Abortion

[Judy02]

I think we have a long ways to go to understand why some women still choose this.

Yep, definetely. And making it illegal wouldn't put a stop to the problem.

 

[kingoffools13]

Yep, definetely. And making it illegal wouldn't put a stop to the problem.

Even if that was true, which I do not believe it to be so, making it illegal is still the right thing to do. No one should have the "right" to choose the life or death of another person, especially when that person is supposed to be the one protecting them.

K
O
f

 

[die2live]

Yep, definetely. And making it illegal wouldn't put a stop to the problem.

It wouldn't put a complete stop to the problem; no law does. But it would slow it down considerably.

 

[andross77]

Yes, every medical procedure or condition, including abortion AND pregnancy, have complications and risks, including death. Many women also die of complications of pregnancy and childbirth, which is something that I've noticed that anti-abortion people fail to mention alot of the time. At least Planned Parenthood is honest and admits that there can be severe complications.

The risk of death would be much higher if abortion were illegal. So yes, keeping abortion legal protects women!


It's not a difference of age at all. It's a difference of physical development, and the difference is HUGE.

This is too much of a "scientific/biological" look at abortion without much of a thought to what Scripture says about the sanctity of life and when it starts. Since from Jeremiah 1:5 we know that God sees a person as a life even before they are conceived and we know from Exodus 20:13 & Deuteronomy 5:17 that we are commanded not to murder, abortion is wrong b/c it's extinguishing a life made by God (murder).

Now if the child in the womb actually had a murderous "intent" towards the mother in some situations and the only way to save the mom was to kill the baby, things would be different. That would be like when you are protecting your family from a burglar/murderer and if you don't kill him, he will kill your family. Then you use force to protect your loved ones. Since a baby can never have this intent (even though sometimes babies can be harmful to a womans body and the birth actually end up in the woman dieing) we can never justify killing a baby. It is always murder.

A life is a life. A baby is a life. A mother is a life. God says before we are born, He knows us.

Let us continue to speak against baby-murdering as long as we have breath. And let us do it in a Christ-like loving manner.

 

[nathans1987]

Yep, definetely. And making it illegal wouldn't put a stop to the problem.

if you classify it as murder and send them to jail it will more than help and that is what it is.

 

[Mjallhvit]

I will try to put it clearly without going into exactly why. I do not believe that anyone should be required to take care of anyone they do not wish to - regardless of circumstances like age, biological relations etc. I think it is unfortunate to get pregnant when not able to provide a child with car, and I think adoption would suit me better but I certainly feel that a mother can refuse to provide habitation and resources to her child, whether in the womb or otherwise. It is not that I think child should be left to starve, or that I think well of those who do. As I said, adoption into a good home would be better. But if the mother has very negative habits, such as drug use, or is violent...I certainly thing that such a child, which would probably only repeat or worsen its own fate upon others, might wish he had never been born.

 

[nathans1987]

I will try to put it clearly without going into exactly why. I do not believe that anyone should be required to take care of anyone they do not wish to - regardless of circumstances like age, biological relations etc. I think it is unfortunate to get pregnant when not able to provide a child with car, and I think adoption would suit me better but I certainly feel that a mother can refuse to provide habitation and resources to her child, whether in the womb or otherwise. It is not that I think child should be left to starve, or that I think well of those who do. As I said, adoption into a good home would be better. But if the mother has very negative habits, such as drug use, or is violent...I certainly thing that such a child, which would probably only repeat or worsen its own fate upon others, might wish he had never been born.

simple dont have sex

 

[Mjallhvit]

simple dont have sex

To put it coarsely, "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em." and I think it is the best option, or effective birth control. But I think of it like I do any other property - if I bring a man into my house and give him a meal, am I obliged to feed him for the rest of his life? Even if he would starve or freeze I do not think that man has any right to the house that has taken him in, by intent or through accident. Neither of these evicted persons has a right to use violence to remain, nor does any other person. Now the house owner let them in, so they cannot initiate force...but if they cannot or will not leave when you wish them gone you have a right to use as much force as necessary

 

[andross77]

I will try to put it clearly without going into exactly why. I do not believe that anyone should be required to take care of anyone they do not wish to - regardless of circumstances like age, biological relations etc. I think it is unfortunate to get pregnant when not able to provide a child with car, and I think adoption would suit me better but I certainly feel that a mother can refuse to provide habitation and resources to her child, whether in the womb or otherwise. It is not that I think child should be left to starve, or that I think well of those who do. As I said, adoption into a good home would be better. But if the mother has very negative habits, such as drug use, or is violent...I certainly thing that such a child, which would probably only repeat or worsen its own fate upon others, might wish he had never been born.

the bold is why you are an atheist and can never become a Christian without a change of heart. I could not disagree with your statement anymore than i do now.

We ARE our brothers keeper. It's sad that your worldview is so selfish.

But welcome to the Christian forums and hopefully you find what you seek.

Blessings.

 

[die2live]

the bold is why you are an atheist and can never become a Christian without a change of heart. I could not disagree with your statement anymore than i do now.

We ARE our brothers keeper. It's sad that your worldview is so selfish.

But welcome to the Christian forums and hopefully you find what you seek.

Blessings.

That was harsh.

You don't have call a person selfish to get your pont across.

It's true what you say about being our brothers keeper and it's true that it doesn't really apply to non-Christians. That doesn't mean you have to call her selfish.

 

[andross77]

That was harsh.

You don't have call a person selfish to get your pont across.

It's true what you say about being our brothers keeper and it's true that it doesn't really apply to non-Christians. That doesn't mean you have to call her selfish.

my apologies if this offends you. Her statement was an incredibly selfish statement. In fact, it was the definition of selfishness: not caring about others, just yourself. Would you argue this? or should i just not point it out?

Her selfish statement is just so opposite of all of Scripture and what i believe to be right and true as a Christian, that it shocked me and i wanted to point it out. Again, sorry if you are offended but i believe i was right in my statements (factually and by intent).

 

[die2live]

my apologies if this offends you. Her statement was an incredibly selfish statement. In fact, it was the definition of selfishness: not caring about others, just yourself. Would you argue this? or should i just not point it out?

Her selfish statement is just so opposite of all of Scripture and what i believe to be right and true as a Christian, that it shocked me and i wanted to point it out. Again, sorry if you are offended but i believe i was right in my statements (factually and by intent).

It didn't offend me, I was just worried about her. I pretty much agree with what you said (about us being our brothers keepers and such) but the fact is, she is not committed to following Christ so we can't place God's standards on her. And I think she seems much less selfish than some of the "Christians" I have heard from on this subject. If I remember right, she did say adoption would be a better choice, but she gave reasons for why it should not be the only choice. While I wholeheartedly disagreed with her, I don't think calling her selfish is really going to help matters. I believe it would have been more effective to address her points and simply explain why Christians shouldn't think like that rather than making a judgment call on her character.

Make sense?

 

[andross77]

It didn't offend me, I was just worried about her. I pretty much agree with what you said (about us being our brothers keepers and such) but the fact is, she is not committed to following Christ so we can't place God's standards on her. And I think she seems much less selfish than some of the "Christians" I have heard from on this subject. If I remember right, she did say adoption would be a better choice, but she gave reasons for why it should not be the only choice. While I wholeheartedly disagreed with her, I don't think calling her selfish is really going to help matters. I believe it would have been more effective to address her points and simply explain why Christians shouldn't think like that rather than making a judgment call on her character.

Make sense?

yeah, i can agree with that. I'm still learning to hold my tongue.

 

[Mjallhvit]

the bold is why you are an atheist and can never become a Christian without a change of heart. I could not disagree with your statement anymore than i do now.

I am an atheist because I do not accept that god exists. My other opinions, moral, aesthetic and so on, stem from the best and most rational answer I can find or come up with.

We ARE our brothers keeper

I would certainly not object to someone acting so, if it suited them, but I think that is - more generally speaking - a false statement. Everyone is the ultimate authority on what is true and most important, no matter you inspiration and influences you can never escape that you and you alone must choose and act.
Furthermore, that is not incompatible with my view. I never said that you could or should not take care of others, or that you should never have any personal opinions of whether you think the actions of others are desireable. I only say that people ought to be totally free to do as they please with their property, and the same principle of civilization that makes it permissible to sing whatever song you like with your throat where you live, regardless of whether anyone thinks that song is good or terrible, means that a person can likewise refuse to provide for anyone.
Also I think that idea is dangerous emotionally and financially, and is the supposed justification for almost every really totalitarian rule from the Incas to the North Koreans. It is my thought that some people I like, and some people you like, and we should care for what we most value and know best - which encourages people not to act in ways abhorrent to others, but to avoid crime and also anti-social behaviour. They will find in both cases that people might no longer want to deal with them.

It's sad that your worldview is so selfish.

The word 'selfish' is like 'love' or 'freedom', in that there are many often contradictory things people mean when they say it. I would say rather that you could call me an 'egoist', who uses her own judgement and values to decide what I ought to care for and what I ought not. I have many ideas, but I do not let my ideas have me! To call my actual preferences 'selfish' might be true in some ways and false in others. Everything I do, even for others, is for me. But if I did not like humans, their happiness and freedom and the civilization that comes from it, I would hardly care whether they were lined up and shot. It is precisely because I do hold them in high regard and love so much what they have made that I lament when it is threatened and destroyed when its wonderful products are seized by power-mad men, and the people lose their lives and their culture under the yoke of those who pervert even language. And all of this is often justified with 'morality', especially with 'brother-love' and 'altruism'; but behind all the speeches and pagaents are men imprisoned in walls built with their own wealth, or killed with weapons of war built from technology the Great Leaders with their Social Conscience owe solely to men working mostly for their own satisfaction and turned away from serving human lives to ending them.

Now I don't know that you are in favor of anything like this, and I will presume you have no taste for these things. But whatever you think of its religious or character, it was the 'selfish' misers and 'robber barons' who paid as little as they could, and also most fairly because good men at a small profit was better than the competition making greater profits. Their capital and technology advances increased, and still increase, the wages of a worker whose working hours and education has decreased, and largely producing things for the worker himself and again improving his life. Nor are economics the only examples, we can imagine many scientists, doctors and volunteers do the work because they enjoy it personally - in fact, most anyone who is good at something enjoys it, including charity.

If such self-satisfaction motivations such as the pleasure in helping others or a sympathy that is too painful for them are not brother-love then I then what you call for is for people to serve others precisely because they do not merit our friendship and that we do not desire their well-being in itself, something I think would quickly result in the extinction of mankind as we tried to look after those always willing to take and use, who were always in need of help because their very inability to recover was their greatest advantage.

Likewise, the impulse towards omnibenevolence or altruism has a strong element of danger and abuse potential. Not only the false-face and self-aggrandizing, but the man who thinks that property is only to be respected if people are doing what he wants with it; a ban on abortion and a ban on the profession of religion are different in scale, but invariant in principle. If one does not recognize the primacy of property and the right of the owner to dispose of it as he pleases is the only coherent opportunity. Not only do the other property theories contradict themselves or make life impossible, but because of that they destroy any measure of coherency - once can not decide when a man has commited a 'crime' or not, who is in the wrong or who is in the right unless one accepts the unalloyed theory of right in property.

I hope you get what I mean, and maybe think about whether what 'everybody knows' is really the case, or that the issue of human civilization, peace and mutual respect are themselves products of the very simple if unpopular fact that personal profit unites men as nothing else does, and it is their profits themselves that build a society wealthy enough to give charity to those less endowed, and internet debates. All of which is solely possible through a respect of property, and which grows feebler and feebler in its progress when its violation occurs, until finally it consumes itself and men give up centuries of cultural advancement and material prosperity because they did not think others were generous enough, or that they were unpleasant, or that they were unwise or blasphemous.

If you're one of those Christians who immanentize the eschaton or have no problem with the fact that much of what most people want is gainsaid by the Gospel - I have nothing to say to that. I think neither of us would profit from those relations.

Overlong, but that is my style. Thank you for your comments.

 

[andross77]

^^^ i will make a longer reply but i'm hungry and have to leave for lunch. i'm glad you are a "long-poster" for i can be as well. It's good to explain yourself.

Your second paragraph seems to me that you hold human freedom and choice in high regard. I agree with you here. Human freedom and freewill are held in high regard by God as well. As a Christian i just understand "freedom" and "free choice" in a different way from you. (i can expound if you want).

please rewrite your last paragraph so i can understand it, i'm not good with big words .

I wish i could sit down and talk with you b/c you definitely have a thinking head on your shoulders. We disagree about life almost 100% but i still think we can both learn from each other

i'll be back later.

 

[ciaradawn]

you hold human freedom and choice in high regard. I agree with you here. Human freedom and freewill are held in high regard by God as well.

Agreed

 

[Mjallhvit]

please rewrite your last paragraph so i can understand it, i'm not good with big words .

Well, I meant that since I more or less reject the possibility of Christianity being true, along with everything in the same metaphysical ballpark, any debate which was based upon theological/biblical arguments would be pointless, though I am open to other sorts of arguments - not that I think I will be swayed.

As far as the matter of calling me 'selfish' I only even thought about it because people hardly ever mean the same thing, if anything, when they say 'selfish'. Being selfish is something that is certainly true of me in some sense. I take a good deal of pride because I am as selfish as possible, after my fashion, and do not let ideas myself be cowed by notions of 'good' or 'evil', or the 'sacred'. If it ever bothered me to be called selfish I can not remember, for several years I know I have been of the opinion that is somewhat what all people must be and those that try to fight it only harm themselves and endanger their sanity. I trust an openly selfish person over an altruist any day. The selfish person has personally decided goals, and we can seek mutual profit if we have compatible goals. The man who 'believes' in things, who thinks of his duty and feels that the sacred is real and his superior...they are bound to do any manner of madness.

The confidently selfish and unidealistic are always looking for their own self-satisfaction, whatever might give it to them. This usually results in a desire to find others to cooperate with, because the division of labor whether in construction or philosophy typically improves the quality and quantity while lowering costs, costs may be dollars cheaper; or it may be less study to learn twice as much about one thing that a study that teaches him some half about two. Without government, a likely outcome if none were swayed by words like 'democracy' or 'fairness', security and related things would be much more efficient. And since a selfish man is only going to try to take from you or hurt you if he thinks he can profit, he is unlikely to do it do to the danger and low probability of success. But the 'believer!' convinced of your sins is often happy to die to do the world of whatever he calls his master.

Christianity exorted suppression of passions and the abandonment of materialism, and primarily resulted in (in my opinion) causing a lot of grief and lost potential among those unfortunate enough to be captured by its notions, and among more who suffered anyways because their neighbors 'belief!' did not allow for dissent; another thing that would not occur in a self-oriented world. And I am not even bothering to talk about the violence that Christianity (amongst other ideologies) have played a part in, I am talking about the personal well-being sacrificed because men became afraid of their own thoughts, and these became wheels-in-the-head that permitted no questioning that might save these poor folk. Of all things I am thankful of in my life, that I discovered this self-inflicted madness and now understand how to best live my life; and all things in me I order and make to serve me as best I can, and so do I do to the world and no one and no thing is sacred to me; and the moon and you yourself if I could but get you into my power. That love of freedom and the civilization that blesses such rare epochs when empires and bloodshed abate a little, and I hate all the ignorance and lies and self-destruction that gnaw at its foundations; and pray that if it falls I may at least see the pillars crush them.

 

[Tuffguy]

I will try to put it clearly without going into exactly why. I do not believe that anyone should be required to take care of anyone they do not wish to - regardless of circumstances like age, biological relations etc. I think it is unfortunate to get pregnant when not able to provide a child with car, and I think adoption would suit me better but I certainly feel that a mother can refuse to provide habitation and resources to her child, whether in the womb or otherwise. It is not that I think child should be left to starve, or that I think well of those who do. As I said, adoption into a good home would be better. But if the mother has very negative habits, such as drug use, or is violent...I certainly thing that such a child, which would probably only repeat or worsen its own fate upon others, might wish he had never been born.

Problem is that it's not just self ownership. Concieving that child is making a promise to look beyond yourself and care for the one you created.

My mother in law thought of aborting my wife. She was born out of wedlock, and her mom didn't have much more then a crummy job to her name. The statistics where against her and she beat them.

 

[andross77]

Well, I meant that since I more or less reject the possibility of Christianity being true, along with everything in the same metaphysical ballpark, any debate which was based upon theological/biblical arguments would be pointless, though I am open to other sorts of arguments - not that I think I will be swayed.

As far as the matter of calling me 'selfish' I only even thought about it because people hardly ever mean the same thing, if anything, when they say 'selfish'. Being selfish is something that is certainly true of me in some sense. I take a good deal of pride because I am as selfish as possible, after my fashion, and do not let ideas myself be cowed by notions of 'good' or 'evil', or the 'sacred'. If it ever bothered me to be called selfish I can not remember, for several years I know I have been of the opinion that is somewhat what all people must be and those that try to fight it only harm themselves and endanger their sanity. I trust an openly selfish person over an altruist any day. The selfish person has personally decided goals, and we can seek mutual profit if we have compatible goals. The man who 'believes' in things, who thinks of his duty and feels that the sacred is real and his superior...they are bound to do any manner of madness.

The confidently selfish and unidealistic are always looking for their own self-satisfaction, whatever might give it to them. This usually results in a desire to find others to cooperate with, because the division of labor whether in construction or philosophy typically improves the quality and quantity while lowering costs, costs may be dollars cheaper; or it may be less study to learn twice as much about one thing that a study that teaches him some half about two. Without government, a likely outcome if none were swayed by words like 'democracy' or 'fairness', security and related things would be much more efficient. And since a selfish man is only going to try to take from you or hurt you if he thinks he can profit, he is unlikely to do it do to the danger and low probability of success. But the 'believer!' convinced of your sins is often happy to die to do the world of whatever he calls his master.

Christianity exorted suppression of passions and the abandonment of materialism, and primarily resulted in (in my opinion) causing a lot of grief and lost potential among those unfortunate enough to be captured by its notions, and among more who suffered anyways because their neighbors 'belief!' did not allow for dissent; another thing that would not occur in a self-oriented world. And I am not even bothering to talk about the violence that Christianity (amongst other ideologies) have played a part in, I am talking about the personal well-being sacrificed because men became afraid of their own thoughts, and these became wheels-in-the-head that permitted no questioning that might save these poor folk. Of all things I am thankful of in my life, that I discovered this self-inflicted madness and now understand how to best live my life; and all things in me I order and make to serve me as best I can, and so do I do to the world and no one and no thing is sacred to me; and the moon and you yourself if I could but get you into my power. That love of freedom and the civilization that blesses such rare epochs when empires and bloodshed abate a little, and I hate all the ignorance and lies and self-destruction that gnaw at its foundations; and pray that if it falls I may at least see the pillars crush them.

Thanks for answering my questions in full. I see I have no further reason to discuss anything with you. Blessings on your journey and I pray you use your intellect to glorify God.

 

[Mjallhvit]

My mother in law thought of aborting my wife. She was born out of wedlock, and her mom didn't have much more then a crummy job to her name. The statistics where against her and she beat them.

I do not think that argument holds, since I do not accept the validity of 'implicit' contracts, nor even promises. Only considerations exchanged can establish a contract because an 'implicit' contract or even promise have no basis of recompense; and recompensation of a person or his heirs is the ONLY legal system that could exist with real freedom.

Thus, if a child is expelled it is not owed anything. And, consequentially, judgement would be ludicrous since it could only be rendered to the mother of the child.