 13 tells you, in no uncertain terms, that if someone tries to convince you to leave your religion, you are to kill him right then and there. Exodus 22 demands that anyone who practices witchcraft must be put to death. Exodus 21 tells you to execute anyone who curses his parents.

If a betrothed woman gets raped in a city... why, execute her, because it's obviously her fault! (Deuteronomy 22.) And it gets better--if a woman who isn't betrothed gets raped... marry her to the rapist! (Poor man, his punishment for taking a woman against her will is the ability to take her against her will for the rest of her life!)

I always wonder how people can believe a book is the word of God, base their entire world-view on it, and then never read it to find out what's inside.

God's Law is evil. Any morality based on the bible must either be evil, or simply pick and choose from the bible, selecting only those things which agree with the morality one wishes to make the bible support--in which case, it isn't God's Law any more, anyway, but the Church's Law--which, in turn, is just a fancy name for Man's Law.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry. I don't know why the word "to" is in that sentence. I recently found out that two youth (ages 14 and 15) browse this site as guests (strictly for SciFi geekiness. woot). They noticed my name and asked me if I was "BrandonMustang"(due to the name and the Kyle Rayner avatar). They never said anything negative. I gulped because my views are not the knee-jerk response common in many conservative church staff members.

Ah, OK. It looked like there was supposed to be another statement in that sentence.

Are you one of those people who believes there are no ethics without the Bible?

Of course not. There have been many ethical breakthroughs outside the realm of Christianity. I will elaborate on this in a response to Covenant.

OK, it's just that you phrased your sentence to make it appear as if "ethically" and "Biblically" are interchangeable.

Good for you, I have to say that's unusual for a southern baptist and a conservative Republican. Do you think George W. Bush is anything but an idiot? I'm curious.

Heh. I think he is a very moral person.

What about his record of dishonesty? Broken campaign promises, misleading descriptions of his policies, etc?

However, one can not determine the policies of a nation based purely on one's own morality. I think he is ill-suited to the Presedency because of his inability to look past his black and white moral code (most of which has Biblical ties). Separation of church and state should discourage this style of administration, IMO. That said, my mother and father would skin me alive if they heard me say anything disrespectful about any President. Old fashioned I guess. We didn't get to watch Leno or SNL when they were making fun of Clinton (or personally say anything disparaging). Understand. My parents HATED Clinton. I am morally uncomfortable discussing the idiocy of any President, regardless of whether I agree with him politically or not (Bush, Clinton, etc included).

I find this attitude (which is very common among Americans, and certainly not unique to you) very perplexing. Why such reverence for your political figureheads? This issue bugs me so much that I put it right at the top of my "Blurbs" page.

I think there's a serious disconnect here. In a democracy, it is not only the right, but actually the duty of ordinary citizens to take their leaders down off that pedestal and subject them to harsh, even scathing criticism. Without that performance of that duty, the entire system doesn't work.

Do you honestly believe there is no such thing as a stupid statement? Because in my experience, the people who are most eager to hide behind civility rules are the people who are in the habit of making such statements (either that, or dishonest ones).

No, DW, I believe in stupid statements. I also try my best to avoid them. I don't hide behind civility either. I just feel like a large fraction of the folks arguing both sides of this point of controversy think anyone who feels differently than they they do is morally bankrupt or an ignorant Bible-beater. I don't think that accomplishes much. I know in some cases it's true, but not as often as some would like to think.

Since the vast majority of pro-lifers spout that "life begins at conception" slogan over and over as if it's a cogent argument, it's rather difficult to imagine how they could get that way without some kind of scientific ignorance. For that matter, it is difficult to respect anyone who argues primarily with slogans, no matter what the subject is.

I think it is easy for both Biblical believers and non-believers to take those subjects way out of context (and I would LOVE to discuss each one individually if you ever want to).

I think that would be a most interesting exercise. Feel free to make a topic about it sometime, so that the discussion can be framed in the context of your starting position rather than mine (everyone here already knows what my starting position is anyway).

However, what you have to understand about being a Christian is that, as a Christian, I am to follow God's Law first [the Bible(parts containig to law. Just because God destroyed Soddom doesn't mean I can destroy{insert country here})], Man's Law second [The Gov't. etc.(as long as it does not directly contradict God's Law{The law allows abortion but does not force anyone to do it, therefore it does not encourage believers to sin})]. I believe, however, that there is room for personal ethics as well. There have been revolutionaries in the past that went against the law on countless ethical issues. I hope that explains the hierarchy of Christian Ethics (IMO).

What if God's law says to do something which violates secular law?

Well, as I said, I wanted to keep the child and I agree with your observation. I think the most specific point of controversy morally is whether it is a woman's right to abort a pregnancy or not. Biblically it is NOT her right. However, free will to make these types of decisions is crucial to the Christian Faith.

I think part of the problem with the abortion debate is the fact that a lot of people have never really tried to put themselves in another person's shoes. Imagine finding out that your child is going to be born a near-vegetable, requiring constant care for the rest of his life. Make no mistake: allowing this pregnancy to continue is tantamount to life imprisonment for both parents. You're basically kissing goodbye to whatever future you had ever envisioned for yourself. And yet I see people glibly saying that they would not hesitate for one second before making their profoundly moral and Biblical decision. I don't know how anyone could make such a decision without some hard soul-searching, no matter which way he decides. And when I see people making these easy hardline statements, I cannot help but think that they are simply not thinking.

[Lisa]

Having recently been in the postion of "willing life inprisonment" (their life, not mine) due to their health reasons, I wouldn't knowingly get into such a relationship again be it spouse or child. Selfish maybe, but anyone that wants to inflict that situation on some one else is sadistic.

Carrying a baby to term isn't a cakewalk either with risks both fatal and nonfatal to mother and child. I believe it's the sole decision of the mother for whether abortion is a viable option and her doctor and only has right to inform on health risks to the mother and the sperm donor has no say in the matter at all. If lawmakers wish to force pregnancy to term they should be surgicaly altered to carry the babies.

Feil: re Deuteronomy: Recently I read this past summer about one of the Dakotas (could be wrong on state) trying to enact into law that a raped woman would not only be denied an abortion but her attacker would be granted access to said child. I don't beleive it got passed into law but it's scary that such a thing was even thought about and debated.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

However, what you have to understand about being a Christian is that, as a Christian, I am to follow God's Law first [the Bible(parts containig to law. Just because God destroyed Soddom doesn't mean I can destroy{insert country here})], Man's Law second [The Gov't. etc.(as long as it does not directly contradict God's Law{The law allows abortion but does not force anyone to do it, therefore it does not encourage believers to sin})].

The Bible contains plenty of laws, clearly stated as such that permit--nay, require--you to do things that by any rational set of morals are fundamentally evil. Deuteronomy 13 tells you, in no uncertain terms, that if someone tries to convince you to leave your religion, you are to kill him right then and there. Exodus 22 demands that anyone who practices witchcraft must be put to death. Exodus 21 tells you to execute anyone who curses his parents.

If a betrothed woman gets raped in a city... why, execute her, because it's obviously her fault! (Deuteronomy 22.) And it gets better--if a woman who isn't betrothed gets raped... marry her to the rapist! (Poor man, his punishment for taking a woman against her will is the ability to take her against her will for the rest of her life!)

The laws you mention applied to the Mosaic (aka Israelite/Jewish) law to which Christians are not bound. I would how ever need to do more research before I continued.

[Darth Wong]

The laws you mention applied to the Mosaic (aka Israelite/Jewish) law to which Christians are not bound.

That is a very common rebuttal to that argument. I always point out that this doesn't change the fact that these laws were viewed as moral at one time, and sanctioned by no less than God himself. So either the early prophets were completely full of shit about what God was saying, or God himself thought those kinds of actions were moral at the time and has since changed his mind. Despite supposedly having "timeless" morality.

See the problem? Just pointing out that those laws don't apply any more doesn't get God off the hook for morally sanctioning them at one time. It's a bit like saying that slavery wasn't bad because it doesn't apply any more. If you said something like that, people would stare at you in bewilderment.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Forgive me if I missed it.

But what is the counter argument to putting the baby up for adoption?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

But what is the counter argument to putting the baby up for adoption?

Because adoptions are slow and often result in children being passed around in foster homes that are often pretty crappy and provide an unstable enviornment for the child to develop. At least that's what I've been told.

[Darth Wong]

Forgive me if I missed it.

But what is the counter argument to putting the baby up for adoption?

The fact that you have to carry the baby to term, obviously. Oh wait, don't tell me: you think that's no big deal ... because you will never have to do it. The fact that it can and does often cause permanent changes in physiology means nothing to you. The pain means nothing to you. The disruption in your life means nothing to you. The fact that many womens' health is never the same for the rest of their lives after giving birth, even in our modern high-tech society, means nothing to you. It's all someone else's problem, right? Otherwise, you'd think some of this might have occurred to you without someone having to spell it out.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Forgive me if I missed it.

But what is the counter argument to putting the baby up for adoption?

The fact that you have to carry the baby to term, obviously. Oh wait, don't tell me: you think that's no big deal ... because you will never have to do it.

So that's it?

On the carring the baby to term line I let the women in the pro-life movement argue that one out.

I've also informed by girl friend that as it's her womb the little one will be occuping she has say over how many children we will have. Exception being on adoption, with that we'll have equal say...

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

The laws you mention applied to the Mosaic (aka Israelite/Jewish) law to which Christians are not bound.

That is a very common rebuttal to that argument. I always point out that this doesn't change the fact that these laws were viewed as moral at one time, and sanctioned by no less than God himself. So either the early prophets were completely full of shit about what God was saying, or God himself thought those kinds of actions were moral at the time and has since changed his mind. Despite supposedly having "timeless" morality.

See the problem? Just pointing out that those laws don't apply any more doesn't get God off the hook for morally sanctioning them at one time. It's a bit like saying that slavery wasn't bad because it doesn't apply any more. If you said something like that, people would stare at you in bewilderment.

Well first off I do not believe the laws were interpretted literally, as one can't do that with the entirety of the bible since there is much symbolism and etc in the bible. Nor to I believe that the judges who ruled on the cases would be like "AHA!! THAT WASN'T DONE TO THE LETTER!! DIE!". There must also be things taken into context. I'm not going to go into them here since that would drag the thread off topic. However if it was desired for me to explain my understanding on those scriptures I'd be happy to.

[Darth Wong]

So that's it?

On the carring the baby to term line I let the women in the pro-life movement argue that one out.

Are you genuinely retarded, or just blindingly ignorant? By this logic, if a soldier testifies that he didn't mind losing his leg to an Iraqi IED, then that trumps the "pain and suffering" argument against the Iraq war.

I've also informed by girl friend that as it's her womb the little one will be occuping she has say over how many children we will have. Exception being on adoption, with that we'll have equal say...

You have "informed" your girlfriend of the way things are going to be? How egalitarian of you.

[Feil]

Well first off I do not believe the laws were interpretted literally, as one can't do that with the entirety of the bible since there is much symbolism and etc in the bible. Nor to I believe that the judges who ruled on the cases would be like "AHA!! THAT WASN'T DONE TO THE LETTER!! DIE!". There must also be things taken into context. I'm not going to go into them here since that would drag the thread off topic. However if it was desired for me to explain my understanding on those scriptures I'd be happy to.

Idiots like you make me laugh. It's like the writers of the bible deliberately anticipated this sort of apologist bullshit and went out of their way to make it obvious that they really meant it. Fortunately for your insupportable beliefs, you are content to accept your pastor's word for it, rather than going to the original source and checking for yourself.

Unrelatedly, et cetera, being Latin for and the rest, takes no conjunction.

[Darth Wong]

Well first off I do not believe the laws were interpretted literally, as one can't do that with the entirety of the bible since there is much symbolism and etc in the bible. Nor to I believe that the judges who ruled on the cases would be like "AHA!! THAT WASN'T DONE TO THE LETTER!! DIE!".

Have you ever read the Old Testament? It explicitly instructs people to use the death penalty in most cases. And this does not address my argument about the supposed morality of this "God" creature. Either the Old Testament is completely full of shit, or God really did guide its authors but he's a vicious asshole.

There must also be things taken into context. I'm not going to go into them here since that would drag the thread off topic. However if it was desired for me to explain my understanding on those scriptures I'd be happy to.

Why don't you start a new thread on how a supposedly perfect moral being can order his followers to commit horrors worthy of the Nazis, while also periodically committing such horrors himself? And if you choose to argue that the Old Testament is mostly wrong, then explain why anyone should take anything in it seriously.

[Justforfun000]

DARTH WONG wrote:

Why don't you start a new thread on how a supposedly perfect moral being can order his followers to commit horrors worthy of the Nazis, while also periodically committing such horrors himself? And if you choose to argue that the Old Testament is mostly wrong, then explain why anyone should take anything in it seriously.

You know,...the very fact that I have never seen anyone harmonize these arguments without having to continually move the goalposts and ultimately explain it away as the inscrutability of God and his ways is very compelling to people who see this impasse result in a dead end.

Why is it that when religious people can't go any further with their logic at this point, they just won't admit their position becomes hypocritical and indefensible? They are better off not arguing logically because the very tool is the weapon of their own misfortune.

[ray245]

By the way...I got a question to ask the board members here.

Ok...let's say your income or job can only support one to two child the most. But due to luck, you got triplets or higher amount of children in your/wife's womb. Would you go for abortions?

Most people who are Pro-abortion come up with the reason that not having a child is better if you cannot support her/him. But what happens when fate isn't kind enough to you? Would you abort so you can have the IDEAL amount of children?

[Justforfun000]

Ok...let's say your income or job can only support one to two child the most. But due to luck, you got triplets or higher amount of children in your/wife's womb. Would you go for abortions?

Most people who are Pro-abortion come up with the reason that not having a child is better if you cannot support her/him. But what happens when fate isn't kind enough to you? Would you abort so you can have the IDEAL amount of children?

I would not go for abortions.I think ethically it would make much more sense to plan better for the future and get better paying jobs. Planning parenthood is a completely different ballgame compared to an unwed teenage mother with no resources, education and lack of social and spousal support. I can't imagine anyone seriously looking for an abortion in this circumstance you describe, no.

[Darth Wong]

By the way...I got a question to ask the board members here.

Ok...let's say your income or job can only support one to two child the most. But due to luck, you got triplets or higher amount of children in your/wife's womb. Would you go for abortions?

Most people who are Pro-abortion come up with the reason that not having a child is better if you cannot support her/him. But what happens when fate isn't kind enough to you? Would you abort so you can have the IDEAL amount of children?

What difference does that make? Leaving aside the fact that the comfortable leisure casual abortion is nothing more than a right-wing fiction, even if it were true that people routinely did it for mere convenience or preference, what difference does the number and type of fetuses make to the argument?

It seems to me that an awful lot of anti-abortion arguments attempt to attack the perceived personality and motives of the person committing the act, rather than discussing the ethics of the act itself. On far too many occasions, I've heard people saying that they might accept abortion in the case of some innocent virgin who was raped, but not for some slutty girl who forgot to use birth control. That kind of argument has nothing to do with the ethics of the act itself, and everything to do with trying to divide the world into "us" vs "them" and then use the weapons of law to punish the other side for not joining yours. And your argument seems to be inching toward that kind of attack as well.

[Cairber]

Vericrose veins, damage to the pelvic floor, diabetes, uterine rupture, bed rest, spine damage....

Carrying a pregnancy to term carries many risks. No woman should have this forced on her.

By the way...I got a question to ask the board members here.

Ok...let's say your income or job can only support one to two child the most. But due to luck, you got triplets or higher amount of children in your/wife's womb. Would you go for abortions?

Selective reduction would be my option if a doctor informed me that carrying the number of fetuses I had would endanger any of them surviving or cause me danger.

[Justforfun000]

It seems to me that an awful lot of anti-abortion arguments attempt to attack the perceived personality and motives of the person committing the act, rather than discussing the ethics of the act itself. On far too many occasions, I've heard people saying that they might accept abortion in the case of some innocent virgin who was raped, but not for some slutty girl who forgot to use birth control. That kind of argument has nothing to do with the ethics of the act itself, and everything to do with trying to divide the world into "us" vs "them" and then use the weapons of law to punish the other side for not joining yours. And your argument seems to be inching toward that kind of attack as well.

Actually, you make a good point there Mike. It seems like the arguments over abortion always seem to be fought from the starting point of good or bad behaviour in the mind of the anti-abortionist. Their entire argument is framed from the assumption that you have to judge the motives of the person first in order to decide the ethicality of the act.

So how can this argument be won then? If we divorce motives and behaviour from the equation, how can you judge the ethics of abortion by itself? The problem here is that science doesn't REALLY have an answer to when life truly begins, am I correct? So until this is "proven", is this simply a subjective opinion that has to be made individually with no true way of evaluating the morality of the action?

[Cairber]

Their entire argument is framed from the assumption that you have to judge the motives of the person first in order to decide the ethicality of the act.

I completely agree with this statement. I cringe whenever people talk about the fetus or embryo being a "life" but then are ok with abortion for cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother. It seems they feel that the fetus is a life except when its creation was notthe result of consensual sex.

Then you have those who will say things like "should have kept her legs closed" if she didn't want to get pregnant. Woman throw this one around a lot. It's pathetic.

They have these ideas of who is "innocent" and who is not, as if this must be decided first before abortion can come into the picture.

[General Zod]

So how can this argument be won then? If we divorce motives and behaviour from the equation, how can you judge the ethics of abortion by itself? The problem here is that science doesn't REALLY have an answer to when life truly begins, am I correct? So until this is "proven", is this simply a subjective opinion that has to be made individually with no true way of evaluating the morality of the action?

If we go with anti-abortionist nonsense logic, every time I wank to a porno flick I'm wasting potential life. Most rational people are willing to agree that life begins the moment higher brain activity is detected in the fetus. Which is usually around the 3rd trimester iirc.