Interesting view on Abortion - Please Participate (FOR EVERY MEMBERS OF THE FORUM)

[pthalomarie]

Actually it is impossible not to. You may say that you do not choose sides but I have seen you speak more for it then against it.

Generally, I contest whichever side is more hostile or irrational. The pro-choice folks here are pretty mellow, as far as I can tell. I disagree with them, but ironically, I think you and others do just fine making the points I would have made. The problem is, the pro-lifers have been less polite about it.

Also, I'm probably a bit harder on the pro-life side because I'm convinced that the key to a solution rests upon their shoulders. I believe that part of the reason we're at a stalemate with abortion is because the pro-life side has not offered any kind of practical solutions. Generally their solutions revolve around wishful thinking like "just stop having premarital sex." That's sort of like approaching the Middle East with the suggestion that the Muslims and Jews should just shake hands and love each other.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

Then she didn't have an abortion. She had an ectopic prgenency which is both a danger to mom & baby. She wanted this child, correct? Would she have aborted if all was OK? You caid she was pro-life, so probably not. Read my statement again, because she did not consider this child a blob.

 

[geocajun]

Truth is unfortunately not absolute truth. Your truths are not mine.

how do you know that is true? can you honestly say, that you just said is absolute?

 

[Archivist]

how do you know that is true? can you honestly say, that you just said is absolute?

Very bad grammer

 

[sumerland3]

i say the unborn baby is life from the second that sperm hits the egg. it is a potential child that hasitonly genetic identity. is a microbe that is only one cell alive? then when wouldnt i be alive when i was one cell?

 

[Prince Lucianus]

Again, it all breaks down to:women who want a child, get pregnant & lose the child in ANY stage, considers that child a child.
Women who do not want their child, consider their child a blob, or non life.

I thought we were passed this stage already...

how do you know that is true? can you honestly say, that you just said is absolute?

My perceptions are different than yours. Doesn't make your opinions any less truthfull do they.

This is getting tiresome

Lucy

 

[All4one]

The pro-choice folks here are pretty mellow, as far as I can tell.

Exactly, glad you see the problem.

I believe that part of the reason we're at a stalemate with abortion is because the pro-life side has not offered any kind of practical solutions. Generally their solutions revolve around wishful thinking like "just stop having premarital sex." That's sort of like approaching the Middle East with the suggestion that the Muslims and Jews should just shake hands and love each other.

How about this as a once and for all solution? GOD! O yes! The same God who says pre-marital sex is wronge! If that is not a solution then tell me what is?



If you do not mind me asking out of pure curiosity and study reasons who will you be voting for this year? I love ya sister but PLEASE do not be lukewarm and "liberal" (which is the same thing) on such issues!

In Christ,
All4one

 

[All4one]

i say the unborn baby is life from the second that sperm hits the egg. it is a potential child that hasitonly genetic identity. is a microbe that is only one cell alive? then when wouldnt i be alive when i was one cell?

 

[Archivist]

How about this as a once and for all solution? GOD! O yes! The same God who says pre-marital sex is wronge! If that is not a solution then tell me what is?

Have you heard of seperation of church and state? Roe v. Wade was based on the US Constitution and US laws, not the Bible, nor any other religious book.

Also, you say that God is the solution. The problem is that we all have our interpretations of God's word. Your interpretation is probably different than mine, and my interpretation is certainly different than that of either my Hindu next door neighbor or my Jewish or Muslum students.

I presume that in determining this simple solution that you propose, you would expect to use your interpretation of scripture.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

i say the unborn baby is life from the second that sperm hits the egg. it is a potential child that hasitonly genetic identity. is a microbe that is only one cell alive? then when wouldnt i be alive when i was one cell?

So sperm and the egg are not alive?

Lucy

 

[All4one]

Archivist do not take from the simplicity of my statement.

Have you heard of seperation of church and state? Roe v. Wade was based on the US Constitution and US laws, not the Bible, nor any other religious book.

Also, you say that God is the solution. The problem is that we all have our interpretations of God's word. Your interpretation is probably different than mine, and my interpretation is certainly different than that of either my Hindu next door neighbor or my Jewish or Muslum students.

I presume that in determining this simple solution that you propose, you would expect to use your interpretation of scripture.

I said that GOD is the solution NOT whatever you interpret God to be.

In Christ,
All4one

 

[All4one]

God is who He is and that is the solution!

 

[Caprice]

So sperm and the egg are not alive?

I think this definition is quite accurate... "Life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."

I do not believe that sperm or egg would fall under this classification.

Even more in depth, sperm and egg do not have within them a full set of DNA, wouldn't that remove them from the classification of life as well?

Perhaps my concept of "life" is a bit too narrow... I think I'm going to read a bit more about that tonight to get some other perspectives.

 

[pthalomarie]

Exactly, glad you see the problem.

Would you prefer the pro-choicers be rude to you?

How about this as a once and for all solution? GOD! O yes! The same God who says pre-marital sex is wronge! If that is not a solution then tell me what is?

Do you believe in the Bible?

If you do, then you would know that your "solution" is doomed to failure.

Consider Matt 7:13-14:

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

In other words, no matter how "Christian" you try to make this country, it will still be filled with few who believe in God. No matter how much you try to set up laws to favor your morality, few will obey or respect them. No matter how many times you tell people that they are sinning, few will listen to you.

Now, knowing this, you can't devise a solution that requires everyone to convert immediately. You have to come up with a solution that assumes that premarital sex will continue unabated, and most people will not get saved or care to even think about such things.

So do you have anything to suggest?

If you do not mind me asking out of pure curiosity and study reasons who will you be voting for this year? I love ya sister but PLEASE do not be lukewarm and "liberal" (which is the same thing) on such issues!

Liberalism is no more lukewarm than conservativism is. Both are secular belief systems. You're deluding yourself if you think republicans care about anything more than money and power.

God is who He is and that is the solution!

Archivist brings up a valid point. Even if there is just one true God, you can never get everyone to agree on which God it is. Therefore, you cannot expect everyone to live by you or your God's standards, since they will have an equally valid expectation that you live by their God's standards.

This is a big reason why we don't have a theocracy; no one would be able to agree on one version of God. Even some folks within our faith are bound to look at you and doubt your salvation, because of your morals or your doctrine or lifestyle choices.

 

[Outspoken]

Howdy fellow citizens! Whether you are for or against Abortion, I would like to ask everyone for your honest and sound inputs on the following idea.

Abortion is/has been one of the top world-wide issue. I would like to take a moment to briefly analyze the definition of "life," and perhaps see it from a different angle. Also, I humbly ask to be excused from my flaws or any of my assumptions as I am still a student in philosophy. I also ask that you read this as a piece of treat without a critical mind analyzing my mistakes as I am only trying to better understand this subject. Thankyou.

Firstly, I have heard and am aware of the mother's right to choose. There are many exceptional cases in abortion. Some women conceive a child through rape, incest, or simply by a mistake. and for both the sake of mother and the "thing" inside the womb, it is understood that the following action of "abortion" is tolerated.

Do we, as human beings, recognize the "thing" inside the womb as life?
When does a human being become recognized as person? and during what process of pregnancy do we define this blob of blood as life?

Because the way I see it, the issue isn't the mother's right to choose. I think the real issue is the definition of life. Because if the fetus inside the womb is by definition life, then it rightfully assumes the basic human rights which includes the right to live. The mother no longer has jurisdiction over the life of the baby if infact whats inside is life.

So does the "mother's right to choose" over-rule the fetus' human rights?(assuming the fetus is a life)
Which is greater?

Consider this, though it may sound awfully silly. Does a mother have a choice to "abort" a 5 year old boy? If the fetus is infact life, does it not have the same right as would a 5 year old boy? If so, then the difference between the 5 year old boy and the fetus would be the location. One being inside the womb and one out in the field.

Is it not agreeable that the real issue of abortion is definition of life rather than mother's right to choose? Thanks for bearing with me and I hope for many interesting inputs.

There was an athiest, one that is quite smart and thought highly of in today's philo. world...he made and still makes the argument that allowing abortion is exactly like allowing infancide.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Though many people won't accept the salution, God still is regardless the salution. All4one can't make everyone listen to him. But God can and will.

 

[Archivist]

God is who He is and that is the solution!

But our courts can't make decisions based on God's law, they are restricted to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

That is why women must have the right to choose.

 

[an7222]

We cannot impose our religious beliefs to others. When discussing laws, no matter how strong is somebody's faith, religious arguments are not valid ones. We should use rational and secular arguments. We don't live in a theocracy anymore.

 

[Caprice]

We don't live in a theocracy anymore.

Did we (in the US) ever live under a theocracy? I'll never argue that someone shouldn't vote based on their convictions, but saying "anymore" in the above statement implies that we once were and I don't recall reading that in any of my high school textbooks lol.

 

[Archivist]

Did we (in the US) ever live under a theocracy? I'll never argue that someone shouldn't vote based on their convictions, but saying "anymore" in the above statement implies that we once were and I don't recall reading that in any of my high school textbooks lol.

You could argue that the Puritans in pre-Revolutionary New England lived in a theocracy. Although the church wasn't in direct control, it did exercise a great deal of control over the authorities.