Abortion

[McBell]

This does not make any difference to me, I am a non-vegetarian. The unfertilized eggs (or sperm) may be live but they are not human yet, unless the two join.

If it is not a human egg and a human sperm, what kind of egg and sperm are they?

 

[Marisa]

??? I'm not mentioning 'exceptions' to a hard and fast "truth." I clearly stated that there is no hard and fast truth. You do not seem to remove yourself from you own train of thought to consider what others are saying! Ok, I'll give you that a biker analogy does not really fit. But I'm not the one saying "it's as simple as that" which is where the hard and fast rule would lie!

I'm resonably certain you didn't understand my original comment, nor the one to which you are replying. But please, do go ahead and tell me that I'm the one not understanding.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Mystic, maybe you haven't been listening to everyone's responses, because every person has their own experiences. If you're willing to ask me, I'm willing to discuss my own feelings and experiences in a respectful manner.

Feel free to share anytime.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If it is not a human egg and a human sperm, what kind of egg and sperm are they?

Separately, they do not constitute a human.

 

[Sundance]

Feel free to share anytime.

Thank you kindly!
I do think that it's wrong, generally speaking, a woman shouldn't go through with it. However, I am willing to grant other individuals the freedom to believe and act differently, especially in the cases of rape, the woman's life being on the line, and financial unpreparedness. I can't really say that I understand what women (let alone pregnant women) go through, my being a male. Though, in any case, having an abortion or not is a decision which shouldn't be made hastily, because once it's done, a woman can't reverse it. All in all, I stand by the woman's ability to make her choice. I'm not going to condemn anybody for their decision even though I might disagree with it.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

This does not make any difference to me, I am a non-vegetarian. The unfertilized eggs (or sperm) may be live but they are not human yet, unless the two join.

I politely disagree. Perhaps your understanding of what is human is trapped in a box? By your thinking, humanity is not continuous, it is not a coherent entity in itself. You believe that 'human' begins with every conception? Really? That we are each discrete particles of humanity?

My humanity did not begin at conception. It was molded and took a step forward at that moment. But my humanity began with the common ancestor of all humans. I am part of the single entity of humanity, not an annexation of a conceptual model of humanity.

 

[leibowde84]

But then, what do you say to a person who is against the death penalty, war, and poverty?

And he is vastly mistaken in his assumptinpons leibowde. Not only does he not have a right to have a say in a woman's choices, he simply has no conception of what pregnancy does to a woman, particularly a difficult one.

Exactly.

 

[leibowde84]

If it is not a human egg and a human sperm, what kind of egg and sperm are they?

Wait, I'm confused. Did he say that they weren't "human eggs" and "human sperm", or did he just say that a "human" was not formed until the two came together? Because, would have to agree with the latter.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Separately, they do not constitute a human.

Again, it is your concept of 'human' that seems to be trapped in limited view. "A" human? While it's understandable, it is an over simplified view that we are each islands unto ourselves. It is a very anthropocentric view.

A look at various other forms of life and reproduction may help. Corals and jellyfish, for instance, have two life forms. The polyp which is a sessile clone type. (The predominant life form in corals) and a free living form (the predominant form in jellyfish). But both species have both forms. In corals, the free living form, which looks just like a jellyfish, is microscopic. It is part of what is called plankton. They float around the oceans and have sex. The fertilized eggs hatch into large and attach to a solid serface and grow into asexual organisms (what we see as coral) that grow more like plants, budding and growing and making exact copies of themselves, they form huge colonies of beautiful corals. At some point the polyps bud new madusa, which are male and female, invisible to our eye.

By your view you'd have to say that the coral reefs are in fact NOT CORALs because they are not fertilized, they are nothing more than unfertilized, 1N, asexual organisms, and do not become coral unless they are somehow joined with another and become 2N, sexual, invisible, organisms, of which 99.99999% will die without ever reproducing.

Your view that the sexual form is THE HUMAN is entirely anthropocentric. It appears to be that way, not because it IS that way in universal terms, but because it is that way by particular, historical, anthropocentric accident. During the millions and millions of years of evolution, many reproductive strategies have arisen. The strategy of separating and recombining sets of genetic material is amazing. But your view that only the combined entity constitutes the species while the uncombined entity is meaningless is ill informed. Literally 1000s of examples of species can easily prove that the uncombined entity certainly can be as viable and even more dominant the combined form.

In humans, the uncombined form is like a mosquito; literally millions them have to be produced so that one may survive to the next stage.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I'm resonably certain you didn't understand my original comment, nor the one to which you are replying. But please, do go ahead and tell me that I'm the one not understanding.

OK. You stated that you found it interesting that I should mention exceptions to a hard and fast "truth" that killing is always wrong...

I am 100% certain that I never claimed to adhere to such a hard and fast "truth" quote or not, and I am 100% certain that I never mentioned any exceptions to such a hard and fast rule.

I'm reasonably certain that this is not a misunderstanding of position; I'm reasonably certain that is entirely a mistake on your part that I held to such a claim or mentioned any exceptions to such. I'm 100% certain that your statement that I mentioned such exceptions is factually wrong.

 

[Marisa]

OK. You stated that you found it interesting that I should mention exceptions to a hard and fast "truth" that killing is always wrong...

I am 100% certain that I never claimed to adhere to such a hard and fast "truth" quote or not, and I am 100% certain that I never mentioned any exceptions to such a hard and fast rule.

I'm reasonably certain that this is not a misunderstanding of position; I'm reasonably certain that is entirely a mistake on your part that I held to such a claim or mentioned any exceptions to such. I'm 100% certain that your statement that I mentioned such exceptions is factually wrong.

Notice I put the word truth in quotes. That's a context clue, meaning generally the opposite of what is written. Notice I indicated that believers that killing is always wrong tend to be anti choice people. Then notice I alluded to the fact that our society has come up with reasons why killing is acceptable (perhaps such as when your life is threatened?). Then there's the whole part of my comment you simply ignored about the risks pregnancy poses to a woman's health. The latter is mostly what led me to believe you had little idea what I actually said because you were just positive I think you believe killing is always wrong.

ETA: The original comment of mine you objected to was about forced organ donation. You didn't understand that one, either, which is obvious from your "attacked by bikers" analogy.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Notice I put the word truth in quotes. That's a context clue, meaning generally the opposite of what is written. Notice I indicated that believers that killing is always wrong tend to be anti choice people. Then notice I alluded to the fact that our society has come up with reasons why killing is acceptable (perhaps such as when your life is threatened?). Then there's the whole part of my comment you simply ignored about the risks pregnancy poses to a woman's health. The latter is mostly what led me to believe you had little idea what I actually said because you were just positive I think you believe killing is always wrong.

ETA: The original comment of mine you objected to was about forced organ donation. You didn't understand that one, either, which is obvious from your "attacked by bikers" analogy.

Sorry, what I noticed is that you stated it was odd (to you) that I should be mentioning exceptions to a rule. Which made it clear that you were factual wrong! It has nothing to do with understanding the discussion, it has to do with failing to pay attention.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

...as if "divine prerogative" isn't anything but special pleading. "_____ is an absolute evil... except when God does it."

Tu quoque is a logical fallacy because the poor character of the person we're comparing ourselves to doesn't make our character any better. It's true that God's poor character doesn't excuse ours (unless morality is founded on God, which is an idea I personally disagree with, but is proclaimed by many theists), but even so, God's poor character should still be a problem for you.

You consider abortion evil? So be it - but then I have to ask why you would worship a god who perpetrates this "evil" countless times every day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This does not make any difference to me, I am a non-vegetarian. The unfertilized eggs (or sperm) may be live but they are not human yet, unless the two join.

They aren't human? What are they, then? Lizard?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Thank you kindly!
I do think that it's wrong, generally speaking, a woman shouldn't go through with it. However, I am willing to grant other individuals the freedom to believe and act differently, especially in the cases of rape, the woman's life being on the line, and financial unpreparedness. I can't really say that I understand what women (let alone pregnant women) go through, my being a male. Though, in any case, having an abortion or not is a decision which shouldn't be made hastily, because once it's done, a woman can't reverse it. All in all, I stand by the woman's ability to make her choice. I'm not going to condemn anybody for their decision even though I might disagree with it.

I respect that. It's a live-and-let-live philosophy, which is in my opinion pretty cool.

On my side, if there is a lifestyle that I find pretty horrible, it's the sort of relationships that are said to be ordained by a deity where a wife is "naturally" submissive and a husband is "naturally" dominant. Not only that, but that *he* decides where the moral boundaries are being the head of household, and she is there to support his decision, step back, and allow him to not only dominate, but to decide for her where her boundaries lie.

Then couple that with doctrine that says he has ownership of her body, and she has ownership of his....though if he still decides boundaries for everyone, he gets to decide what is "moral" and what isn't.

And he only has a deity to answer to. Nobody really in this life.

I have found choices like that lead to spousal abuse, spousal rape, child abuse, domestic violence, and all kinds of communication breakdowns. It's not my decision, though, and it's none of my business to go into people's houses and shame them or scold them or even encourage them toward what I feel are better choices for health and happiness.

I can voice my opinion about the risks of violence with that lifestyle choice. But ultimately, I wouldn't stand in the way of a family that lived that way with husband-leader-dominant and wife-submissive-cheerleader. As toxic as I find it, it isn't my house, and it isn't my life.

 

[Marisa]

Sorry, what I noticed is that you stated it was odd (to you) that I should be mentioning exceptions to a rule. Which made it clear that you were factual wrong! It has nothing to do with understanding the discussion, it has to do with failing to pay attention.

I'm going to ask that you read comments very carefully before gleefully clicking that reply button. I DID NOT say your comment was odd. I said it was interesting. Totally different word, completely different meaning. This has EVERYTHING to do with slowing down long enough to fully understand what someone has said before you ignorantly start throwing around phrases like "factual (sic) wrong".

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I may not have scientific facts to back my next assertion, but I think it's a good one:

A mom is not "an organic life support machine". She is far more than a "thing" or "incubator".

Yours is one attitude/reason where I think a pro choice stance belittles, not elevates, women and mothers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

"Bodily autonomy" is a subset of "total autonomy". From the Christian standpoint, we are not always autonomous but are often sacrificial. The fact that every mother sacrifices to have a child is not demeaning but uplifting. But God forbid a child should be told, ever, "I made a huge sacrifice by deciding to not abort you when I first thought about abortion."

 

[Aupmanyav]

But my humanity began with the common ancestor of all humans. I am part of the single entity of humanity, not an annexation of a conceptual model of humanity.

I agree to the sentiment. In our belief, we do not limit this oneness to humans only. We include the animals, vegetation and even non-living objects. But still an unfertized ovum or a sperm was not my ancestor, it was a combination of the two. You see, like they say in Samkhya - Prakriti and Purush.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I believe that you believe everything you've told me is the gospel truth. From the perspective of one who feels no tactics are unacceptable when morality and god are on your side. I simply disagree that any of that is true.

While we may have gained some understanding by having you move from "BB is lying" to "BB is deceived", I am in no way deceived.

Further, I've said several times now that Christian morality and Christian love both forbid lying, coercion and deceit. Our "tactic" was to love our clients and their families and significant others. My "tactic" when preaching the gospel is to tell the truth in love.

I don't wish to offend you, but I do ask you to consider your personal agenda. It must alleviate something to feel I'm lying or cheating you somehow. We at (most? all?) CPCs have the love of Christ and we are on the side of right, yes.