Abortion

[Electric Sceptic]

Human animals can't (or shouldn't) do it because it is WRONG. Animals don't know the difference between right and wrong but humans do. Just because animals are doing it doesn't make it right or natural. Besides, when have we ever let animals set the standard for the way we live our lives?

It's your opinion that ti's wrong; that is the entire point of contention. And if animals are doing it, it DOES make it natural.

 

[In A Perfect World]

It's your opinion that ti's wrong; that is the entire point of contention. And if animals are doing it, it DOES make it natural.

The ironic thing is: just because something is natural doesn't mean it's right (naturalistic fallacy), however it was brought up as one of the motives and intentions for abortions in the first place and to suggest we aren't the only species guilty of ridding oneself of [would be] offspring.

And for the claim that we shouldn't let animals dictate our lives - we animals and we dictate our lives...

 

[Chloe Williams]

And if animals are doing it, it DOES make it natural.

It may be natural for the animal but not for humans. There are lots things that do (or don't do ) that aren't natural for humans. Animals don't wear clothing but that doesn't mean we shouldn't because the animals don't do it and it's 'natural'.

 

[Chloe Williams]

So, do animals do things that are "wrong" despite not knowing the difference between right and wrong? There are some important implications to your answer.

Animals do plenty of things that would be concidered wrong, but they don't know that it is wrong. For example, mountain lions or something eating someone's cattle; they don't see it as wrong, but I'm sure the cattle owner would see it as wrong.

 

[In A Perfect World]

It may be natural for the animal but not for humans. There are lots things that do (or don't do ) that aren't natural for humans. Animals don't wear clothing but that doesn't mean we shouldn't because the animals don't do it and it's 'natural'.

Some found in nature is by definition, natural.

Humans have worn clothing depending on climate. Some cultures are nudist and others wear only miniscule genital coverings. It has to do with hair/fur. Humans as a species originated in the African/Middle Eastern areas which were warm; they didn't need excess hair to survive. Later, humans moved to different areas which demanded clothing, and so it started. People in Africa sometimes wear white clothing (especially in Muslim nations) just to keep sun burn down and the body ventilated.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

It may be natural for the animal but not for humans. There are lots things that do (or don't do ) that aren't natural for humans. Animals don't wear clothing but that doesn't mean we shouldn't because the animals don't do it and it's 'natural'.

Sorry, but wrong. If it's natural for animals, it's natural for humans, since we're animals. That is not to say it's good, or desirable, or 'right' - but it is natural. Wearing clothing is unnatural - yet we do it.

 

[Seeking...]

It makes a difference if your useing erroneous Christian beliefs and erroneous statements as to what the bible contains, to prove your points.

State what is erroneous so that it can be addressed. Your postings are like hit and runs - you make a general claim and leave me to wonder what you mean. It is not useful for honest discussion.

 

[maha]

Chloe Williams wrote:

Animals do plenty of things that would be concidered wrong, but they don't know that it is wrong. For example, mountain lions or something eating someone's cattle; they don't see it as wrong, but I'm sure the cattle owner would see it as wrong.

So you're saying that right and wrong is relative from a human perspective...or really, just your perspective.

I don't see how animals can do things that are "wrong" if it is in their nature to do them. They can't conciously do things that they know to be wrong, nefarious, or hurtful to others, so what does it matter if it is right or wrong--it's just what they do.

The point is that animals aren't doing anything "wrong" when they commit infanticide. And since humans are animals too, then we are also not doing anything wrong by commiting abortion infanticides. We should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard though, that is to be expected. That's why we shouldn't go around killing each other the way animals sometimes do. But the difference is that infanticide is something practical that animals and humans use to benefit their communities. Whereas something like homicide does nothing to benefit the human community.

 

[Chloe Williams]

We should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard though, that is to be expected. That's why we shouldn't go around killing each other the way animals sometimes do. But the difference is that infanticide is something practical that animals and humans use to benefit their communities. Whereas something like homicide does nothing to benefit the human community.

I don't see how abortions 'benefit the community'. By someone having an abortion, they could be taking away someone who was supposed to be a very vaulable member of society. I just can't see that as practical or benificial.

 

[Cheli]

By someone having an abortion, they could be taking away someone who was supposed to be a very vaulable member of society.

Or someone who was meant to murder a very valuable member of society. Laws cannot be made on 'what-ifs'

 

[Fledge]

One thing I think that needs kept in mind when discussing animal behavior and how it relates to ours is that we have no evidence that wildlife can reason. As far as we can tell, they live pretty much on instinct, and even though it can be argued that most of what we do is instinct, I bet everyone has decided to do something other than what first came to mind. This isn't so much an argument for either side, simply trying to point out something that should probably be kept in mind.

 

[HouseApe]

That could be it, but I think another way of looking at it gets rid of the trouble of the word "mischief". I'll outline it, and see whether you think it's even remotely logical.

I looked up the bit about the "fruit depart" in an online concordance, and it was pretty clear that it means the child leaving the womb. Not necessarily death, simply the (premature) birth of the child. Given that, I think it would make some sense for there to be a fine, as a birth of that sort would be done without benefit of a mid-wife, adding another element of risk to an already dangerous proposition. Then, the whole "mischief" bit could be injury to the child that resulted from being born too early. If the child survives with no damage, then there would be no reason to punish the offender any further. However, if the child is maimed/killed/disabled in some way, then the offender was to receive the same injury that he inflicted.

Anyway, let me know what you think. I don't have access to the proper resources to look this up, but I will if I get the chance.

I am comfortable with that. I think it is difficult to understand the exact intention of a Biblical phrase a couple of thousand years after it was written down. Of course, I'm not working with the Holy Spirit here.

 

[]RiSeN[]

State what is erroneous so that it can be addressed. Your postings are like hit and runs - you make a general claim and leave me to wonder what you mean. It is not useful for honest discussion.

Your mixing your personal beliefs in God with those of Christianity. Since your beliefs on God differ greatly from that of Christianity it would cause less confusion if you expressly stated when it is a personal belief.

God has authority, but it is a moot point since it isn't really something He exercises. God doesn't require or request that He be "served". I don't believe God's true nature or intentions have been revealed to mankind through any religion - so an overall truth could exist, but isn't currently known.

All of these statements are false according to Christianity. The difference being only in the latter which you state that it is your belief.

But the God you believe in created no such law. The penalty for another causing a miscarriage is not the same as murder in the Bible.

The only variant was if the death was accidental. Blood was spilled even if it was just a fetus, God considered it life, and therefor one who ended this life was bloodguilty to God. If it was accidental the killers life was spared but they were cast out to live in certain refuge cities. If it was not accidental the killer payed for the life with his own life. Who was he paying? God, as ALL life belongs to Him.

If i own a Blockbuster store, you obtain movies from me which i lend you, all i ask is a small fee which reminds you who owns the movie. By renting from me you accept the responsability of keeping the movie in good working order. Because the movie is in your possession does not mean the movie is yours to do whatever you wish with simply because the option of doing whatever you want exists. You can keep it as long as you want, but if you bring it back to me in peices, im going to expect payment since it was my property.

He will ask for the equivallent worth, a life for a life, since ALL lifes belong to Him.

 

[]RiSeN[]

So you're saying that right and wrong is relative from a human perspective...or really, just your perspective.

Great, so if i walk in to a school and kill all the children to ensure a better chance of survival for my children, im excused because animals do it? Unfortunatly we humanoids have something called morality, and a justice system based on it.

I don't see how animals can do things that are "wrong" if it is in their nature to do them. They can't conciously do things that they know to be wrong, nefarious, or hurtful to others, so what does it matter if it is right or wrong--it's just what they do.

Its human nature to lie, rebel, and kill, are we not wrong when we do it? If animals dont know what they're doing when it comes to right and wrong, how does their ignorance defend your choice to commit infanticide? "I can kill babies because animals are dumb." Ok.......

The point is that animals aren't doing anything "wrong" when they commit infanticide. And since humans are animals too, then we are also not doing anything wrong by commiting abortion infanticides. We should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard though, that is to be expected. That's why we shouldn't go around killing each other the way animals sometimes do. But the difference is that infanticide is something practical that animals and humans use to benefit their communities. Whereas something like homicide does nothing to benefit the human community.

We are not animals, we are humans, the power of reasoning seperates us. Reasoning which leads to morality. You wont find half a dozen otters sitting around discussing abortion, or caring about what the score of the Red Sox game was last night. The argument that it helps society is ridiculous.

Your putting the horse before the carriage.

Firemen benefit all of the community, but only because we have arsonists and dumb people who dont respect the power of fire. Firemen save lives.

The only reason abortion exists is because of people not respecting each other nor do they respect the power of sex. Its not because we're animals.

 

[Seeking...]

Your mixing your personal beliefs in God with those of Christianity. Since your beliefs on God differ greatly from that of Christianity it would cause less confusion if you expressly stated when it is a personal belief..

I'm sorry if my posting confused you, but I thought I was quite clear. My icon has always shown that I am a Deist and not a Christian, I typically refer to the Bible or "the God you believe in" when I am addressing Christian beliefs.

All of these statements are false according to Christianity. The difference being only in the latter which you state that it is your belief..

The post you are referring to was in answer to specific questions from you on how I viewed God's authority in my life. You didn't ask me how Christians feel - you asked me and again my Deist icon was showing...

The only variant was if the death was accidental. Blood was spilled even if it was just a fetus, God considered it life, and therefor one who ended this life was bloodguilty to God. If it was accidental the killers life was spared but they were cast out to live in certain refuge cities. If it was not accidental the killer payed for the life with his own life. Who was he paying? God, as ALL life belongs to Him.

If i own a Blockbuster store, you obtain movies from me which i lend you, all i ask is a small fee which reminds you who owns the movie. By renting from me you accept the responsability of keeping the movie in good working order. Because the movie is in your possession does not mean the movie is yours to do whatever you wish with simply because the option of doing whatever you want exists. You can keep it as long as you want, but if you bring it back to me in peices, im going to expect payment since it was my property.

He will ask for the equivallent worth, a life for a life, since ALL lifes belong to Him.

This is your interpretation, mine differs. It seemed to me that if a thrid party caused the "fruit" to "depart" the womb - and only pays a fine, that God was not holding the cause of a miscarriage to be as culpable as a murderer. I haven't seen anything that suggests that the "further mischief" didn't refer to harm incurred to the woman, not the child. Again the Bible also doesn't refer to a woman taking the life of the child inside her at all though it is likely that women of that time were using herbal means to induce miscarriage.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Or someone who was meant to murder a very valuable member of society. Laws cannot be made on 'what-ifs'

Then how can a mother claim that she is unable do to her present state to have the child or that it would hinder her current situation if it has not been proven otherwise? Her whole premise is based on conjecture since she does not know for a fact that she is unable since she has not yet attempted with the goal of accomplishing. She is making a presumtion, and although it might seem plausible it does not make it a known fact or truth. Its an avoidance of knowing the answer by claiming that one has the right to choose not to ask the question even though they brought the question into being.

 

[Cheli]

Then how can a mother claim that she is unable do to her present state to have the child or that it would hinder her current situation if it has not been proven otherwise? Her whole premise is based on conjecture since she does not know for a fact that she is unable since she has not yet attempted with the goal of accomplishing.

Somebody might shoot you in the foot. In all probability it will hurt, but because you have never been shot in the foot, you cannot be certain that it will hurt. However, you know your own body and can safely say that it will indeed hurt. In the same way, a woman knows if she is not capable of enduring the consequences of motherhood and/or chilbirth (which can be infinitely worse than being shot in the foot).

 

[]RiSeN[]

Somebody might shoot you in the foot. In all probability it will hurt, but because you have never been shot in the foot, you cannot be certain that it will hurt. However, you know your own body and can safely say that it will indeed hurt. In the same way, a woman knows if she is not capable of enduring the consequences of motherhood and/or chilbirth (which can be infinitely worse than being shot in the foot).

Being shot can be applied to all. The intrecacies and details of each womans personal life can not be painted to anyone else. Each situation is different, therefor you cannot apply your analogy. Being shot is a certainty, the future and outcome of the mothers life is not.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Frankly, I think pro-life busybodies should stay out of other people's business. As a functional adult, I am quite capable of taking care of my own business and making my own decisions. I don't need anybody peeping in my bedroom windows or imposing their morality on me. I thought Republicans thought government was supposed to be small, when it turns out they just wanted it to be small enough to fit inside my uterus.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Frankly, I think pro-life busybodies should stay out of other people's business. As a functional adult, I am quite capable of taking care of my own business and making my own decisions. I don't need anybody peeping in my bedroom windows or imposing their morality on me. I thought Republicans thought government was supposed to be small, when it turns out they just wanted it to be small enough to fit inside my uterus.

If only your mother was as strong willed and opinionated as you are...........SARCASM ALERT!