Abortion

[Marisa]

So why pretend you get to decide how and when theists should view God's behavior as exemplary versus the divine prerogative?


I think we both know that is neither a rational conclusion nor a fair characterization of what I've said.

Isn't "divine prerogative" just an escape clause to keep god from being responsible for the cancer that nearly kills you while crediting him for curing you (instead of the chemo)?

Or like praying for the victims of a natural disaster after it happens and thanking god for sparing you and yours while your neighbor and his lay dead in the rubble?

These are seriously disquieting thoughts to bear in one's mind to be sure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So why pretend you get to decide how and when theists should view God's behavior as exemplary versus the divine prerogative?

I meant that it's physically impossible for humans to turn water to wine, part seas, create universes, or many of the other things that are credited to God.

I think we both know that is neither a rational conclusion nor a fair characterization of what I've said.

I think it's perfectly valid. What would Jesus do? Stand by and watch as people are killed. If Christianity is correct, then the Father, Son and Holy Spirit had the ability to intervene in every murder, fatal injury, and death due to disease that ever happened but chose not to.

What would Jesus do? He'd treat human life as disposable. That's what he's always done, apparently.

 

[Mister Emu]

It is a fair question. Is God a moral example for us always or only sometimes?

A question I addressed in the material that was quoted.

That type of thinking belongs on a grade school playground.

Perhaps you could show where I've in any way suggested that thinking.

Isn't "divine prerogative" just an escape clause to keep god from being responsible for the cancer that nearly kills you while crediting him for curing you (instead of the chemo)?

No.

I meant that it's physically impossible for humans to turn water to wine, part seas, create universes, or many of the other things that are credited to God.

Yes, I know. It still doesn't change that the "copy God in every way" ship has already sailed.

I think it's perfectly valid. What would Jesus do? Stand by and watch as people are killed. If Christianity is correct, then the Father, Son and Holy Spirit had the ability to intervene in every murder, fatal injury, and death due to disease that ever happened but chose not to.

What would Jesus do? He'd treat human life as disposable. That's what he's always done, apparently.

It still doesn't cover the unbridgeable and unfounded conclusion that because I understand a divine prerogative to exist above and beyond the human, that I don't believe God is exemplary.

This thread is just a big divine Tu quoque.

 

[JoStories]

ut I would legalize drugs because it's safer for the majority. Yes, a black market will always exist. But you can cripple it.
I would both make recreational drugs illegal and cripple the black market. If legalizing drugs in general is a good idea why has prohibiting at least some of them been the virtual universal response by society?

And please, pray tell how you are going to do that. Because it has been battled for many decades now. What more do you think we can do that is not already being done? How will you stop the fact that some countries in Europe are managing this better with legalized methadone clinics, clean needles, etc, while we are doing away with them? How will you combat Bath Salts, or crystal meth when all the ingredients are things one can get over the counter? Ban all items that make up these substances? How shall you cripple, using your terms, the black market when it exists in all countries and is gang managed? Please, I would love to see how you alone have the answers to this.

 

[JoStories]

So why pretend you get to decide how and when theists should view God's behavior as exemplary versus the divine prerogative?


I think we both know that is neither a rational conclusion nor a fair characterization of what I've said.

How in the world can you consider the God depicted in the OT and even the NT as a moral compass? A deity that demands a man to sacrifice his own child. A deity that practices genocide, incest, adultery, and much more. How is that moral? Let's see, that breaks the commandments of murder, lust, and a couple more. A great moral compass, that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I value your assessment of PP about as much as you value my opinion of your CPC. Despite your protestation of innocence of the strong arm tactics used by every. Other. CPC. Ever.

I value your assessment, and also your honesty. Do you feel I am lying to you? Do you feel I have anything credible to offer you having worked at a center, and in leadership? Maybe the next step for you is to set a meeting with staff at your local CPC, ask them if they use strong arm tactics, and be persistent, until you feel you are face-to-face with honest persons.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Good on you. What about giving up your liver to something that might be a person?

I gave many, many things, to many early in their gestation, including my own children. However, giving my liver should be distinct from shooting someone dead, even by "accident", right?

"I didn't know the gun was loaded" can sometimes be a legitimate excuse, and even a sort of apology, but if there was a point where I personally cannot say whether I'm killing a fetus or a child, why take a chance?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What about an adult who chooses not to donate an organ to save a child? Should they be legally forced to give up their bodily autonomy in this case, assuming that the adult in question is the only viable doner?

Who has to lose an organ to gestate a child? Most pregnancies are like rearing a child, and require much time, concern, money and will, but not organs.

 

[columbus]

Who has to lose an organ to gestate a child? Most pregnancies are like rearing a child, and require much time, concern, money and will, but not organs.

This is why the organ donation hypothetical is a red herring argument.
Pregnancy is unique in that it is the only circumstance under which a human being or two can put another human being or two in a position of utter dependence and also be the only possible source of filling the needs created.
As a result lots of otherwise reasonable moral stances become irrelevant to the situation.
Tom

 

[Nietzsche]

I gave many, many things, to many early in their gestation, including my own children. However, giving my liver should be distinct from shooting someone dead, even by "accident", right?

"I didn't know the gun was loaded" can sometimes be a legitimate excuse, and even a sort of apology, but if there was a point where I personally cannot say whether I'm killing a fetus or a child, why take a chance?

Let's assume that a fetus is indeed a child. Even assuming that, you(nor anyone) is obligated to give it your entire body to keep it alive. No one, man or woman, is obligated to become an organic life-support machine. It draws sustenance at the expense of the mother. My own mom, when she was pregnant with me, lost all of her teeth at age 23 or so when she was pregnant with me. The doctors told her that it was because of what I was taking from her. A woman is a woman, not a life-support mechanism.

 

[leibowde84]

Who has to lose an organ to gestate a child? Most pregnancies are like rearing a child, and require much time, concern, money and will, but not organs.

Both circumstances deal with bodily autonomy. And, you are incorrect, as pregnancy certain reuquires a woman to give up the use of all of her organs for roughly 9 months, which infringes on bodily autonomy if against her will. In the same way, a father being forced to give up the use of their organ, in this case permanently, against their will to save a dying child is also an infringement of bodily autonomy. I'm not sure where you got the idea that an organ must be donated permanently to affect someone's bodily autonomy or even be removed, but that is certainly not the case.

 

[columbus]

pregnancy certain reuquires a woman to give up the use of all of her organs for roughly 9 months

This is pathetically stupid.
Pregnancy does not require a mother to give up the use of an organ for a minute.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

This is pathetically stupid.
Pregnancy does not require a mother to give up the use of an organ for a minute.
Tom

You do realize that "giving up the use of an organ" to another does not mean that you can't still use those organs ourself, right? I can "give up the use" of my house to a friend and still live there during his or her stay.

Are you saying that a fetus does not utilize the organs of it's mother?

 

[columbus]

You do realize that "giving up the use of an organ" to another does not mean that you can't still use those organs ourself, right?

No I don't. Giving up use is an absolute, such as an organ transplant. Sharing use would be vastly more accurate, and also trash your red herring argument that gestation is comparable to an organ donation by force.

The poor quality of the arguments being made in this thread are both why I stopped posting and also what makes me want to start again.
To.

 

[leibowde84]

No I don't. Giving up use is an absolute, such as an organ transplant. Sharing use would be vastly more accurate, and also trash your red herring argument that gestation is comparable to an organ donation by force.

The poor quality of the arguments being made in this thread are both why I stopped posting and also what makes me want to start again.
To.

You are incorrect. The phrase, "give up the use of" is not an absolute. To "give up" means "surrender" or "yield control of". Use is pretty clear as is. Thus, "to give up the control of" ones organs is to "yield control of the use of their organs". A mother gives up control of the use of her organs by allowing another human being to live inside of her and utilize them. This is evidenced by the fact that the woman is no longer in control of her organs, as another entity are using them as well to survive.

When this is done against the will of the mother and forced by the law, this is an infingement of bodily autonomy.

This is really beyond the point, though, as my argument is based on bodily autonomy. An infringement of bodily autonomy does not require one to part ways with their organs. It merely requires them to be forced to provide the direct use of their bodies, body parts, organs, etc. against that person's will. A person must agree to give up the use of their body or must have committed a crime where infringements of bodily autonomy are part of the punishment.

 

[columbus]

The phrase, "give up the use of" is not an absolute. To "give up" means "surrender" or "yield control of". Use is pretty clear as is.

No it isn't.
If you are still living in your house while you share it with the people you made homeless you haven't given it up.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

No it isn't.
If you are still living in your house while you share it with the people you made homeless you haven't given it up.
Tom

That is why I did not say mothers "give up" their organs while pregnant. I specifically and intentionally said "give up the use of" their organs. If I had said mothers "give up their organs", I would agree with you, but I certainly did not.

 

[leibowde84]

No it isn't.
If you are still living in your house while you share it with the people you made homeless you haven't given it up.
Tom

You have "given up the use of it" or "given up control" of it even if you are still living there.

 

[columbus]

I specifically and intentionally said "give up the use of" their organs.

Your post implies that a mother could survive without "use of her organs".
Pathetically stupid, IMHO.
Tom

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No I don't. Giving up use is an absolute, such as an organ transplant. Sharing use would be vastly more accurate, and also trash your red herring argument that gestation is comparable to an organ donation by force.

The poor quality of the arguments being made in this thread are both why I stopped posting and also what makes me want to start again.
To.

Between the two of us, Tom, I assert I am in a better position to judge what was happening to my body when I was pregnant twice than you can assert for women.

And yes, my entire body was impacted during pregnancy. My blood pressure, my heart, my neurological system, my digestive system, my hormones, my blood sugar levels.....as a start. When I went for pre-natal visits to my doctor, *I* was the one and only patient. Different points of gestation were recorded to check on my vitals that are most affected by fetal gestational age. Whether or not which week was best to check my blood sugar levels for gestational diabetes....*I* was still the primary patient. My children never had a doctor until they were born, then the pediatrician came in and began observing and checking in with his patients. But not while I was still pregnant.

My choice for how my health is impacted and what I choose to have inside my organs is just as valuable as anybody else's. Suggestions for the uniqueness of pregnancy....solely the realm of female reproductive health.....as an exception to this rule for everybody else is why I point out that pro-lifers who argue that women's health doesn't belong to women as much as men's health belongs to men is another example of why "Separate but equal" has never been ethical.