Abortion

[leibowde84]

I'm unsure that is your issue with the church. You identify on this forum as a "big Jesus fan" but in the hundreds of posts of yours I've read so far, you take the contrary position with everything I've known as godly, spiritual, conservative, biblical, etc. What is your stance on abortion and how do you identify that stance with the stance of Jesus, please?

Thanks.

First, I think it is ludicrous that you have the audacity to claim to "know" how Jesus would feel about my comments. My purpose on this forum is not to promote Christianity or even my own beliefs. My purpose is to learn about the views of others, point out assumptions they make subconsciously, and try to look at controversial issues from different perspectives. The fact that you think you know anything about my personal religious beliefs and/or my relationship with Jesus from my comments on this site speaks only to your own ignorance and lack of respect for the interchange of ideas in a debate forum.

That being said, Jesus did not say anything about abortion, so anyone claiming to know his views on the subject are merely putting words in his mouth. Imho, no one speaks for Jesus or God, and, since abortion rights are a completely LEGAL ISSUE, I am not sure that God's will should have anything to do with our decision to protect those rights.

As for my own feelings on it, I am a lawyer who understands the importance of bodily autonomy. It is of paramount importance and acts to prop up all other protected rights. Thus, I have not yet seen a way around the issue. Women, like men, should not be forced to give up the use of their body to another living thing against their will. And, I can safely say that, legally speaking, a woman having consensual sex is not even close to consenting to pregnancy. To me, this is not a simple issue about the protection of life. While life is of great importance, I do not believe that it is legally feasible to ignore a woman's right to control over her own physical body in the interest of the rights of the fetus to use that body against the woman's will.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I don't follow your logic here. You and your husband are equals, except that you don't each get a vote on certain decisions. Is that correct?

If it's our bodies, no vote from the other person. Whatever he does with his body is his decision. Whatever I do with my body is my decision. And we support, respect, understand, and love each other throughout.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm unsure that is your issue with the church. You identify on this forum as a "big Jesus fan" but in the hundreds of posts of yours I've read so far, you take the contrary position with everything I've known as godly, spiritual, conservative, biblical, etc. What is your stance on abortion and how do you identify that stance with the stance of Jesus, please?

Thanks.

And, one thing that we do know from the Gospels (assuming they are accurate) is that Jesus was anything but "conservative". He was just about the most progressive thinker of his time, and was accustomed to breaking rules. It seems utterly unchristian to assume that any doctrine, dogma, or beliefs should be left untouched.

 

[Marisa]

A person who takes sperm from a bank is pre-qualified based on income and other factors, to see if they are able to support a child.

And?

But here, as elsewhere, we are drawn into semantic debate, for no good reason if I may say so.

You asked for a definition of bodily autonomy. I provided it. I'm sorry it didn't comport to you preconceived notions on the subject.

You have just equated bodily autonomy with slavery (do you own me?)

No, I did not equate those two. When I asked if I could own you and you said no it was because you believe that you own your own body, and that I have no rights to it. Shockingly, women feel this way, too.

and yet very few parents, female or male, equate conception, bearing children or child rearing with slavery.

I can only imagine that you mean this to be yet another yank at an emotional chain, because it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

You have also equated the covenant of marriage... with no covenant. Is your spouse able to act on his own will? Sure. I believe in free will. Is everything I could do via my free will marriage affirming? Life affirming? Not at all.

So? Again, I responded to what you said, which is that in a marriage, spouses "belong" (your word) to each other. Would you like to take that back now?

If I understand your definition of bodily autonomy as slavery, it is an incorrect interpretation of the miracle of childbirth.

We just established that you do not understand bodily autonomy. See above.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[leibowde84]

A person who takes sperm from a bank is pre-qualified based on income and other factors, to see if they are able to support a child. But here, as elsewhere, we are drawn into semantic debate, for no good reason if I may say so. You have just equated bodily autonomy with slavery (do you own me?) and yet very few parents, female or male, equate conception, bearing children or child rearing with slavery. You have also equated the covenant of marriage... with no covenant. Is your spouse able to act on his own will? Sure. I believe in free will. Is everything I could do via my free will marriage affirming? Life affirming? Not at all.

If I understand your definition of bodily autonomy as slavery, it is an incorrect interpretation of the miracle of childbirth.

You are either presenting a straw-man argument, or you are confused as to what "bodily autonomy" is. Bodily autonomy is the dominion over one's own physical body. Slaver is obviously relevant to this term, as the protection of bodily autonomy is what protects citizens from slavery. Unless convicted of a crime, one's bodily autonomy cannot be violated. No one can force anyone else to give up the use of their body to someone against their will.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First, I think it is ludicrous that you have the audacity to claim to "know" how Jesus would feel about my comments. My purpose on this forum is not to promote Christianity or even my own beliefs. My purpose is to learn about the views of others, point out assumptions they make subconsciously, and try to look at controversial issues from different perspectives. The fact that you think you know anything about my personal religious beliefs and/or my relationship with Jesus from my comments on this site speaks only to your own ignorance and lack of respect for the interchange of ideas in a debate forum.

That being said, Jesus did not say anything about abortion, so anyone claiming to know his views on the subject are merely putting words in his mouth. Imho, no one speaks for Jesus or God, and, since abortion rights are a completely LEGAL ISSUE, I am not sure that God's will should have anything to do with our decision to protect those rights.

As for my own feelings on it, I am a lawyer who understands the importance of bodily autonomy. It is of paramount importance and acts to prop up all other protected rights. Thus, I have not yet seen a way around the issue. Women, like men, should not be forced to give up the use of their body to another living thing against their will. And, I can safely say that, legally speaking, a woman having consensual sex is not even close to consenting to pregnancy. To me, this is not a simple issue about the protection of life. While life is of great importance, I do not believe that it is legally feasible to ignore a woman's right to control over her own physical body in the interest of the rights of the fetus to use that body against the woman's will.

2 Corinthians 5:20 - "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." In this verse, Christians are to speak for Jesus and on His behalf. Jesus also said, "Immerse others in all my teaching," in Matthew 28. An ambassador is to represent the wishes of the sovereign to others. Jesus is hidden from us now due to human sin, and we Christians are to also reconcile people in the world to God.

However, I'm not 100% sure how Jesus feels about your posts here. I was speaking from how I feel. I appreciate your desire as you stated for you to look at controversial issues from different perspectives without promoting your own beliefs, which implies you would lurk and read here without posting, which you do not do. I don't believe you are able to post without promoting your own belief systems or biases. I've never met a person who did so on any forum--besides, you continually tear at my posts and contradict others' viewpoints with your own.

It is absolutely legally feasible to impose birth rights, of course. For example, every woman in the world decides to abort every pregnancy. Be sure that unless artificial incubators are available at that time, governments will impose certain rights--of the fetuses--or we will end. These things have already been imposed and had legal standing in places like China. They had laws and tariffs regarding abortions for some and births for some.

As a question, and I honestly do not know the answer, do animals besides man willfully cause abortions of their young? I know some eat some of their young after they are born, but this is a different question. After all, bodily autonomy sounds to me more and more like a contrivance. I was another thread recently where people cited homosexuality in the natural world as evidence that homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle. Does a deer or lion feel the young they gestate are a hassle?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And?


You asked for a definition of bodily autonomy. I provided it. I'm sorry it didn't comport to you preconceived notions on the subject.


No, I did not equate those two. When I asked if I could own you and you said no it was because you believe that you own your own body, and that I have no rights to it. Shockingly, women feel this way, too.


I can only imagine that you mean this to be yet another yank at an emotional chain, because it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.


So? Again, I responded to what you said, which is that in a marriage, spouses "belong" (your word) to each other. Would you like to take that back now?


We just established that you do not understand bodily autonomy. See above.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

You are not my wife, I'm autonomous from you overall--yet I'm to surrender my life to you under certain circumstances per the scriptures. I'm not autonomous from my spouse, my parents or my children. I go to work and earn money using my body and mind and I'm not autonomous from paying taxes or helping support church leaders--they are depending on the labors from my body.

I hope that helps. Part of my thinking of a child as a blessing rather than a parasite or burden or, to be frank, a free will choice (I have contraception if I choose also) is the blessings and reality in this world of interdependence over independence.

If we maintain abortion as legal due to autonomy should taxes be legal? How about police and fire services? 3,000 died on 9/11, and we recall that most of them were emergency responders who did not flee the scene, willfully at their peril to save the lives of others. There are parallels there with pregnancy, I know it.

 

[McBell]

There are examples in law, eg a person's living will declaration being overturned in a court and they are forced to remain living in a coma. But bodily autonomy may sound good, but is actually pulling people out of interdependence to pure independence, not always (not usually!) a good thing.

A one-year-old is dependent on its parents or guardians and will not survive without them. To abandon a one-year-old is to kill them.

I am still waiting for an example of someone having to give up their bodily autonomy.

There have been numerous stories where young children survive lost in the woods.
So I am not buying your over-dramatic rhetoric.

 

[McBell]

You are not my wife, I'm autonomous from you overall--yet I'm to surrender my life to you under certain circumstances per the scriptures. I'm not autonomous from my spouse, my parents or my children. I go to work and earn money using my body and mind and I'm not autonomous from paying taxes or helping support church leaders--they are depending on the labors from my body.

I hope that helps. Part of my thinking of a child as a blessing rather than a parasite or burden or, to be frank, a free will choice (I have contraception if I choose also) is the blessings and reality in this world of interdependence over independence.

If we maintain abortion as legal due to autonomy should taxes be legal? How about police and fire services? 3,000 died on 9/11, and we recall that most of them were emergency responders who did not flee the scene, willfully at their peril to save the lives of others. There are parallels there with pregnancy, I know it.

Are you seriously unable to tell the difference between consensually giving up bodily autonomy and have no say in giving up bodily autonomy?

 

[leibowde84]

2 Corinthians 5:20 - "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." In this verse, Christians are to speak for Jesus and on His behalf. Jesus also said, "Immerse others in all my teaching," in Matthew 28. An ambassador is to represent the wishes of the sovereign to others. Jesus is hidden from us now due to human sin, and we Christians are to also reconcile people in the world to God.

However, I'm not 100% sure how Jesus feels about your posts here. I was speaking from how I feel. I appreciate your desire as you stated for you to look at controversial issues from different perspectives without promoting your own beliefs, which implies you would lurk and read here without posting, which you do not do. I don't believe you are able to post without promoting your own belief systems or biases. I've never met a person who did so on any forum--besides, you continually tear at my posts and contradict others' viewpoints with your own.

It is absolutely legally feasible to impose birth rights, of course. For example, every woman in the world decides to abort every pregnancy. Be sure that unless artificial incubators are available at that time, governments will impose certain rights--of the fetuses--or we will end. These things have already been imposed and had legal standing in places like China. They had laws and tariffs regarding abortions for some and births for some.

As a question, and I honestly do not know the answer, do animals besides man willfully cause abortions of their young? I know some eat some of their young after they are born, but this is a different question. After all, bodily autonomy sounds to me more and more like a contrivance. I was another thread recently where people cited homosexuality in the natural world as evidence that homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle. Does a deer or lion feel the young they gestate are a hassle?

You missed my point. My learning is not strengthened by just listening to the views of others. I must challenge those views so I can actually see the reasoning behind them. Sometimes the views I challenge are views I actually hold myself. I am not tied or limited by my own personal beliefs in that way.

 

[viole]

2 Corinthians 5:20 - "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." In this verse, Christians are to speak for Jesus and on His behalf. Jesus also said, "Immerse others in all my teaching," in Matthew 28. An ambassador is to represent the wishes of the sovereign to others. Jesus is hidden from us now due to human sin, and we Christians are to also reconcile people in the world to God.

Hidden because of human sin? I thought he (sort of) died to wash out our sins. You seem to indicate that what he did was useless. Actually, if sin is still extant, then what He did was not only useless, it was detrimental.

In other words: what is the advantage, if any, to be reconciled with God?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Marisa]

You are not my wife, I'm autonomous from you overall--yet I'm to surrender my life to you under certain circumstances per the scriptures.

I do not accept that responsibility. Your life is not mine to exert any force of will over. Ask me to, and I will reject you.

I'm not autonomous from my spouse, my parents or my children. I go to work and earn money using my body and mind and I'm not autonomous from paying taxes or helping support church leaders--they are depending on the labors from my body.

You maintain the power to divorce yourself from those self inflicted obligations. Whether you choose to continue them or divorce yourself from them I support your choice and right to make that choice, regardless of the choice itself. That's the main difference between you and me. You only support the right to make choices with which you agree. You expect to be empowered to exert your will over another when you deem that their choice is inappropriate.

I hope that helps. Part of my thinking of a child as a blessing rather than a parasite or burden or, to be frank, a free will choice (I have contraception if I choose also) is the blessings and reality in this world of interdependence over independence.

Yawn.

If we maintain abortion as legal due to autonomy should taxes be legal? How about police and fire services? 3,000 died on 9/11, and we recall that most of them were emergency responders who did not flee the scene, willfully at their peril to save the lives of others. There are parallels there with pregnancy, I know it.

When you'd like to make an intelligent comparison, do get back to us. Otherwise feel free to deem us a lost cause and carry on with the rest of your life. I suspect you'll find some part of your religion that does not allow you to deem anyone lost to you, and insist upon expecting us to allow you to foist your will on us "for our own good". I find that rather patronizing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You missed my point. My learning is not strengthened by just listening to the views of others. I must challenge those views so I can actually see the reasoning behind them. Sometimes the views I challenge are views I actually hold myself. I am not tied or limited by my own personal beliefs in that way.

For someone who is employing the Hegelian method, you are remarkably consistent in your approach, which reads to me like if a Christian says it, it is likely wrong on its face in your posts. Therefore, reading your details and seeing your propositions, I may have been mistaken. You may be a devoted Christian who is seeking to strengthen the Christian position by challenging it consistently.

Thanks!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am still waiting for an example of someone having to give up their bodily autonomy.

There have been numerous stories where young children survive lost in the woods.
So I am not buying your over-dramatic rhetoric.

You seem brighter than this last post of yours.

A WOMAN WHO CHOOSES TO BEAR A CHILD HAS TO GIVE UP BODILY AUTONOMY. Or at least, that is how those oppose my position on abortion present it. So be consistent, and if you are pro-choice, your question is moot.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hidden because of human sin? I thought he (sort of) died to wash out our sins. You seem to indicate that what he did was useless. Actually, if sin is still extant, then what He did was not only useless, it was detrimental.

In other words: what is the advantage, if any, to be reconciled with God?

Ciao

- viole

To be reconciled to God is to have a relationship with Jesus, who is bodily in Heaven and via the Holy Spirit, spiritually with His children.

The other advantages include interface with the omniscient being of all truth and love, and going to Heaven rather than perishing.

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I do not accept that responsibility. Your life is not mine to exert any force of will over. Ask me to, and I will reject you.


You maintain the power to divorce yourself from those self inflicted obligations. Whether you choose to continue them or divorce yourself from them I support your choice and right to make that choice, regardless of the choice itself. That's the main difference between you and me. You only support the right to make choices with which you agree. You expect to be empowered to exert your will over another when you deem that their choice is inappropriate.


Yawn.


When you'd like to make an intelligent comparison, do get back to us. Otherwise feel free to deem us a lost cause and carry on with the rest of your life. I suspect you'll find some part of your religion that does not allow you to deem anyone lost to you, and insist upon expecting us to allow you to foist your will on us "for our own good". I find that rather patronizing.

I also find something patronizing, your post of "Yawn" to reply to my comments on the miracles, joy, love, fidelity, trust, etc. of childbirth, for moms and dads.

We all can foist our will on ourselves and others via a democratic process, so I'm praying to be able to cast a vote someday to repeal abortion. Yes. You would vote against me, and that is your right, and does not mean you are patronizing me or imposing your religious will on me, etc. Please stop that rhetoric. I'm not a crusader, a violent man or a killer.

 

[viole]

The other advantages include interface with the omniscient being of all truth and love, and going to Heaven rather than perishing.

Therefore, all the ones who never heard of the Gospel are at a disadvantage (e.g. go to Hell).

Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Marisa]

I also find something patronizing, your post of "Yawn" to reply to my comments on the miracles, joy, love, fidelity, trust, etc. of childbirth, for moms and dads.

We all can foist our will on ourselves and others via a democratic process, so I'm praying to be able to cast a vote someday to repeal abortion. Yes. You would vote against me, and that is your right, and does not mean you are patronizing me or imposing your religious will on me, etc. Please stop that rhetoric. I'm not a crusader, a violent man or a killer.

Yawn.

 

[SomeRandom]

A WOMAN WHO CHOOSES TO BEAR A CHILD HAS TO GIVE UP BODILY AUTONOMY

The optimal word there is CHOOSES. If a woman completely and willingly opts to not have an abortion, that's her right. She's using her bodily autonomy to make a medical decision about her life, in this case not having an abortion. Good for her.
If abortion is made illegal, however, this choice is taken away. A woman who is FORCED to bear a child to term has lost their bodily autonomy.Because they literally have lost a say in the matter pertaining to their own body.
Bodily autonomy is the underlying fundamental key element in modern medicine and what is considered it's ethical practices. Once someone reaches the age of 18 (or younger depending on the circumstance or country) they are free to choose their own medical procedures. They can avoid lifesaving operations, they can say do not resuscitate me and the doctors MUST follow their wishes, they can opt for homeopathy, they can have their tubes tied etc etc etc. That is their choice. An abortion, like it or not, is considered a medical procedure. A woman should have complete control over that particular medical procedure. To take that choice away for any reason is, according to modern medicine, unethical. Because bodily autonomy ceases as soon as you take away choice in the matter.

If you work for a church you are making a decision freely, unless the church literally owns you (which is against the law just FYI) that is not the same as giving up bodily autonomy.
Taxes are also a choice, but if you rely on today's comfortable lifestyle and public services it's expected that if you make money, a portion goes towards those services. That's not losing bodily autonomy, that's being asked to not be a selfish prick. The legal ramifications only exist to try and prevent freeloading ********. But Government corruption and the usefulness (or lack thereof) of taxes is for another discussion.

Besides which politics/taxes and medicine are two completely different fields, anyway.

We all can foist our will on ourselves and others via a democratic process, so I'm praying to be able to cast a vote someday to repeal abortion.

You wanted to have emotional appeals in this discussion? Fine, here you go.

I'm praying that abortion is NEVER repealed. Because I for one would not like to live in a country where 10 year olds die due to lack of legal access to potentially life saving procedures, such as abortion performed on a body not biologically ready for pregnancy. Or a mother dies due to blood poisoning because the hospital refuses to perform an abortion (this happened in Ireland and made headlines.) Or where a woman is forced to term a baby with a life threatening illness and has to hold the forced to term baby in her arms as it agonizingly suffers in it's final moments (this is actually a thing now in some states due to lack of proper access to facilities. *shudders*) Or a woman is forced to carry to term her rapist's child and then abuses it because it looks much like the rapist.
Or a woman is forced to give birth to a "hedgehog baby" (look it up.)
Or a woman stuck in an abusive relationship and does not have the option of abortion and is forced to have a baby to be thrown around by said abusive scumbag. Or the myriad of other extenuating circumstances surrounding decisions to abort that exist right now.

Nobody takes abortion lightly, it is a difficult medical decision that is up to the woman because it concerns her body. When it concerns specifically your body, then you can make any choice you want. I can't make the decision for you, but at the same time, you can't make the decision for me. That's why it's called CHOICE.

 

[McBell]

You seem brighter than this last post of yours.

A WOMAN WHO CHOOSES TO BEAR A CHILD HAS TO GIVE UP BODILY AUTONOMY. Or at least, that is how those oppose my position on abortion present it. So be consistent, and if you are pro-choice, your question is moot.

A woman who chooses is not being forced.

Care to try again?